LIBRARY VtiTVSRSlTY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS ^^'^ 9 l«il»ERs.n OP cu,roRNU |>Ait-8-Afrt3^tr- gAMr— rftftrra^ J UK Oavis COPY ? STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES ! " FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS BULLETIN NO. 7^ INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS TO SERVE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN Governor HARVEY O. BANKS Director DECEMBER 1959 ! UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS MAR 5 1962 LIBRARY STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS BULLETIN NO. 78 INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS TO SERVE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN h/^^^^% HARVEY O. BANKS Governor \ol%«^mj^^"l Director DECEMBER 1959 LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS > EDMUND G. BROWN EY O. BANKS address reply to DIRECTOR p. o. BOX 388 SACRAMENTO 2 1 1 20 N STREET HI CKORY S.4yil STATE OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO December 1, 1959 Honorable Edmund G, Brovm, Governor Members of the Legislature of the State of California Gentlemen: I have the honor to transmit herewith Bulletin No. 78, "Report on Investigation of Alternative Aqueduct Systems to Serve Southern California"^ preparation of which was initiated through funds provided by Item 419.5 of the Budget Act of 1956, and continued under subsequent appropriations . This bulletin presents the results of comprehen- sive analyses of the future v/ater needs of that portion of Kern County in the San Joaquin Valley; the coastal portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego Counties; the counties of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Orange; and the Antelope Valley-Mojave River and V/hitewater-Coachella areas. Based on those projected water needs, extensive and detailed studies were conducted to determine that aqueduct system serving the entire area 'v/hich would produce the greatest net economic benefit and which would deliver water to the ultimate consumer, con- sidering the total areaj at minimum over-all cost. The latest projections of future population and economic growth in these areas, as reported in this bulle- tin, indicate that the recent phenomenal growth therein will continue. It is estimated that about 5.5 million acre-feet of supplemental water would have to be imported from northern California by the year 2020 to sustain this growth, and that initial v;ater deliveries would have to be made by I965 in the San Joaquin Valley portion of these areas, and by I971 to most of the remainder. (3) FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Governor Members of the Legislature of the State of California - 2 December 1, 1959 It is concluded that the one system that would meet these demands for water most economically, would comprise an aqueduct from the Delta along the west side of the San Joaquin Valley to Avenal Gap, branching there into a coastal aqueduct leading to Santa Maria Valley, and an inland aqueduct from Avenal Gap south through Kern County and across the Tehachapi Mountains;; 'with a v;est branch terminating at the north edge of San Fer^nando Valley and an east branch extending along the south edge of the Antelope Valley through the San Bernardino Mountains and terminating at Ferris Reservoir site in River- side County. This system v;ould also provide the best combina- tion, from the standpoint of mineral quality, of imported northern California water with the other sources of water, both local and imported, available to southern California. This aqueduct system has been determined to be the optimum, or most favorable, under several alternative schemes of operation as regards pov;er for pumping and the utilization of recovered energy. Final decision as to the operational scheme to be employed which would provide the most economic and financially advantageous combination of power for pumping and the utilization, or disposition, of the energy to be re- covered by power drops in the Tehachapi and San Bernardino Mountains and ^9rj the Coastal Aqueduct near the City of San Luis Obispo, vii^ be made after further study which v;ill include consideration of the feasibility of addition of pumped storage hydroelectric power generation. Bulletin 78 is not intended to be a complete feasi- bility report. It is directed principally to the single objective of determining the optimum aqueduct system to serve the long-range water needs of the areas to be served thereby. The aqueduct facilities which will be constructed with the financing to be provided under the Burns-Porter Act (the Water Development Bond Issue Act), will comprise the first stages of development with sufficient capacity to supply the needed supplemental water until I99O. If water demands develop as nov/ anticipated, additional capacity would have to be added at that time. Because of the long period of time which necessarily v/ill be required for the construction of this aqueduct system, the final design thereof and the acquisition of the necessary lands, easements and rights-of-way must be carried forward INVESTIGATION OF ALTEENATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Governor Members of the Legislature of the State of California - 3 December 1, 1959 as speedily as possible. Actual construction work must be started as soon as possible if we are to be able to deliver supplemental water within the various service areas in time to keep pace with their expanding needs. Very truly yours. (3. HARVEY t). BANKS Director TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RE- SOURCES 3 PREFACE 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 12 ORGANIZATION, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 13 CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION 14 CONSULTANTS 15 POWER ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16 ENGINEERING ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16 REPORTS OF CONSULTANTS 17 STATEMENT OF THE ENGINEERING ADVISORY COMMITTEE 55 Page CHAPTER L INTRODUCTION 59 Authorization for Investigation 59 Related Investigations and Reports 60 The California Water Plan 60 The Feather River and Delta Diversion Projects 61 Report of 1951 61 Report of 1955 61 Bechtel Report 61 Bulletin No. 61 61 Other Related Investigations and Reports 62 Objectives and Scope of Investigation and Report 62 Objectives 62 Basic Assumptions 62 Aqueduct System Concept 63 Scope 63 Conduct of Investigation 64 Related Northern Water Supply Facilities 64 Area of Investigation 65 CHAPTER II. ECONOMIC DEMAND FOR IMPORTED WATER 67 Basic Planning Assumptions 67 Sources of Water Supply for Southern California 68 Local Water Resources 68 Importation from Existing Sources 69 Other Possible Water Sources 69 Reclamation of Water from Sewage 69 Desalinization of Drainage Waters from Imperial Valley 70 Conversion of Sea Water 70 Summary 70 Inventory of Land and Water Resources 70 Urban Development 71 Population Projections 71 Economic Development 73 Irrigated Agricultural Development 73 Projection of Irrigated Acreage 74 Water Requirements 75 Unit Urban Water Use 75 Page Net Urban Water Requirements "76 Unit Agricultural Water Use 76 Net Agricultural Water Requirements 76 Growth in Economic Demand for Imported Water 76 Factors Affecting Estimates 78 Climate 79 Price of Imported Water 79 Water Quality 80 CHAPTER III. WATER QUALITY CONSID- ERATIONS 81 Water Quality Problems 81 Mineral Quality 81 Physical Quality 83 Economic Effects of Water Quality Problems _ 83 Ground Water Basins 83 Agricultural Uses 84 Urban Uses 84 Effects of Water Quality on Selection of an Aqueduct System 84 Treatment of Northern California Water 85 Cost of Processing Water in Filtration Plants 85 CHAPTER IV. ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 87 Design and Cost Estimating Criteria 87 Design Criteria 87 Selection of Hydraulic Grade Lines 87 Canals 87 Bench Flumes 87 Pipe Lines 87 Monolithic Construction 88 Pump Discharge Lines and Penstocks — 88 Tunnels 88 Wasteways 88 Pumping and Power Plants 88 Dams and Reservoirs 88 Miscellaneous 88 Cost Estimates 88 Capital Costs 88 Annual Costs 89 (7) Page Operational Criteria 89 Maintenance of Aqueducts 89 Staging of Aqueduct Facilities 89 Canals 90 Tunnels 90 Pipe Lines 90 Pumping and Power Plants 90 Aqueduct Koutes 91 Eoute Evaluation 91 Preliminary Studies 91 The Coastal Area 92 San Joaquin Valley 92 The Tehachapi Mountains 92 Tehachapi Mountains to Coastal Plains 92 Detailed Studies 92 The Coastal Route 93 Inland Route 94 Castaic Route 95 Devil Canyon Route 96 Alternative Aqueduct Systems 97 Facilities North of Avenal Gap 97 Delta Water Supply 97 Aqueduct Facilities 98 Aqueduct System "A" 98 Aqueduct System "B" 101 Division of Water Deliveries Between East and West Branches 101 General Features of System 102 Construction Sequence and Timing of Water Deliveries 102 Costs 103 Aqueduct System "C" 106 CHAPTER V. PUMPING AND POWER RE- COVERY 111 Aqueduct Operational Schemes 111 Schemes Requiring Purchase and/or Sale of Electric Power 111 Schemes Not Requiring Purchase or Sale of Electric Power 113 Aqueduct Systems Applications 113 Aqueduct System "A" 114 Aqueduct System "B" 114 Steam-Drive and Feedback 114 Off-Peak Electric and Feedback 115 Aqueduct System "C" 115 Pumping and Power Plant Facilities 116 Pumping Plants 116 Electric Motor Drive 116 Direct Steam Drive . 116 Steam-Electric Generating Plants 116 Hydroelectric Generating Plants 116 Power and Energy Resources and Costs 117 California Power Load 117 Fuel Requirements 118 Fuel Resources 118 Cost of Fuel 119 Cost and Value of Electric Power 119 Page CHAPTER VI. CONVEYANCE AND DIS- TRIBUTION OF IMPORTED WATER WITHIN SERVICE AREAS 121 Planning Criteria 121 Design Criteria 121 Estimates of Cost 122 Kern County Service Area 123 Upper Antelope Plain 123 Avenal Gap to Pumping Plant In-III 123 Pumping Plant In-III to Pumping Plant In-IV 123 Pumping Plant In-IV to Pumping Plant In-VI 123 San Luis Obispo Service Area 123 Santa Barbara Service Area 124 Systems "A" and "C" 124 System "B" 124 Ventura County Service Area 125 Systems "A" and "C" 125 System "B" 125 Antelope-Mojave Service Area 126 System "A" 126 System "B" 126 System "C" 127 Whitewater-Coachella Service Area 127 System "A" 127 Systems "B" and "C" 127 Southern California Coastal Plain and Coastal San Diego County Service Area 127 System "A" " 128 Alternative Plan of Local Conveyance and Distribution for System "A" 129 System "B" 129 System "C" 130 Summary of Cost Estimates 131 CHAPTER VII. FINANCIAL AND ECO- NOMIC ANALYSES 133 Financial Analyses 133 Financing of Project Facilities 133 Allocation of Costs 134 Recovery of Allocated Costs 134 Unit Costs of Water 134 Results of Financial Analyses 135 Economic Analyses 135 Economic Relationships 135 The Benefit-Cost Ratio 135 Net Benefits 142 Net Benefit-Investment Ratio 142 Unit Cost of Water 142 Benefits 143 Irrigated Agriculture 143 Municipal and Industrial 144 Costs 144 System "A" 144 System "B" 144 System "C" 147 Financial and Economic Comparison of Alter- native Aqueduct Systems 147 (8) Page Water Service 147 Costs 147 Economic Relationships 147 Fuel Consumption 147 Summary 149 CHAPTER VIII. THE OPTIMUM AQUE- DUCT SYSTEM 151 Aqueduct Facilities 151 Delta to Avenal Gap 151 Coastal Aqueduct 151 Inland Aqueduct 152 West Branch 152 East Branch 152 System Operation 153 Local Conveyance and Distribution 153 Aqueduct System Costs 154 Financial Feasibility and Economic Justification 156 System Accomplishments 156 Kern County Service Area 156 San Luis Obispo Service Area 157 Santa Barbara Service Area 157 Ventura County Service Area 157 Antelope-Mojave Service Area 157 Whitewater-Coachella Service Area 157 Southern California Coastal Plain and Coas- tal San Diego County Service Area 157 CHAPTER IX. CONCLUSIONS 159 TABLES Talle No. Page 1 Present Water Service Area and Irrigable or Habitable Lands 71 2 Estimated Safe Yield of Local Water Sup- ply Development 71 3 Estimated Present and Future Population of the United States, California, and the Southern California Region 72 4 Present and Projected Population in the Southern California Area 73 5 Present and Projected Net Areas of Irri- gated Crops in the Southern California Area 74 6 Projected Average Unit Values of Urban Water Use in Selected Areas 75 7 Projected Unit Values of Net Urban Water Use in Selected Southern California Areas 76 8 Estimated Future Net Urban Water Re- quirements in Southern California Ser- vice Areas 76 9 Estimated Unit Values of Consumptive Use of Applied Water by Representative Crops in Southern California Area 77 10 Estimated Unit Values of Applied Irriga- tion Water on Representative Crops in Southern California Area 77 11 Estimated Future Net Requirements for Water by Irrigated Agriculture in Southern California Service Areas 78 Talle No. Page 12 Historical and Projected Economic De- mand for Imported Water in the South- ern California Area 78 13 Recommended Limits of Mineral Constitu- ents in Drinking Water and Mineral Constituents of Colorado River Aque- duct Water Supply and Surplus North- ern California Water 82 14 Summary of Estimated Capital Costs of San Joaquin Valley-Southern California Aqueduct from the Delta to Avenal Gap 98 15 Schedule of Water Deliveries from Aque- duct System "A" 99 16 Summary of Estimated Capital Costs of Features of Aqueduct System "A" for the "Steam-Electric and Feedback" Op- erational Scheme 100 17 Schedule of Water Deliveries from Aque- duct System "B" ^ 103 18 Summary of Estimated Capital Costs of Features of Aqueduct System "B" for the "Steam-Drive and Feedback" Oper- ational Scheme 104 19 Summary of Estimated Capital Costs of Features of Aqueduct System "B" for the "Off-Peak Electric and Feedback" Operational Scheme 105 20 Schedule of Water Deliveries from Aque- duct System "C" 106 21 Summary of Estimated Capital Costs of Features of Aqueduct System "C" for the "Steam-Drive and Feedback" and "Steam-Electric and Feedback" Opera- tional Schemes 107 22 Summary of Estimated Capital Costs of Features of Aqueduct System "C" for the "Off-Peak Electric and Feedback" Operational Scheme 109 23 Energy Balance for Main Aqueduct Pump- ing and Power Recovery Schemes Ap- plied to Alternative Aqueduct Systems for Year 2000 114 24 Historical and Estimated Future Annual Maximum Power Demand in California 117 25 Principal Reservoirs in Southern Cali- fornia Area Which Would be Operated in Conjunction with Main Aqueduct Systems 122 26 Estimated Demand for Imported Water in Year 2020 by Elevation Zones in South- ern California Coastal Plain and Coastal San Diego County Service Area 128 27 Estimated Capital and Equivalent Annual Costs of Conveyance and Distribution Systems within Service Areas 130 28 Financial Analysis of Aqueduct System "A" 136 29 Financial Analysis of Aqueduct System "B" 138 30 Financial Analysis of Aqueduct System "C" 140 31 Summary of Financial Analyses of Alter- native Aqueduct Systems 142 (9) Table No. P^Oe 32 Comparison of Aqueduct Systems "B" and "C" with Alternative Operational Schemes _ 142 33 Estimated Averas'c Primary Unit Benpfits for Irrigated Agriculture for Aqueduct Systems "A" and "C" 143 34 Estimated Average Primary Unit Benefits for Irrigated Agriculture for Aqueduct System "B" 143 35 Summary of the Economic Analyses of Aqueduct System "A" 145 36 Summary of the Economic Analyses of Aqueduct System "B" 146 37 Summary of the Economic Analyses of Aqueduct System "C" 148 38 Summary Economic Comparison of Alter- native Aqueduct Systems 149 39 Schedule of Capital Expenditures for Completion of Aqueduct System "B" for the "Steam-Drive and Feedback" Operational Scheme 155 40 Summary of Water Deliveries from Aque- duct System "B" to Service Areas South of Avenal Gap 156 Figure FIGURES FoUowimi No. page 1 Historical and Projected Median Popula- tion in California and Selected Southern California Areas 72 2 Projected Areas of Irrigated Crops in the Southern California Area 72 3 Historical and Projected Growth in De- mand for Imported Water in Present Metropolitan Water District Service Area 76 4 Projected Growth in Demand for Surplus Northern California Water in Southern California Area 76 5 Relationships Between Irrigated Area, De- mand for Irrigation Water, and Price of Surplus Northern California Water in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties 80 6 Relationships Between Irrigated Area, De- mand for Irrigation Water, and Price of Imported Water in Ventura, Coastal Riverside and San Diego Counties 80 7 Relationships Between Irrigated Area, De- mand for Irrigation Water, and Price of Surplus Northern California Water in Kern County (San Joaquin Valley) 80 8 Relationship Between Costs of Single- Stage and Two-Stage Canal in the San Joaquin Valley 90 9 Relationship Between Costs of and Water Deliveries Through East and West Branches of the Inland Aqueduct 102 10 Aqueduct System "B" — Build-up in Use of Generating Capacity and Energy for Facilities South of Avenal Gap under Steam-Drive and Feedback Operational Scheme 116 11 Aqueduct System "B"— Build-up in Use of Generating Capacity and Energy for Figure FoUouing No. page Facilities South of Avenal Gap under Off-Peak Electric and Feedback Opera- tional Scheme 116 12 Historical and Projected Annual Maxi- mum Power Demand in California 118 13 Estimated Annual Fuel Oil Consumption on Alternative Aqueduct Systems and Main Conveyance and Distribution Fa- cilities 118 14 Relationship Between Cost of Fuel Oil and Average Cost of Water for Aque- duct Systems South of Avenal Gap 150 PLATES (Plates are bound at end of report) Plate No. 1 Location of Investigational Area 2 Water Service Areas and Organized Water Agencies in Southern California Area 3 General Locations of Investigated Aqueduct Alignments 4 Locations of Coastal and Inland Aqueduct Routes 5 Alternative Coastal Aqueduct Plan and Pro- file (Two sheets) 6 Alternative Inland Aqueduct Plan and Pro- file (Three sheets) 7 Alternative Aqueduct Systems 8 Schematic Diagram of Water Deliveries from Aqueduct System "A" 9 Schematic Diagram of Water Deliveries from Aqueduct System "B" 10 Schematic Diagram of Water Deliveries from Aqueduct System "C" 11 Energy Balance for Steam-Drive and Feed- back Scheme — Aqueduct System "B" — Con- ditions Estimated for Year 2000 12 Energy Balance for Off-Peak Electric and Feedback Scheme — Aqueduct System " B " — Conditions Estimated for Year 2000 13 Major Existing Water Conveyance Facilities and Plan for Distribution of Project Water for Aqueduct System "B" — Inland Section 14 Major Existing Water Conveyance Facilities and Plan for Distribution of Project Water for Aqueduct System "B"- — Central Coastal Section 15 Major Existing Water Conveyance Facilities and Plan for Distribution of Project Water for Aqueduct System "B" — South Coastal Section 16 Distribution of Imported Water in Southern California Coastal Plain and San Diego County— 1971 to 2020— Aqueduct System "A" 17 Distribution of Imported Water in Southern California Coastal Plain and San Diego County— 1971 to 2020— Aqueduct System "B" 18 Distribution of Imported Water in Southern California Coastal Plain and San Diego County— 1971 to 2020— Aqueduct System "C" 19 The Optimum Aqueduct System and Other features of the California Water Develop- ment Program (10) PREFACE Subsequent to the release of the preliminary edition of Bulletin No. 78 entitled "Preliminary Summary Keport on Investigation of Alternative Aqueduct Sys- tems to Serve Southern California," February 1959, comments thereon were received from local water service agencies and other interested parties. The text of this final edition of Bulletin No. 78 has been edited and revised to reflect certain of these comments. Senate Bill No. 1281, passed by the 1959 California Legislature and approved by the Governor, amends Section 11260 of the Water Code relating to the Feather Kiver and Delta Diversion Projects in accordance with the findings of the fore- going preliminary edition of Bulletin No. 78, subject to such further modifica- tions as the Department of Water Resources may adopt. During the same legislative session, Senate Bill No. 1106, entitled the "Cali- fornia Water Resources Development Bond Act" was passed by both houses and subsequently was signed by Governor Edmund G. Brown. This bill provides, among other items, for issuance of one billion seven hundred and fifty million dollars in general obligation bonds "to assist in the construction of a State Water Resources Development System," including the San Joaquin Valley- Southern California Aqueduct System. Provision is made for ratification of the bill by the electorate in the general election of November 1960. In conformance with the findings of the preliminary edition of Bulletin No. 78, the bill provides for construction of initial stages of aqueduct facilities to ". . . termini in the vicinity of Newhall, Los Angeles County and Perris, Riverside County, and having a capacity of not less than 2,500 second-feet at all points north of the northerly boundary of the County of Los Angeles in the Tehaehapi Mountains in the vicinity of Quail Lake, ' ' and also for construction of an aqueduct extend- ing to Santa Maria River. (11 ) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Valuable assistance and data used in the investigation were contributed by agencies of the Federal Government and of the State of California, by cities, counties, public districts, and by private companies and individuals. This coop- eration is gratefully acknowledged. Special mention is made of the helpful cooperation of the following : Agricultural Extension Service, University of California American Pipe and Construction Company Building and Construction Trades Council A. F. of L. Bureau of the Census, United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Reclamation, United States Department of the Interior Byron Jackson Division of Borg- Warner Corporation California Department of Employment California Department of Finance California Department of Industrial Relations California Division of Highways, Department of Public "Works Coast and Geodetic Survey, United States Department of Commerce Concrete Conduit Company Consolidated Western Steel Company Corps of Engineers, United States Army County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Department of Water and Power, City of Los Angeles Elliott Company Federal Power Commission Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture General Electric Company Hercules Powder Company International Business Machines Joy Manufacturing Company Kaiser Steel Corporation Kern County Land Company Los Angeles County Flood Control District Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission Moran Engineering Company Newhall Land and Farming Company Portland Cement Association Richfield Oil Company San Bernardino County Flood Control District San Diego County Water Authority Security-First National Bank Southern California Research Council Sunkist Growers, Incorporated Tejon Ranch Company The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Tidewater Oil Company Union Oil Company of California Western Gear Company (12) ORGANIZATION STATE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES HARVEY O. BANKS Director RALPH M. BRODY . Deputy Director WILLIAM L. BERRY Chief, Division of Resources Planning WALTER G. SCHULZ_ Chief, Division of Design and Construction SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT AAAX BOOKAAAN District Engineer This investigafion was conducted and bulletin prepared under the immediate direction of ROBERT M. EDMONSTON Principal Hydraulic Engineer assisted by LUCIAN J. MEYERS -Principal Hydraulic Engineer Planning activities relating to alternative aqueduct locations were supervised by KENNETH G. WILKES Supervising Hydraulic Engineer SEYMOUR M. GOULD Senior Hydraulic Engineer PAUL E. HOOD Associate Hydraulic Engineer Activities relating to projections of population and economic demands for water were supervised by VERNON E. VALANTINE Senor Hydraulic Engineer Agricultural economic studies were supervised by LLOYD B. SHINN .- Senior Economist Design and cost estimating activities were supervised by EDWARD E. JACKSON Supervising Hydraulic Engineer Geologic investigations were supervised by JOHN W. MARLETTE Senior Engineering Geologist Survey and mapping activities were supervised by CARVEL B. CASE Senior Civil Engineer Studies of pumping and power recovery were supervised by GILBERT A. JONES — Senior Electrical Engineer Projections of future power loads and resources were conducted by FREDERICK J. GROAT Supervising Electric Utilities Engineer Studies of conveyance and distribution of water within service areas were conducted by RONALD C. HIGHTOWER Associate Hydraulic Engineer Financial and economic analyses were conducted by RICHARD E. ANGELOS Associate Hydraulic Engineer Activities relating to projections of economic demand for water in the San Joaquin Valley were supervised by ALBERT J. DOLCINI— Principal Hydraulic Engineer and WESLEY E. STEINER Supervising Hydraulic Engineer Land classification surveys were supervised by JOHN W. SHANNON Land and Water Use Specialist and ROY N. HALEY.—. Associate Soil Technologist Office Engineer LEO R. SMITH Assistant Mechanical Engineer PAUL L. BARNES Chief, Division of Administration PORTER A. TOWNER Chief Counsel ISABEL C. NESSLER .....Coordinator of Reports (13) ORGANIZATION CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION JAMES K. CARR, Chairman, Sacramento WILLIAM H. JENNINGS, Vice Chairman, San Diego JOHN W. BRYANT, Riverside GEORGE C. FLEHARTY, Redding JOHN P. BUNKER, Gustine ARNOLD FREW. King City KENNETH Q. VOLK, Los Angeles GEORGE B. GLEASON Chief Engineer WILLIAM M. CARAH Executive Secretary (14) CONSULTANTS BOARD OF CONSULTANTS ON ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT ROUTES TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RALPH A. TUDOR, Tudor Engineering Company, Chairman A. H. AYERS, Consulting Civil Engineer JOHN S. LONGWELL, Consulting Civil Engineer CARL RANKIN, Consulting Civil Engineer ROGER RHOADES, Consulting Engineering Geologist DR. DAVID WEEKS, Professor of Agricultural Economics Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley ADOLPH ACKERMAN, Consulting Civil Engineer CONSULTANTS FOR REVIEW OF STUDIES OF FUTURE URBAN AND AGRICULTURAL GROV/TH DR. MILTON S. BAUM, Sacramento State College VAN BEUREN STANBERY, Economic and Population Consultant DR. E. T. GRETHER, Dean, Graduate School of Business, University of California, Berkeley DR. DAVID WEEKS, Professor of Agricultural Economics Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley CONSULTANTS FOR REVIEW OF PUMPING PLANT DESIGN DR. A. G. CHRISTIE, Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University PROFESSOR ALADAR HOLLANDER, Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering, California Institute of Technology CONSULTANTS FOR REVIEW OF ESTIMATES OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS A. H. AYERS, Consulting Civil Engineer CARL RANKIN, Consulting Civil Engineer (15) POWER ADVISORY COMMITTEE In May, 1958, there was formed, by mutual agreement, a committee composed of officials of the three major utilities serving power to the areas in which project pumping and power recovery facilities would be located. This committee, formed for the purpose of coordinating the efforts of the individual companies in advising the Department on problems related to the various possibilities for utility participation in the operation of the Project, has provided valuable guidance on these important questions. Members of the Power Advisory Com- mittee are listed as follows: Name Title and Affiliation Wallace L. Chadwick Vice President, Southern California Edison Company Walter Dreyer Vice President and General Manager, Pacific Gas and Electric Company William S. Peterson General Manager and Chief Engineer, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power ENGINEERING ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Department of Water Resources requested the water service agencies and entities interested in water supply problems in the southern portion of the State to appoint a committee of prominent engineers to work with and advise the Department on its alternative route studies. This Department gratefully acknowledges the assistance and advice generously contributed by the committee during the course of this investigation. Members of this Engineering Advisory Committee are listed as follows : Name Title Sponsoring Agency Louis J. Alexander Vice President and Chief Engineer, Board of Directors, West Basin and Cen- Southern California Water Company tral Basin Municipal Water Districts Paul Bailey Engineer Orange County Water District Paul Beerman Director of Public Works, City of San City Council, City of San Diego Diego Doyle F. Boen Chief Engineer and General Manager, Board of Directors, Eastern Municipal Eastern Municipal Water District Water District Robert H. Born Chief Engineer, San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors, San Luis Obispo Flood Control and Water Conservation County District Norman H. Caldwell Director of Public Works, Santa Barbara Board of Directors, Santa Barbara County County Water Agency E. Fitzgerald Dibble Consulting Engineer, San Bernardino Board of Directors, San Bernardino Val- Valley Municipal Water District ley Municipal Water District George L. Henderson Vice President, Kern County Land Com- Board of Directors, Kern County Farm pany Bureau and Board of Supervisors, Kern County Julian Hinds Consulting Engineer Board of Directors, United Water Con- servation District Richard S. Holmgren General Manager and Chief Engineer, Board of Directors, San Diego County San Diego County Water Authority Water Authority Henry Karrer Consulting Engineer Board of Directors, Kings River Conser- vation District William S. Peterson General Manager and Chief Engineer, Board of Water and Power Commis- Department of Water and Power, City of sioners. City of Los Angeles Los Angeles Brennan S. Thomas General Manager and Chief Engineer, Board of Water Commissioners, City of City of Long Beach Water Department Long Beach Albert A. Webb Consulting Engineer Board of Directors, Western Municipal Water District of Riverside County (16) REPORT TO DIRECTOR— DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY BOARD OF CONSULTANTS ON ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS TO SERVE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA September 1959 MAJORITY REPORT INTRODUCTION Mr. Harvey 0. Banks, Director, California Department of Water Resources, by letter of January 10, 1958, invited and authorized this Board to assist and review the studies by his Department directed toward the selec- tion of the best route or combination of routes for the conduction of Northern California water from the Kings- Kern County line to Southern California. The studies by the Department pursuant to this objective have been both ramifying and complex, involving broad and detailed matters of engineering, geology, economics, and finance. The Department's conclusions derived from these studies are set forth in the Department's Bulletin No. 78. Mr. Banks subsequently, by letter of June 22, 1959, requested the Board to confine its final report to : a. Determination of probable future water requirements. b. Determination of probable time when water from Northern California will be required. c. Designation of areas to be served by the aqueduct system to Southern California. d. Selection of the most favorable aqueduct system. Item d, above, "Selection of the most favorable aqueduct system," is, of course, the final objective of this phase of the Department's investigation. Items a, b, and c, above, although very complicated and important in themselves, must be considered primarily as basic antecedents to the problem of selection of the most favorable aqueduct system. This Board has been in existence appi'oximately 19 months, and during that period its efforts and activities have been of various kinds. We have had numerous meetings, both private and with executives and staff mem- bers of the Department; we have inspected in the field various aqueduct routes and sites of the principal struc- tures and have made reconnaissance observations by airplane over large portions of the areas of study ; individual members of the Board have joined the staff in detailed field observations of critical portions of the routes to see at first hand and to help the staff assess the problems imposed by the physical setting of the various lines and sites, and also have maintained close contact with individuals of the staff, giving their personal attention to specific matters of economics, geology, design, construction and cost estimation; we have met in public sessions with a large number of individuals and public entities having interest in and knowledge about the water prob- lems of Southern California; we met in a similar way with representatives of the utilities which might supply power for pumping over the various topographic divides, and might purchase any power recovered on the down- slope sides of those divides; we have reviewed progress reports on various phases of the Department's studies and the preliminary drafts of Bulletin No. 78 ; and we have directed, from time to time, communications of com- ment, discussion, and recommendation to the Director of the Department. By specific assignment, we limited our deliberations to the consideration of aqueduct routes and systems south of the Kings-Kern County line, which would serve southern San Joaquin Valley, Antelope Plain, the San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura areas, the Antelope Valley-Mojave and Whitewater- Coachella areas in the desert, the Southern California Coastal Plain, and Coastal San Diego County. We have not considered any of the engineering or other problems involved in the collection and transportation of water north of the Kings- Kern County line. SELECTION OF THE MOST FAVORABLE AQUEDUCT SYSTEM The basic conclusions of Bulletin No. 78 are, first, that no individual route will serve adequately the various parts of Southern California which now need or will soon need additional water, and, second, that a combination of routes, designated in Bulletin No. 78 as System B, will be the most effective and favorable combination for the conveyance of water to the various areas of water-need. We concur in these basic conclusions. It will perhaps be self-evident, but we wish to emphasize that the studies underlying Bulletin No. 78, although intricate and voluminous, are sufiicient only for the accomplishment of this limited objective: the selection of the most favorable aqueduct system for the conduction of water to areas of need in Southern California. Having ascertained the most favorable system, the Department must now subject it to intensive additional studies of various kinds— engineering, geological, economic, and financial — so that the outlines of the Aqueduct System, now broadly drawn, may be sharpened and defined. The following topics of this report bear upon the various phases of Bulletin 78 which have led to the selection of the most favorable aqueduct system, and some of the further studies which will be required before any attempt is made at final, detailed design. We believe that these additional studies will improve the scheme and enhance the advantages of System B over alternative systems; but it must be anticipated that future studies will lead to material and significant changes within the framework of the recommended system as now defined. (19) 20 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS GROWTH OF POPULATION AND WATER DEMAND The impending need for more water than is available from existing sources is a matter of common knowledge. Population in Southern California continues to increase, industry to expand, and irrigated agricultural land, although confronting a curtailment in many parts of Southern California because of urban encroachments, is in other parts expanding rapidly and will expand very significantly in the future if enough water is made available at reasonable cost. Analysis of the probable pattern of future water demand in the various parts of Southern California, and for the various main purposes — domestic, industrial, and agricultural — has been a basic first step in the Department's investigations. Chapter II of Bulletin 78 summarizes the comprehensive study that the Department has made of these matters. In this study, the Department has divided the Southern California area into seven major service areas, and has projected, decade by decade to the Year 2020, the expectable growth in population, future water-needs, and the required importations of water for various kinds of use. The projections have been made by methods that are standard for this type of analysis, and those methods have been applied carefully and thoughtfully. In our opinion, the projections portray the trends of growth and water demand as realistically as is possible in the face of uncertainties inherent in the prognostication of future events. Naturally, the projections are most reliable for the next two or three decades, and become more speculative as they are applied to the more remote future. These projections will startle all but close students of population trends in the Southern California service areas and the dynamic potential for future growth. For instance, it is estimated that the present population of about 8,700,000 will increase to about 19,900,000 in 1990 and to over 28,000,000 in the Year 2020. The Southern California coastal plain is expected to have the highest population increase; but the projections indicate a surprising population growth elsewhere. Table 1, attached, summarizes the anticipated growth of population in the seven major service areas. The Department concludes that the water needs accompanying those estimated growths in population will follow this pattern: imported water from the north will be required prior to 1970; these requirements may TABLE 1 PRESENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION IN THE SEVEN MAJOR SERVICE AREAS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Quantities in Thousands Year Service Area 1958 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 241.4 66.5 123.5 175.3 142.0 54.0 7,856 249 70 148 182 157 60 8,476 325 92 207 288 330 99 11,690 395 130 283 425 726 159 14,623 503 205 385 635 1,188 249 16,620 685 340 520 1,000 1.619 367 18,387 922 520 695 1.350 1,951 488 19,826 1,184 700 915 1,700 2,222 575 Southern California Coastal Plain and Coastal 21,030 Total 8,658.7 9,342 13,031 16,741 19,785 22,918 25,752 28,326 Data from Table 4 of Bulletin 78. TABLE 2 HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED ECONOMIC DEMAND FOR IMPORTED WATER IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA Quantities in Acre-Feef per Annum Year Service Area 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 165,600 1,150,000 612,000 1,150,000 146,000 15,000 10,000 15,000 1,240,000 1,150,000 90,000 823,000 5,000 58,000 41,000 80,000 2,014,000 1,150,000 864,000 1,409,000 19,000 93,000 55,000 142,000 35,000 2,663.000 1,150,000 1,513,000 1,606,000 28,000 121,000 115.000 175,000 55,000 3,309,000 1,150,000 2,159,000 1,700,000 37,000 154,000 168,000 195,000 90,000 3,786,000 1.150,000 2,636,000 1,785,000 55,000 196,000 236,000 208,000 100,000 Southern California Coastal Plain and Coastal San DieKO County 4,105,000 1,150,000 2,955,000 Total required from Sacramento-San 276,000 1,871,000 3,266,000 4,259,000 4,980,000 5,535,000 Data from Table 12 of Bulletin 78. INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 21 reach 3,266,000 aere-feet by 1990, and 5,535,000 acre-feet by 2020. Table 2 summarizes the anticipated water demands in the various service areas at intervals up to 2020. In deriving these over-all figures, it has been necessary, of course, for the Department to anticipate the chang- ing economies of the different areas. The Department concludes that the areas of irrigated crops in the coastal part of Los Angeles County will decrease from 58,000 acres in 1957, to none in 1990. In Coastal San Bernardino and Orange Counties, the Department concludes, the irrigated area will decrease from 179,000 acres in 1957 to 42,000 acres in 1990, and to none in 2020. In Coastal Riverside County, it is estimated that irrigated areas will decrease rather uniformly from 76,000 acres in 1957 to 46,000 in 2020. On the other hand, increases are anticipated in San Diego County and Southwest Riverside County from 61,000 acres in 1957, to 178,000 in 2020. The Department estimates that Kern County will experience a large increase in irrigated area if water becomes available at reasonable cost, and San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties are estimated to have smaller but substantial growths in agriculture after the importation of Northern California water ; but in Ventura County a decrease in irrigated acreage is anticipated as municipalities and industries encroach upon land now irrigated. In the desert ( Antelope-Mo jave and the Whitewater-Coachella areas), the cost of imported water from Northern California will, in the opinion of the Department, prohibit any significant expansion of irrigated agriculture beyond that which may be possible by some future development of the meager local supplies of water. There- fore no provision has been made by the Department for furnishing any imported water from Northern Cali- fornia for irrigation use in these desert areas. We believe that this is a logical assumption and that it should be used as the basis for final designs. In developing the probable future land use and water requirements, the Department has taken into account the present available water supplies and has determined the approximate time at which water from the Sacra- mento-San Joaquin Delta would be made available under each of the three Aqueduct Systems to guarantee the continued and future growth of the various service areas. A summary of the probable delivery dates is given in Table 3. TABLE 3 ESTIMATED DATE OF FIRST WATER DELIVERY 1 2 3 4 Date of First Proposed Water DeUvery Service Area Aqueduct System A Aqueduct System B Aqueduct System C Kern County (San Joaquin Valley) 1971 1965 1966 1967 1971 1991 1972 1971 1971 1971 1991 1971 1972 1972 1982 1982 197U 1971 1965 1966 1967 1971 1991 1972 1971 1971 1971 1091 1971 1971 1971 1982 1982 19712 1971 Avenal Gap to Pumping Plant In-III Pumping Plant In-Ill to Pumping Plant In- IV- 1965 1966 Pumping Plant In-lV to Pumping Plant In- VI-- 1967 San Luis Obispo 1971 San Luis Obispo- Arroyo Grande 1991 1971 Santa Barbara 1971 Santa Ynez Valley 1971 South Coastal Area 1971 Ventura County Ventura River Area - - _ 1991 1971 Antelope-Mojave 1975 Los Angeles County 1975 1982 Whitewater-Coachella 1982 Southern CaUfornia Coastal Plain and Coastal 1971' Column 1 from Tables 15-17 and 20, Bulletin 78. Column 2 from Table 15— Bulletin 78. Column 3 from Table 17— Bulletin 7S. Column 4 from Table 20 — Bulletin 7S. ^ Water delivered to upper Santa Ana Valley and Perrls Reservoir and San Diego Aqueduct in 1990. Earlier delivery would Increase cost of water due to earlier construction expenditures. '• ' Water delivered to upper Santa Ana Valley, Penis Reservoir and San Diego Aqueduct In 1982. 22 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS While agreeing generally with the reasonableness of these projections, as to the areas to be supplied with water imported from Northern California, and their probable future lines of development, water demands and dates of first water deliveries, we wish to emphasize three specific poiuts of uncertainty. First, the projections of irrigated areas and the resulting water demands are based on certain assumed costs of imported water. Naturally, any significant changes in actual cost of water may decrease or increase the anticipated water demands. Second, it has been assumed by the Department that the amount of water required for municipal and industrial use will not be appreciably affected by the cost of imported water. However, water imported from Northern California undoubtedly will cost substantially more than the waters now available ; and the increase in cost could retard the present trend in per capita consumption, and thus lead to importation of amounts different than anticipated at any given time. Third, some imponderables surround the supply of water to Southern California from Colorado River. Storage works on Upper Colorado River, now under construction or contemplated, and related developments of irrigation projects, could reduce the flow at Lee Ferry to at least that specified by the Colorado River Compact — and possibly to some lesser amount, since hydrologic records complete to this time indicate that the average annual run-off of the river has been less than was anticipated when the compact was made. If the average annual run-off continues in the future to be less than originally anticipated, the amount of water available for diversion into the Colorado River Aqueduct conceivably could be less than the claimed rights of the Metropolitan Water District. Moreover, the availability of Colorado River water could be decreased by an adverse decision in the Arizona-California litigation, now in progress, relative to the allocation of Colorado River water between the two states. Regardless of the specific accuracy of these projections, they support beyond argument this basic conclusion : Southern California will need large quantities of water in excess of the present supply, this need beginning in the rather near future and increasing thereafter. The Department should therefore maintain a continuous study of actual trends and developments so that the projections can be progressively modified in the light of real occurrences. QUALITY OF WATER Southern California, as represented by the seven service areas listed in Table 2, now obtains its water from a variety of sources: Southern California Coastal Plain and Coastal San Diego County are served by Owens River and Colorado River Aqueducts, by extensive groundwater basins in some parts and by local supplies of surface water ; Southern San Joaquin Valley in the Kern County service area, is inadequately served by ground- water ; the desert areas are served by groundwater ; and the San Luis Obispo-Santa Maria-Santa Barbara areas are served partly by groundwater, but mainly by surface water. These various waters differ widely in quality. Owens River water has a low mineral content, the Colorado River has a rather high mineral content (between 700 and 800 parts per million) ; the various local sources, surface and subsurface, are different in quality among themselves, but generally lie between these two extremes. Testimony was recently introduced in the litigation between Arizona and California to the effect that upstream developments upon the Colorado River would cause a deterioration of water quality downstream, probably increasing the total dissolved solids to 1,100 or 1,200 parts per million. The United States Public Health Service has established 500 parts per million as the desirable limit of total dissolved solids for a drinking water, but considers 1,000 parts per million as permissible. It cannot be predicated just when this anticipated deterioration in quality of Colorado River water will occur, but it must be considered in connection with the routing and timing of deliveries of Northern California water. At the behest of the Department, the Stanford Research Institute has studied and reported upon the "Effects of Difference in Water Quality — Upper Santa Ana and Coastal San Diego County." That report concludes that the continued use of Colorado River water in these areas will raise the mineral content of certain ground- water basins by about 1980 to 1,000 parts per million total dissolved solids. This conclusion is based on the assumption that the mineral content of Colorado River water being delivered to the Colorado River Aqueduct will continue to be about as it is today. Any deterioration in the quality of Colorado River water would, of course, increase the content of dissolved solids in the water of these underground basins at rates faster than predicted. Another facet of the problem involves the quality of the Avater that would reach the several areas from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Bulletin 78 concludes that water reaching the upper Santa Ana Valley and Coastal San Diego County from this source would have a mineral content of aboiit 200 parts per million after full development and utilization of upstream storage and construction of delta improvement works for salinity control. This conclusion may be on the optimistic side, but in any ease would be invalid if the improve- ments up-stream in San Joaquin Valley and in the Delta were not provided. The actual conditions in the Delta should be examined periodically with regard to water quality so that progressive planning may keep step with actual conditions. INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 23 Speaking generally, water from the Delta will meet aU requirements for irrigation without further treatment. However, most of this water delivered south of Tehachapi Mountains will be required for urban or industrial use. It will have to be treated for the removal of bacteria, tastes, odors, color, and turbidity. Bulletin 78 recog- nizes this necessity and includes in its estimates of capital and annual costs proper amounts which will be incurred for filtration and chlorination by the local agencies distributing the water beyond the main aqueduct. ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS The Department has studied means of conveying Northern California water to Southern California for almost a decade. The studies have considered many routes which would lead by various directions into the Southern California service areas. These many routes can be grouped generally into three categories : 1. Routes that would head westerly from Avenal Gap and then southerly through San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties to San Fernando Valley. 2. Routes to southern San Joaquin Valley and across Tehachapi Mountains and then to the Southern Cali- fornia Coastal Plain via San Fernando Valley. 3. Routes which, after traversing the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley, would cross Tehachapi Moun- tains and extend easterly through the desert areas, and thence by tunnel into the Southern California Coastal Plain. It became evident from these studies that no one route coixld serve all of the Southern California areas of need, and that some combination of routes would be required. The Department, in Bulletin 78, designates these combinations of routes as "systems." Of the various combination of routes (systems) that were considered, three systems finally emerged as those deserving detailed analysis and comparison. The Department has desig- nated these as Systems A, B, and C. Each aqueduct system is a conception of works to be constructed by and at the expense of the State, or some over-all agency to make water available to the seven main service areas. The Department properly assumes that the additional works required to deliver water to and within the service areas would be provided by and at the expense of the local agencies in the various service areas. This ' ' system ' ' concept follows naturally from the fact that supplemental water will be required : 1. In San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. 2. In southern San Joaquin Valley. 3. In Ventura County, Los Angeles County, and Orange County. 4. In San Bernardino, Riverside, and coastal San Diego Counties, where a basic need exists and where, also, a supply of water of low mineral content will be needed to maintain a proper salt balance in the surface and subsurface supplies. 5. In the desert areas — the Antelope-Mojave and Whitewater-Coachella regions. Obviously, no one route can supply all of these widely separated areas. The Department's Aqueduct Sj^stem A is primarily a coastal route with a branch to serve southern San Joaquin Valley and the high desert areas. The main aqueduct would lead westward from Avenal Gap and thence southward through the upper Antelope Plain, San Luis Obispo County, Santa Barbara County, Ventura County, and finally through Conejo Reservoir to terminal storage in San Fernando Valley at Bell Canyon Reservoir. A smaller inland aqueduct from Avenal Gap would lead to Buena Vista Lake and thence to the service areas in south San Joaquin Valley, and continuing southward through a series of pumping plants, into the desert to a terminus at Little Rock Creek to serve the Antelope-Mojave and Whitewater-Coachella areas. The Department's Aqueduct System B is primarily an inland route, the major aqueduct extending from Avenal Gap along southern San Joaquin Valley and across Tehachapi Mountains, traversing those mountains by a series of pumping plants, penstocks and tunnels to Cottonwood Creek. Enroute, this aqueduct would serve south San Joaquin Valley areas. At Cottonwood Creek the inland aqueduct would divide into the western and eastern branches. The "Western Branch would continue from Cottonwood Creek in timnels, siphons, power drops, reservoirs, and canals through Castaic Reservoir and on to the Balboa Terminus in San Fernando Valley. The Eastern Branch would extend from Cottonwood Creek through a power drop, canals, and pumping plants, traversing the desert area to Cedar Springs Reservoir, on the headwaters of Mojave River. In this section water would be diverted to the Antelope-Mojave and Whitewater-Coachella areas. From Cedar Springs Reservoir, the branch would tunnel through San Bernardino Mountains and continue through power drops, afterbays, and siphons to terminal storage in proposed Perris Reservoir. 24 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS A Coastal Branch would divert from the main aqueduct at Avenal Gap and proceed by pumping and power- recovery plants, canals, tunnels and siphons to a terminus in Santa Maria Valley in Santa Barbara County, servicing enroute upper Antelope Plain and San Luis Obispo County. The Department's Aqueduct System C may be considered as Coastal and Inland in equal degree. One aqueduct would extend from Avenal Gap via Buena Vista Lake across Tehaehapi Mountains, passing into the dessrt area and following the same general alignment as the Eastern Branch of the Inland Aqueduct System B, terminat- ing at Perris Reservoir. A second aqueduct would extend westerly and southerly from Avenal Gap through San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties, following the same general alignment as the Coastal Aque- duct of System A, and terminating at Bell Canyon Reservoir in San Fernando Valley. Each of the three systems, as described in Bulletin 78, requires a different combination of open canals, pipe- lines, siphons, tunnels, pumping plants to lift the water across the topographic divides, and power plants to recover power on the downstream side of these divides. Moreover, the sizes and capacities of the various elements of each system differ also, and different facilities are required for the distribution of the water by local entities to each service area, from the aqueducts to the points of consumption. It is our opinion that the three Aqueduct Systems, as selected by the Department for detailed study, have been well chosen and that they represent a logical and practical basis for the determination of the most favorable aqueduct system for conveying imported water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to furnish a supplemen- tal water supply for the Southern California area. CONVEYANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF IMPORTED WATER TO SERVICE AREAS It is the concept of the Department that after the aqueducts have been built, passing through some of the service areas and terminating at points that are strategic for the distribution of water to others, the local agencies will assume the engineering and financial responsibility for building the systems necessary to convey the water into the various areas of use and to the individual users. But even though the State or equivalent over-all agency would have no responsibility for these distribution systems, they nevertheless represent an element of cost that must be considered in the comparison of alternative aqueduct systems. The manner of local conveyance and distribution within the individual service areas would differ significantly for the three alternative aqueduct systems, and the costs would differ also. We, as a Board, concur in this concept. Speaking generally, the Department has outlined and estimated costs of conveyance and distribution works within the various service areas to points selected common to all three aqueduct systems for serving the con- sumers, but has not studied the costs that would be involved in getting the water from those common points to the consumers themselves. There are a few exceptions to this generalization in areas of future irrigation in which there now exist no distribution facilities whatever — in these instances the Department's studies have been carried all the way to the farmers' headgates. These studies of conveyance and distribution have required a detailed consideration of sizes and capacities, taking into account seasonal demands, the needs for local storage for regulation or protection against outage, the pumping requirements and the possibility of power recovery, the treatment of water by filtration and chlori- nation where required, the applicability in some instances of groundwater replenishment and storage under- ground, the sequences and timing of the construction, and other like matters of similar engineering intricacy. The cost of these conveyance and distribution facilities, as estimated by the Department, are listed on Table 4, and may be summarized as follows : Est. Capital Costs in 1000 Dollar^ Cost of Distrilution Facili- Aqueduet Main Distrihution ties as a Per Cent of the System Aqueducts Facilities Total Main Aqueduct Cost A 2,361.0 1,220.0 3,581.0 51.7 B 1,807.0 745.0 2,552.0 41.2 C 2,162.0 703.0 2,865.0 32.5 It should again be pointed out that it has been assumed by the Department, and properly so, that these costs are to be assumed by the local agencies. They are of major importance, involving in Aqueduct System B, 41% of the cost of the main aqueducts. Further, although they represent the cost of such works to common points in the service areas, there will still remain very large additional expenditures on the part of the local agencies to permit delivery of water to the customers. The cost of distribution facilities to convey and deliver aqueduct water to the customers will be an item of major importance in determining the cost of bringing Delta water to the users in the various service areas. A great deal of additional study will therefore be required to determine the total cost of water delivered to the customers. INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 25 PUMPING AND POWER RECOVERY A very crucial element in designing any route or system is the scheme adopted for pumping over the various topographic divides and for recovery and utilization of the power that may be generated on the downstream sides of those divides, since the utilization and disposal of the energy thus consumed and generated will affect vitally the economics of the whole plan. Bulletin 78 lists and briefly describes the following schemes for pumping and power recovery : 1. Purchase of off-peak electric power and sale of the power that may be generated. 2. Purchase of off-peak electric power and the feedbacks of generated power into the pumping system. 3. Pumping by direct steam and steam-electric drive and sale of the power that may be recovered. 4. Pumping by direct steam and steam-electric drive and feedback of the power which is generated into the pumping system. 5. Pumping by steam-electric drive ; feedback of the power which is generated into the pumping system. 6. Pumped storage (a system involving pumping into high-level reservoirs during periods of off-peak power demand, the release of water to the aqueduct as required, and the retention of the remainder for later return through the penstock for generation of power during periods of peak demand). Undoubtedly, different schemes of pumping and power recovery will prove to be most favorable for different parts of the adopted system. The Department has considered it to be unnecessary that all of these schemes be analyzed fully to attain the limited objective of Bulletin 78 : the selection of the most favorable aqueduct system. For purposes of financial comparison, the Department, in Bulletin 78, elected to appraise aqueduct Systems A, B and C, assuming that pumping and power recovery would be by: (a) off-peak electric and feedback (No. 2 above), or (b) steam and steam-electric drive and feedback (No. 4 above) ; and a comparison of capital and annual costs for these two schemes is made in Bulletin 78 — with the qualification that the off-peak electric and feedback scheme was con- sidered to be infeasible for Aqueduct System A. By this comparison, the Department concludes that the "steam" or "steam-electric drive" with power feed- back would be cheaper both in capital cost and annual costs than the "off-peak electric drive with power feed- back." Accordingly, all further financial and economic analyses set forth in Bulletin 78 are based on the use of the "steam" or "steam-electric" drive with power feedback for pumping and power recovery. We agree with the Department that comparisons made on this basis are legitimate and can lead to proper conclusions as to the most favorable aqueduct system. However, we wish to express strongly our opinion that in the future, prior to final design, complete studies and comparisons must be made of all reasonable schemes of pumping and power recovery. It is again appropriate to state, in anticipation of a later topic of this report, that the Department favors Aqueduct System B, and that we concur. Aqueduct System B clearly seems to be the most favorable system for the conduction of water from northern to southern California. It is our belief that future studies of pumping and power recovery schemes will enhance the advantages of Aqueduct System B over the alternative systems, and improve the economic advantage of that system beyond that indicated in Bulletin 78. "We recommend particularly that a conclusive study be made of the possibilities of pumping with low-valued utility off-peak power and gen- erating higher valued peaking power for disposal, and extending this concept to the possible utilization of pumped-storage (Item 6). Parts of System B appear to be particularly adapted to this concept and if later studies prove this to be so, the problems of financing and repayment may well be significantly easier than indi- cated in Bulletin 78. "We have arrived at the following general convictions regarding pumping and power recovery: 1. That the project can be and should be financially self-supporting, with the costs of construction, operation, and maintenance defrayed by the various service areas which are to be the recipients of the imported water; and that credit for energy disposed of or used, from power recovery plants, should be applied to the capital and operating costs of the pumping plants which contribute falling water to the recovery plants. 2. That to accomplish 1, above, full advantage must be taken of the existing and well integrated facilities of the power utilities operating within the different areas under consideration; and in this connection, we urge that the Power Committee, formed in 1958. and composed of representatives of the power utilities and the Department, continue actively its meetings and discussions. 3. That any schemes selected for pumping and power recovery should be aligned with proven engineering practices, since the quantities of water and the heights of pump-lift, when taken in combination, are with- out precedent, and since the consequences of erratic or undependable operation would be so serious to the economy that will be built around this project. The project must operate consistently and dependably. "We are frankly dubious of the practicability of any plan to pump by direct steam-drive. There is no prece- dent for this kind of pumping in the quantities and to the heights here contemplated. 26 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS Since any system will require large amounts of energy for pumping and will recover lesser amounts, the net drain upon the State's and the Nation's reserves of energy must be considered. However, this consideration has little bearing upon the choice of aqueduct system, since the estimated net expenditures of energy by the different systems differ very little. Those systems requiring lesser expenditures of energy for pumping, recover less power ; and the systems requiring greater expenditures of energy, recover more. By way of example, we extract from Table 23 of Bulletin 78 the following comparisons between Aqueduct System A (predominantly Coastal), Aque- duct System B (predominantly Inland), and Aqueduct C (equally Coastal and Inland) : ESTIMATED ANNUAL POWER CONSUMPTION AND GENERATION Aqueduct Aqueduct Aqueduct System A System B System C Pumping plant con.sumption for year 2000 in million KWH 6,291 10,703 9,040 Power plants generation for year 2000 in million KWH 1,082 3,779 2,.5S8 Net consumption in million KWH 5,209 6,924 6,452 Average annual fuel consumption, 1965-2020 (in millions of barrels of oil per year) 8.03 9.35 8.67 Aqueduct System A requires the least energy but recovers the least. System B requires the most energy but recovers the most. System C is intermediate between A and B. The differences in fuel consumption are not great. Such comparisons will be different for each scheme of pumping and power recovery ; but it seems probable that System B will benefit more than the other systems from further study and refinement. TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF COST COMPARISON FOR AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS A, B AND C MAIN AQUEDUCT-DELTA TO SYSTEM TERMINALS PLUS LOCAL DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES Quantities n Million Dollars Aqueduct Syate m A B C Basis of comparison Main aqueduct Distribution facilities Total Main aqueduct Distribution facilities Total Main aqueduct Distribution facilities Total Total capital costs- _ 2,361.0 1,589.0 861.9 2.4.50.9 $33' 1,220.0 699.0 564.4 1,263.4 3,581.0 2,288.0 1,426.3 3,714.3 $50! 1,807.0 1,225.6 940.6 2,166.2 $29' 745.0 515.0 456.0 971.0 2,552.0 1,740.6 1,396.6 3,137.2 $422 2,162.0 1,498.9 955.0 2,453.9 $33' 703.0 492.0 453.2 945.2 2 865.0 Present worth of capital costs Present worth of operating costs Present worth of capital costs phis present worth of operating costs- Average unit cost of water per acre-foot over repayment period. 1,990.9 1,408.2 3,399.1 $45' Data from Tables 31, 35, 36. 37 and 38 of Bulletin 78. ^ Average cost at main aqueduct over repayment period. ' Average cost delivered to service areas over repayment period. FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The economic comparisons which the Department has made of the several aqueduct systems are sufficient for selection of an aqueduct system. These comparisons are summarized below in terms of ratios, derived from actual dollar values as set forth in Table 4. SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS (Comparisons are expressed in ratios with System B shown as unity in each instance) Aqueduct Aqueduct Aqueduct System A System B System C 1. Capital cost of main aqueduct south of the Delta (to be built by the State or over-all agency) 1.31 1.00 1.20 2. Capital cost of local conveyance and distribution facilities (to be built by local interests) 1.64 1.00 0.&4 3. Capital cost of main aqueduct south of the Delta and local conveyance and distribution facilities 1.40 l.(X) 1.12 4. Average unit cost of water delivered to service areas 1.19 1.00 1.07 5. Total direct benefits 1.00 1.00 1.00 INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 27 Inasmuch as these comparisons indicate that the total direct benefits are essentially equal for the three sys- tems, Aqueduct System B is shown by relative total capital and unit costs to be economically superior to System C and possesses a substantially greater advantage over System A. The estimates of costs and benefits made by the Department were based on various assumptions which are considered generally to be valid for present pur- poses. However, when a full study has been made of pumping and power recovery schemes, it is likely, as we have mentioned earlier, that System B will appear in an even more favorable light. We hold this opinion because System B appears to offer a substantially greater opportunity to capitalize on the economic advantages of using low-valued off-peak commercial power for pumping and the generation of high-valued peaking power by the power recovery facilities. The Department has made certain assumptions relative to the recovery of all costs of building and operating the main aqueduct system. These assumptions are that : 1. The capital investment of each stage of construction will be repaid with interest at 3 J per cent per annum within a period of 50 years. 2. The interest due on the investment during the period of construction and prior to delivery of water will be capitalized. 3. The repayment of the capital investment will commence on the date of first water deliveries. 4. Costs of the Aqueduct Systems were allocated to the service areas by the "Proportionate Use of Facilities Method." 5. Pumping plant costs were allocated to the service areas in the same proportion that the peak capacity requirements bore to the summation of peak requirements of all service areas. 6. Costs of power recovery plants were added directly to the cost of pumping plants which they would serve and were allocated to the service areas in the same manner as for the pumping plants. 7. Credit for energy from the power recovery plants was applied to the capital and operating costs of the pumping plants which contribute falling water to the recovery plants. The Department has assumed that the aqueduct system will be built in stages and the foregoing assumptions were applied to each stage. "We believe them to be in accordance with good practice and that their use is logical and reasonable, although it should be recognized that the interest rate is somewhat low under present market conditions. The Department, in Bulletin 78, has developed what is termed an "average cost of water," over the 50 year repayment period, for the entire service area and points out that this is not the price at which it is assumed water will be sold, and we wish to reiterate and emphasize this point. The actual "cost of water" represents the money that must be obtained each year from some source to amortize the debt and cover operation and main- tenance costs in each year for the basic aqueduct system. In considering such amortization, the Department contemplates that each service area wiU begin annual pay- ments to cover the "cost of water" to the area when water is first delivered. These annual payments will be, from the first year of repayment, sufficient to pay costs allocated to the area for (1) all maintenance and opera- tion; (2) all interest on capital; and (3) part of the capital cost. Item (3) above may be somewhat less in the early years than in later years, but will be geared to return all the capital cost allocations over a period of 50 years, less the period of construction prior to water delivery. We anticipate that the use of water in each service area will start from some minimum quantity the first year of delivery and increase to the full estimated con- sumption only after several years. It is unlikely that recovery of costs during these early years can come entirely from charges for water delivered. For this reason, if the project is to be self-liquidating and if it is to amortize its own costs, some repayment arrangement will be required that will provide funds from each service area to meet the annual payments above described, every repayment year equal to the annual "cost of water" for the whole service area. Amounts which are not provided from water sales can be obtained as taxes in service areas, in some such manner as has been employed by the Metropolitan Water District to provide funds for the Colorado River Aqueduct and its appur- tenant facilities; or some other comparable and equally effective mechanism may be devised. DESCRIPTION OF AQUEDUCT SYSTEM B As background for discussions which follow, we must re-describe the recommended system — ^Aqueduct Sys- tem B — in more detail. It would bring water southward from the latitude of Avenal Gap in the following ways : A principal aqueduct, designated the Inland Aqueduct, would pass generally southward via a reservoir at the site of Buena Vista Lake, across Wheeler Ridge and Pastoria Creek, serving enroute the areas of water-need in south San Joaquin Valley, and continuing to Tehachapi Mountains. Four pumping plants would be required enroute to lift the water to an elevation of approximately 3,415 feet, at which elevation a tunnel would traverse the mountains. Emerging from the tunnel near Cottonwood Creek, on the south side of Tehachapi Mountains, the aqueduct would divide. A Western Branch would continue via Castaic Reservoir to a Balboa terminus in San Fernando Valley. This branch includes two power drops on the south side of the mountains between Cotton- 28 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS wood Creek and Castaic Reservoir. This branch, then, would serve Ventura County, Los Angeles County, and adjacent portions of the Southern California Coastal Plain. At Cottonwood Creek the Eastern Branch of the Inland Aqueduct would drop some 500 feet and proceed generally south and east to a point near Pearblossom, and then be pumped again some 500 feet to permit gravity flow to Cedar Springs Reservoir on the headwaters of Mojave River. Beyond Cedar Springs Reservoir, a four- mile tunnel would conduct the water through San Bernardino Mountains to two power drops in Devil Canyon, a short distance north of San Bernardino. From there, the aqueduct would continue across the upper Santa Ana Valley to Perris Reservoir, which would be the major terminus of this Eastern Branch. From Perris Reser- voir, water could be supplied to the Sau Diego Aqueduct, the Metropolitan Water District Aqueduct, and to service areas to the west. Laterals could be constructed between Devil Canyon and Perris Reservoir to serve other areas to the east and west. This branch, then, would deliver water to the Antelope-Mojave area, the White- water-Coachella area, portions of Southern California Coastal Plain, and Coastal San Diego County. A coastal branch would diverge from the main aqueduct at Los Perillas Reservoir, a small f orebay near Avenal Gap. From Los Perillas Reservoir at about elevation 325, the water would be pumped in three lifts to about elevation 1,190 and then carried largely in canal to the east portal of a tunnel beneath Polonio Pass, with diver- sions enroute to supply upper Antelope Plain in San Joaquin Valley. Westward from Polonio Pass, the aque- duct would extend to another tunnel beneath Cuesta Pass near San Luis Obispo. Just south of Cuesta Pass, the aqueduct would drop approximately 500 feet to San Luis Obispo power plant, and continue to its terminus at Santa Maria River about 405 feet above sea level. This branch, then, would serve upper Antelope Plain, San Luis Obispo County, and Santa Barbara County. Each prong of this system involves a complex assortment of canals, pipe-conduits, tunnels, siphons, reservoirs, pumping plants, and power plants. It is unnecessary to restate the details of specific features and combinations of features which make up the recommended system. In our opinion, the general routes, the proposed structures and their locations and the sizes and capacities which the Department has brought together in framing their recommended system are reasonable and workable and entirely satisfactory for the accomplishment of the Department's present objective: the determination of the best aqueduct system for the conduction of water to the areas of need in Southern California. However, we wish to emphasize that many changes in detail will result from the further studies which are now required to perfect the selected system sufficiently for final design and construction. In particular, modifi- cations will result inevitably from a complete investigation of all different schemes of pumping and power recovery, since each scheme will have, within the framework of the selected system, its own best combination of locations, types, and sizes of the various component elements. The greatest changes will result if a pumped- storage scheme of pumping and power recovery proves to be advantageous. Apart from the detailed changes which may be made, a few larger elements of Aqueduct System B perhaps can be improved by further study. Bulletin 78 proposes a lateral diversion from near Hesperia to serve the Whitewater-Coachella area. At first glance, it appears that this area could be served more economically from the Colorado River Aqueduct of the Metropolitan Water District, through some exchange agreement with the District. If such an arrangement could be effected, the Whitewater-Coachella Lateral would be decreased in length, the flow would be increased through the aqueduct to Cedar Springs Reservoir, Devil Canyon power plants and Perris Reservoir. About 20 miles east of Cottonwood Creek, the same Eastern Branch of the proposed aqueduct passes quite close to Fairmont Reservoir on Los Angeles' Owens River aqueduct system. This reservoir serves as regulating storage to permit peaking of power plant operation below that point on the Owens River aqueduct. We under- stand that the aqueduct has a capacity of about 1,000 cfs between Fairmont Reservoir and Dry Canyon, but that the average aqueduct flow is only about 500 cfs. Conceivably, an agreement with the City of Los Angeles would permit the use of this reservoir facility for delivering some water to San Fernando Valley — with advan- tage to all parties concerned. On the coastal prong of the recommended system, the aqueduct, as mentioned earlier, terminates in Santa Maria Valley. That part of Santa Barbara County southerly and westerly of Santa Maria Valley is proposed to be served by a lateral constructed and operated by local agencies. It may be that further study will indicate the possibility and desirability of continuing the main aqueduct to Cachuma Reservoir on Santa Tnez River, so that this reservoir could serve as terminal storage. This change would require an agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation. Such a plan would provide badly needed storage for diversion to adjacent service areas and would permit feeding some water backwards into the aqueduct if an outage should occur to the north. We single out these three instances of possible modification of the recommended system simply as examples of improvements in the system which may result from further study, and to re-emphasize that the investigations and analyses reported in Bulletin 78 are not, and were not meant to be, final or conclusive in all detail. We believe that conservative assumptions have been applied to these and similar areas of incomplete study and that INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 29 the recommended system can only be improved by future studies. We do not mean to imply that the studies to date have been careless or superficial; indeed, they have been entirely adequate for present purposes. But the problem at hand is one of enormous complexity and we wish merely to make the point that much remains to be done before the project is finally designed and built. GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS AND CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS Any conceivable system to conduct water from northern to southern California will present very formidable problems of design and construction because of difficult conditions of geology and terrain. The entire area of interest south of Avenal Gap is seismically active. At several points, major faults of known or suspected activity must be crossed and many other faults, both major and minor, from which earthquakes could emanate, lie close by. The Department and this Board have consulted Doctors Perry Byerly and Hugo Benioff, both eminent seismologists, about the seismic potentialities of the area. Any system will pass through areas of unstable ground where landslides have occurred in the past and will occur in the future. The coastal areas are particularly vul- nerable in this regard. Routes in south San Joaquin Valley will traverse areas of ground-subsidence. This sub- sidence is of two kinds: subsidence resulting from the withdrawal of underground water for irrigation, and subsidence which in some areas results from the application of water to the parched soils of this arid region. In many instances, the individual structures — dam sites, pumping plants, power plants, conduits, and canals — will require special design because of infei-ior foundations. AH tunnels will traverse difficult ground. Such difficult natural conditions have beset engineering construction in these parts of California since the earliest occupation of the area, and they have not prevented the successful consummation of major engineering undertakings. The magnitudes of some features of this project greatly exceed the magnitudes of like works that have been successfully constructed in these areas in the past, but the hazards confronted by these larger works now proposed can be surmounted by the exercise of the same principles and methods by which similar difficulties, in this area and elsewhere, have been successfully surmounted. The Department has recognized the difficult natural conditions which confront the construction of any aque- duct route or system to Southern California, and accordingly has studied the geology ably and with great care, and has appraised very realistically the engineering problems imposed by the different geologic and topographic conditions in the different areas. The preliminary designs outlined in Bulletin 78 have been adapted very appro- priately to the natural conditions. It is proposed to cross the major active faults on the surface rather than underground in tunnels, even though this requires pumping to higher elevations than would otherwise be necessary. In particular, the elevation of the Tehaehapi Mountains tunnels permit crossing the Garlock and San Andreas faults on the surface. San Andreas fault would again be crossed at the surface after leaving the tunnel through San Bernardino Mountains. On the Coastal Route, also, San Andreas fault would be crossed on the surface, beyond the western portal of Polonio Pass tunnel. The choice between open canal, pipe-conduit or tunnel throughout the system has been appropriate to the geology and topography of the different parts of the system. Special problems, such as the areas of ground- subsidence in south San Joaquin Valley, have been and are still the subject of special research, and we believe that the solutions to such special problems as suggested in Bulletin 78 are practical and realistic. Bulletin 78 has recognized the problems inherent in the design of structures such as dams, powerhouses, and pumping plants which will rest on foundations ranging from mediocre to poor in quality. In short, the area under consideration is not conducive to easy and routine design and construction. It pre- sents many problems and difficulties arising from the geology and topography. But the Department has recog- nized and studied each of these problems and proposes methods for surmounting them which, in our opinion, are entirely practicable. OPERATING PROBLEMS The long aqueduct lines, numerous pumping lifts, power plants, power supplies, and storage facilities which must be combined for system operation will present major operating problems. These problems will be accen- tuated by the fact that all three routes making up System B will encounter difficult natural conditions, as men- tioned previously. With terminal storage at Cedar Springs, Perris, Castaic, Bell Canyon, and Conejo Reservoirs, any shut-down of the aqueduct will not immediately affect the supply of water to the service areas downstream. However, a serious break in the aqueduct north of Avenal Gap would disrupt service both to the Inland and Coastal lines. Bulletin 78 contemplates the construction of reservoirs for emergency storage by the local entities comprising the individual service areas — not by the State or some over-all agency constructing the aqueduct system. Such construction will be necessary in Kern County, San Luis Obispo County, Santa Barbara County, and in the Antelope-Mo jave and Whitewater-Coachella areas. Breaks in the Coastal or Inland aqueducts, south of Avenal Gap and unstream from the terminal reservoirs would, of course, cause serious problems, but smaller areas would be affected. 30 FEATHER EIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS Special consideration must be given to the problems arising from shut-downs, caused by physical breaks in the conduit, power outages, normal operating disturbances, or other emergencies or catastrophes. To provide for such contingencies, there should be sufficient storage and wasteway capacity at strategic points along all three routes to handle the flow until the aqueduct can be shut down or its flow drastically reduced at some upstream point of control. We recommend that careful study be made of these operating problems before final designs are undertaken. ESTIMATES OF COST Individual members of the Board have worked closely with the Department in the development of cost esti- mates. In our opinion, proper consideration has been given to availability of construction materials, the special procedures of design and construction necessary to surmount local problems, and trends of costs determined from analysis of recent bids on somewhat similar work. We believe that the unit costs adopted for the various features of the aqueduct system are in general agree- ment with 1958 prices, and that the resulting total costs are reasonable. Adequate provision has been made for contino-encies, engineering and overhead. Of course, if prices continue to increase as they have in the past, the estimates must be revised from time to time. We wish to point out again the distinction that is made in Bulletin 78 between the capital and operating costs of the various branches of the system itself, and the separate costs which would be incurred by the local entities responsible for the distribution of the water from various points along the system into the various service areas. Distribution facilities have been assumed to be constructed and operated by appropriate local agencies who would distribute the water as required to meet local demands. The costs of such distribution facilities are cited only for comparison of total costs for the three main aqueduct systems which were studied, and are not assumed to be a charge against the State or other over-all agency constructing and operating the main aqueduct. STAGING OF CONSTRUCTION In a project of this magnitude with construction continuing over several decades to meet the progressive demands for water, and with expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars each decade, it would be highly desirable to so plan the works that they may be built in successive units or stages, thus reducing capital expendi- tures in the earlier years of the project, and securing some income from early water use for application toward the costs of later construction. The Department has concluded that only a limited amount of staging is prac- ticable and beneficial. This conclusion is based in part upon the concept that it would be impracticable to enlarge either canals or tunnels at some later time because they must be maintained in continuous operation. Accord- ingly, the Department's estimates for these features are based upon initial construction of these features to the capacity estimated to be required in Year 2020. Similarly, all dams and reservoirs are assumed by the Department to be built initially to the 2020 capacity. This procedure was based on the premise that adequate funds could be made available. The Department, however, has assumed stage-construction for pipe-siphons and for pumping and power plants and penstocks. The Department argues plausibly in this connection in Bulletin 78 and it may well be that it is correct in its conclusions. Nevertheless, we have certain misgivings and believe that the whole problem of staging of construction requires further study. While duplicate tunnels and canals of smaller size would certainly cost more than single structures of larger size the initial capital cost and interest charges would be much less if smaller ones were constructed initially. We'wish to re-emphasize a point made earlier, that the projections of growth of population and water demand, althouo-h as good as can be made, contain elements of speculation, and may prove to be erroneous for periods in the more distant future; and the ultimate capacities now thought to be required 30 to 60 years hence may be too hio'h or too low. Developments now unforeseen may occur in the fields of construction, pumping and power generation before the turn of the next century. We question the wisdom of building at the outset in accordance with present anticipations of the total demands and the technologies of the remote future. CONCLUSIONS 1. We ao-ree with the Department's selection of Aqueduct System B as the most favorable, subject, however, to modifications after further detailed investigations. Aqueduct System B provides: (1) An Inland Aqueduct south of Avenal Gap to the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley, thence across the Tehachapi Mountains with a Western Branch on to a terminus in the San Fernando Valley, (2) an Eastern Branch Aqueduct leaving the main aqueduct at Cottonwood Creek in the Tehachapi Mountains and going eastward to a point north of San Bernardino where it turns south to penetrate the San Bernardino Moiintains and terminate in upper Santa Ana Valley at Perris Reservoir, and (3) a Coastal Aqueduct westward from Avenal Gap to San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties with south terminus at Santa Maria River. INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 31 2. Aqueduct System B has the following principal advantages over any of the others: a. Least capital cost to the State or other over-all agency. b. Least capital cost of combined main aqueducts and local conveyance and distribution facilities. c. Least average cost of water over the repajTuent period as delivered to service areas. d. Best distribution of water south of the Tehachapi Mountains to meet water demands and problems of water quality. e. Most favorable for power recovery program. 3. Aqueduct System B requires higher pumping lifts for large quantities of water than alternative systems. But, any system must include large pumping installations, and Aqueduct System B would require only about 16 per cent more fuel oil or its equivalent than would be required by a coastal aqueduct, which would have the lowest consumption. Furthermore, large financial benefits may be realized by incorporation of the most appropriate power-recovery methods. 4. The estimates for future water needs are large, but reasonable. However, the estimates for the near future are much more reliable than those for the more remote future, and all planning should maintain flexibility to conform to trends as they may actually develop. 5. We concur in the assumption that no plans should be made by the Department for furnishing a supple- mental irrigation supply to the Antelope-Mojave and Whitewater- Coachella service areas. The cost of water will be too high for such use. Supplemental supply for these areas should be confined to future municipal and industrial demands. 6. We believe that all reasonable methods of pumping and power recovery should be thoroughly investigated. No other elements of the contemplated works present such unprecedented problems of construction or operation, or offer such opportunities for savings in capital and operating costs. We believe that the best solution will be the one taking maximum advantage of the integrated facilities of the public utilities in the area, using, insofar as possible, lower-valued utility generated off-peak power for pumping, and generating higher-valued peaking power for sale. A possible alternative method would be to deliver power from project plants into the utility systems and withdraw energy from such systems to serve the projects' pumping plants. We doubt the reliability of the direct steam driven pumping schemes outlined in Bulletin 78, and believe that for the unprecedented volumes of water and heights involved, this scheme will prove to be inadequate. 7. The topographical and geological conditions to be met by any route or combination of routes are formi- dable ; but the Department has recognized these difficulties and proposes sound methods to meet them. 8. We believe that the estimates of construction costs presented in Bulletin 78 are realistic for the present time. 9. In a project of this size and importance, staging and timing is important. Prognostications of events in the distant future are uncertain because of possible changes in economic trends and technologic advantages now unforeseen. For these reasons, initial construction to the capacities now estimated for the distant future involve unpredictable uncertainties — the works built to meet these anticipations could be smaller or larger than ulti- mately necessary. We recommend further serious study of staging and timing of aqueduct construction. 10. We believe that the entire project can and should be self-supporting with the costs of construction and operation defrayed by the various service areas which are to be the recipients of the imported water ; that credit for energy sold or used, from power recovery plants, should be applied to the capital and operating costs of the pumping plants which contribute falling water to the recovery plants ; and that complete financial analyses should be made at an early date to determine the probable total cost of water in the several service areas, with particular attention to such costs during the early years of operation. BOARD OF CONSULTANTS s/A. H. AYERS s/ROGER RHOADES A. H. Ayebs Bogeb Rhoades s/JOHN S. LONGWELL s/DAVID WEEKS John S. Longwell David Weeks s/CARL R. RANKIN s/RALPH A. TUDOR Cakl R. Rankin Ralph A. Tudor, Chairman H MINORITY REPORT FEATHER RIVER— SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT I Report by ADOLPH J. ACKERMAN Consulting Engineer December 31, 1959 2—99466 HYDROELECTRIC *»»„-». ™. , I A ^.^r-m • » .. • MEMBER DEVELOPMCf^Ts ADOLPH J. ACKERMAN — AMER. INST. OF PLANNiNO CONSULTING ENGINEER consulting riNANC.NO ,250 SHERMAN AVENUE engineers DESIGN *• S- C. E. CONSTRUCTION MADISON 3, WISCONSIN A. S. M. E. A. I. E. E. January 7, I960 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Director Department of Water Resources State of California Sacramento, California Dear Sir: I am submitting herewith my report on an engineering review of the "Alternative Feather River Project Aqueduct Route Studies," Insofar as the present status of available studies has permitted, X have attempted to respond to the terms of reference which were given to the Board of Consulting Engineers on January 10, 1958, In order to meet my professional obligations on matters which are within the area of my specialization, I have found it necessary to file a special report. The submission of such a report has had the approval of the Chairman of the Board, It has been a privilege to serve the State of California in this matter. Sincerely youns. cc: Chairman and yAdolph J, Members of the / Member Board ^^oard of Consulting Engineers Alternative Aqueduct Routes AJA:wja (34) The Board of Consulting Engineers on Alternative Routes Feather River-Southern California Aqueduct Depabtment of Water Resources, State of California December 31, 1959 COMMENTS ON THE FINAL REPORT OF THE BOARD By ADOLPH J. ACKERMAN Consulting Engineer and Member of the Board The Final Report of the Board of Consulting Engineers on Alternative Aqueduct Routes was submitted to me for my signature. After a careful examination of the Report, and a review of all available references, I have signed the Report with the notation: "I regret that I cannot join in this report, since the problems of financial feasibility, which are within the area of my professional specialization, have not been adequately examined. I am therefore submitting a separate report." I cannot subscribe to all of the statements in the Final Report for the following reasons: 1. The Report refers to the original letter of instructions from the Director of Water Resources, dated Jan- uary 10, 1958. This letter not only outlined the unrestricted conditions under which the Members of the Board accepted appointment, but it also provided a guide for developing all essential facts during the period of investi- gation. The Report also refers to a letter subsequently received by the Board on June 22, 1959, which "requested the Board to confine its final report" to four specific questions; the Report has been written to respond to this request. However, I consider myself bound by the original instructions to the Board, and by the recommenda- tions of a previous Board of Consulting Engineers (report of May 8, 1957), that "no specific project be author- ized for construction prior to detailed investigation of its engineering feasibility, economic justification and financial feasibility. ' ' In my opinion, this demands a conclusive analysis of basic problems such as the estimated cost of a project of limited size, determination of the best operating procedures, probable price of water to the consumer, financing problems and their influence on the State's credit position (or on greater tax levies), repay- ment of invested capital, and similar issues. Such a program of analysis would lead to the drawing of basically different conclusions from those contained in the Final Report. 2. Much valuable technical work has been carried out in the past three years on topographical and geological mapping, studies of hazards due to earthquakes, problems in design, construction and tunneling, and studies of growth in demand for water. Notwithstanding the importance of these features in the planning of a project, they are nevertheless, in my opinion, only a means to an end of formulating a sound program of financing. In other words, the overriding question is: "Is the project, as conceived, of the type that the money can be successfully raised by voluntary investment from the savings and accumulated resources of the thrifty, or will it be forcibly extracted from the pockets of the taxpayers?" The feasibility of voluntary investment has not been demonstrated, and the available evidence only points to the latter source of money. 3. The basic issue is not "water," but "financial soundness" of the project as now conceived. The citizens are expected to decide by their vote on the financing of this project; for this purpose they should receive the essential facts from an impartial source, so that they can determine to what extent they are willing to commit themselves to the requisite tax obligations which may be required to maintain the integrity of the State's credit. The proposed project would call for the largest financial commitments ever undertaken by a State for a single project; its magnitude cannot be visualized by the voters who will be expected to express their approval or disapproval. This has placed all the more obligation on the Board of Consulting Engineers in helping to develop a competent and independent interpretation, particularly from the standpoint of "financial feasibility," (within the conventional definition). At this stage no adequate demonstration is available to show the "financial feasi- bility" of the project as now proposed. The adoption of a project under these circumstances would contribute to damaging the State's credit position for many years to come. In my opinion any inference, that the current proposal has been developed to a stage where the piiblic can repose its full confidence m it, is wholly unwar- ranted. In summary I do not question the sincerity or good intentions of the engineers who have planned the Feather River-Southern California Aqueduct project. I do, however, seriously question the soundness of their proposals. ^ ^^ ^ 36 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS Both the stature of the engineering profession as well as the public confidence in the profession are under severe test. It may well be said that never before in engineering history have such great responsibilities been entrusted to a Board of Consulting Engineers. "With respect to the planning of public works, a Board of profes- sional engineers has the primary obligation of safeguarding the public interest. The public has developed a great trust and faith in the integrity of the engineering profession and this serves as a powerful challenge to merit such confidence in the future. This demands not only the impartial and competent exercise of professional skills and self-imposed disciplines, but it also demands, at times, a declaration of unpalatable truths. In support of my position I have prepared the more detailed report which is presented in the following pages. REPORT By ADOLPH J. ACKERMAN Member, Board of Consulting Engineers Alternative Routes, Feather River— Southern California Aqueduct December 31, 1959 In discharging my professional obligations, as I see them, on one of the greatest engineering problems ever to confront an independent consulting engineer, I feel obliged to avail myself of the privilege granted to me by my distinguished colleagues on this Board by recording my opinions and conclusions in greater detail. I consider this my obligation in serving the public interest. Status of ihe Board of Consulting Engineers When this Board was first appointed in January, 1958, there was general recognition that its members had been selected with exceptional prudence; the specialized qualifications of each member implied that all facets of the unprecedented problems in this project would receive adequate study, and that the collective judgments and conclusions M'hich would evolve from the Board's deliberations would represent the highest level of performance within the capabilities of the engineering profession. Certainly, the public officials and the people of the State of California, as well as all the investors throughout the country who place their savings in California's undertakings, have a right to expect such professional performance. Furthermore, public assur- ances have been given that such professional services are an intrinsic part of the basic planning at the current stage of this project. The comprehensive nature of the Board's assignment and responsibilities are indicated in the terms of refer- ence which the Director addressed to the Board on January 10, 1958, and which are reproduced in the later pages. These terms of refei-ence not only enumerate 13 specific elements of the problem, which should receive the Board's consideration, but also "any others you deem significant." This statement has placed on the Board a major responsibility of determining how the resources of the engineering profession may be applied to best serve the interests of the people of the State of California during this critical stage of "molding" the total "conception" of a new project. During the frequent meetings and field trips of the Board Members, there was evidence of a high degree of mutual confidence as well as unanimity of judgment on the basic criteria which should be considered in devel- oping the optimum plan for a water delivery system. It was generally assumed that during the current planning stage of this project, in which the Board partici- pated, all of the essential alternative studies would be made and that, through a process of direct comparison, the best solution would emerge so it could be acceptably understood by all concerned; at the same time, the less promising concepts could be eliminated through the evidence of conclusive analysis. There was ample reason to expect that, with competent engineering planning procedures, such studies could be made within the avail- able time. The Board has examined a great mass of engineering data and reports. Notwithstanding the fact that the Board had indicated the need for certain additional studies which it considered essential before valid conclu- sions and recommendations could be reached, the requisite planning studies and financial analyses, unfortu- nately, were not placed at its disposal for adequate study before its services were terminated. As a consequence, the Board did not have the opportunity to present its independent views in time to serve as a reference during the period of legislative debate on this project. Furthermore, by allowing the Board's status to expire on June 30th, 1959 (State funds not being available beyond that date for continued services), the Board has not been in a position to write the kind of concise and conclusive independent engineering report which is traditionally expected, and which responsible officials and the general public could study before voting on this project. p INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 37 Specialized Responsibilities Within the scope of the unrestricted professional services which are commonly implied by the appointment of an independent Board of Consulting Engineers, two important issues have developed in areas which I regard as my field of professional specialization. These relate to the technical and economic problems in the field of pumping and power recovery, and to the broader problems of financing and managing the project. More spe- cifically, in addition to some of the technical factors which have been examined, I regard the following related factors as significant in developing a soundly engineered concept for consideration by the interested citizen. These are: a. Financial feasibility. b. Relationship to other financing programs ; total financing capacity. e. Administrative responsibility for building and operating the project. d. Relationships with existing agencies in the field of water supply and power. In view of the lack of essential planning information within the area of my specialized responsibilities, I was confronted with the choice either of giving my consent and participation to a Board Report on which serious limitations have been imposed, or of recording, to the best of my ability and in greater detail, my professional judgment and opinions, based on my two and one-half years of participation in the planning of this project. After due consideration I have chosen to exercise the privilege of presenting this report. The summary which follows is supported by a more detailed exposition in the later pages. Summary 1. The typical citizen is seldom conscious of the tremendous resources of skill and discipline which resiilts in the delivery of safe drinking water to his home at low cost. He has become mentally conditioned throughout his lifetime to give little or no heed to the problems of operating a water supply system, or to the problems of financing and building a major extension of additional water supply to meet the needs of a growing population. He simply places his faith and trust in the engineering profession and in the skills and disciplines which the professional engineer has vowed to apply to the best of his ability in safeguarding the public welfare. The very fact that the individual citizen has this implicit faith and confidence in the integrity of the engineering profession, serves as a powerful challenge to every engineer to merit such faith and confidence in the future. 2. The Feather River-Southern California Aqueduct as proposed would be a project of unprecedented mag- nitude. The planning of such a project within economic and financially sound principles is a tremendous responsibility ; the significance of the combination of a new public organization and the unprecedented respon- sibilities with which it is confronted, must be kept in mind. A seasoned organization with a high record of performance, if given an assignment of competently planning a project only one-tenth in magnitude of the one here under consideration, would find itself hard pressed to fulfill its responsibilities in a commendable manner. Therefore, an adequate allowance of time for the planning period is a prerequisite. A hasty and inade- quate performance at the planning stage would lead to confusion, waste of money and a serious loss of time at a later stage. 3. Under our system of government the citizens will be called upon to exercise their privilege and franchise of deciding whether or not the project should be authorized. The foremost questions in each one's mind are, of course: "What will this cost me?" and "What will be the price of the water?" The development of the desired answers with the supporting evidence must, of necessity, be complete and understandable in all respects, not only to the local citizen, but also to the many citizens throughout the country who might be willing to invest their savings in the State of California and in the proposed project. 4. As part of the basic planning of a major project it is essential to indicate the structure of a suitable organization or agency, which would be expected to administer such vast responsibilities. Competent adminis- trative capacity of a high order would be required, free from political pressures, and special qualifications would be a prerequisite particularly in the areas of financial responsibility as it applies to the investor, to the consumer, to the taxpayer, and to the State's credit position. 5. In the course of developing the technical factors for this project during the past two years, the hydraulic capacity of the aqueduct, in terms of annual quantity of water delivered to Southern California, was increased somehow, and without satisfactory explanation, from 1,800,000 acre-feet to 3,499,000 acre-feet ; the capacity of the aqueduct south of the Delta was raised to 8,000,000 acre-feet. All planning of project facilities was stepped up to meet hypothetical conditions assumed to prevail in the year 2020, based on estimates that Southern Cali- fornia's population of 8,850,000 in 1958 would increase to 28,600,000 by the year 2020. 6. Instead of determining the most economical and financially feasible "first stage" which would meet the demands for water in the foreseeable future, with provisions for expansion as and when justified by future circumstances, the concept of "global" or "total planning" of a project to meet demands in the year 2020 38 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS has been iutrodueed. I do not consider it feasible to make a sound appraisal of a project concept based on conditions which are presumed to materialize more than a half century from now. 7. On August 4, 1958 the Board outlined its specifications of what it considered a suitable Final Report. The Board also made an evaluation of progress in the planning of the project and questioned the feasibility of completing the necessary investigations before July 1, 1959. However, on February 26, 1959 the Department published a preliminary summary known as "Bulletin 78" which the Board had declined to approve. This report subsequently served as a basis for legislation enacted in June 1959, and it has thus become a document of historical importance. 8. Engineering studies were directed to three alternative project concepts, designated as "System A," "System B" and "System C. " All three systems have the common generalized objective of "bringing water from the north to the south" and of meeting all demands for water in Southern California to the year 2020. However, as described in the State's "Bulletin 78," these concepts do not include analyses of the optimum scheme of operation, and bear no relationship to a clearly defined facility as might be visualized in a railroad "system." 9. References to the Board of Consulting Engineers have been published with the implication that it has endorsed the work on "Bulletin 78." For example, one of the Department's Annual Reports states: "the best engineering talent available from outside the State's service was brought in to work with the Department engineers through a seven-man Board of Consultants." 10. Although the Board pointed out in its letter of August 4, 1958 that the pumping and power recovery studies, as outlined, must be completed before any rational decision can be made as to the most feasible route, the Department has chosen to designate "System B" as the "selected system" without having met the Board's request for studies which it considered essential. 11. Although an estimated figure of $1,807,000,000 has been indicated for the portion of the project (south of the Delta) designated "selected system B," little recognition has been given to the probability of cost increases during the coming decades, which in terms of current trends could readily increase the estimated cost of the project by 100% or more. 12. The total public expenditures (which by implication are authorized if the currently proposed bond issue of 1.75 billion dollars is approved) are likely to be several times greater, since this does not cover the total program involved in delivering 8,000,000 acre-feet per year to the service areas south of the Delta. 13. Financing of the project has been proposed by issuing general obligation bonds, with "the full faith and credit of the State of California pledged for the punctual payment of both principal and interest thereof." An examination of this proposal calls for a review of recent reports by Legislative Committees which contain such warnings as : "The existing rate of increase in the State's general obligation bond indebtedness is presently reaching problem proportions even without any bonds for water projects," and "It thus can be seen that the financial position of the State is not encouraging," and "In recapitulation, California in the 1959-60 Fiscal Year finds itself on the brink of one of its most serious fiscal crises." (For detailed references see later pages.) 14. As a means of holding the indicated cost of water at the terminal points to palatable levels, low interest rates have been assumed, and the estimated earnings have been spread out over a total payout period of 105 years. "Cost Recovery Schedules" were submitted to the Board at its meeting in Sacramento on April 24, 1959. It has been assumed that, to whatever extent 50-year bond issues reach their redemption date, without funds for such redemption being available, new bonds would be issued automatically until the payout for the entire project has been reached. This overlooks the fact that 50 years from now the State's commitments for additional public facilities cannot be visualized as to type, magnitude or capital requirements. It also ignores the harmful effect of such a policy on the marketability of all bonds for this project. 15. The estimated revenues are based on low water charges which make it impossible to absorb all the capital charges in less than 100 years. According to the ' ' Cost Recovery Schedules, ' ' large operating deficits are shown to accrue as long as 75 years after initiation of construction. Such deficits are indicated as being met by the questionable solution of raising additional capital, apparently by issuing more bonds. A major economic setback could result in incurring even greater deficits than have been assumed. 16. As a resiilt of these financing procedures, the debt status for the project near the end of the contem- plated construction period in the year 2009 is shown to be $2.73 billion. This corresponds to 50 per cent more than the estimated $1.81 billion cost of constructing the aqueduct facilities south of the Delta. Furthermore, additional bonds would be issued, according to the tabulations, after completion of the construction program, in order to meet further operating deficits and to provide for the redemption of the earlier bond issues as they mature. As a result, the "cumulative capital requirements" reach a figure of $4.23 billion. The graphical charts in appendix A indicate how the estimates of bonded indebtedness, due to the water program as proposed, would build up on top of the State 's current indebtedness, depending upon the future policy of budget balane- I INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 39 ing with respect to all other State activities. By 1990 the State debt would stand somewhere beween six and sixteen billion dollars. 17. The Department's payout tables show capital requirements for the Aqueduct Project South of the Delta increasing until the year 2040. If this is the final year in which it is proposed to issue 50 year bonds, these would mature in the year 2090, or 130 years after the start of construction of the project. "With such continuous and overlapping bond commitments, the concept of committing water rights to correspond to the life of the bond issues would entail a commitment of such rights for a period of 130 years. 18. By employing prices of water and revenue estimates based on present day concepts of the value of water to the citizen and, by relating these revenue estimates to project expenditures to be made in the distant future, subject to inflationary influences, it becomes quite impossible to apply competent judgment on which to forecast the repayment possibilities on bond issues. The forecast of progressive growth in consumption of water (and in resulting revenues) have been based on the assumption that there will be no disturbing influences on the growth and general economy of the State during the 100-year period of payout. Such an assumption is outside of the range of competent judgment, and wholly unsupportable. 19. A proper correlation of financial studies would need to take account of the significant recommendation made in an Engineering Report to the State in 1955, which points out that the Oroville Reservoir Project can be deferred for a considerable period, and that a more economical pumping and power scheme (than the one given priority in Bulletin 78) can be developed through cooperation with the existing power systems. 20. For pumping the water over the Tehachapi Mountains, the Department has chosen to give preference to an unprecedented scheme which would call for the building of special steam plants. In contrast, the water could be delivered to Southern California at less cost, and at a great saving in capital investment, if the electric utilities were permitted to cooperate by supplying the pumping power, and by distributing the power recov- ered at the power plants. This would also assure a higher degree of dependability of the power supply, par- ticularly in emergencies. 21. No clear demonstration has been presented that a commitment on the part of the public for a bond issue of $1,750,000,000 is needed. First of all, substantial opportunities exist for financing a major portion of the project by means of revenue bonds ; it would be in keeping with sound financial planning to establish this on a realistic basis before contemplating the idea of burdening the taxpayer with a major obligation. Eventually it may become necessary to issue State obligation bonds on the order of $300,000,000 for certain elements of a well-defined first stage of the project, provided that the full potentialities of earnings and revenues have been identified, and provided that the requisite administrative structure has been established and is functioning within sound financial disciplines. 22. A serious defect in engineering analysis of the financing problems is implied in the sequence of published pronouncements regarding the size of the proposed bond issue, as reported in several numbers of a national engineering magazine. In January 1959 the proposed bond issue was announced as $658,000,000. Three months later the bond issue was reported to be $960,000,000, and in May a proposal for a bond issue of $1,750,000,000 was reported. The inference of such a range of estimates is that the financial planning for the project has been developed without regard to the recognized professional disciplines. 23. No conventional demonstration has been made of the financial feasibility or justification for the project, and no clearly engineered concept has been presented which may be considered as valid and in the public interest. Any inference at this stage that the project has had the benefit of a complete engineering study and represents the best product of the engineering profession in which the public can repose its full confidence is, in my opinion, wholly unwarranted. 24. The execution of a "global (or total) plan of development" under the procedures evidenced to date would result in such a concentration of responsibilities and authority as to violate the most elementary prin- ciples of sound engineering, as well as of good government and of public service. 25. At this stage the overriding problem is to guard against the possibility of public officials and taxpayers, by a simple vote, adopting unlimited commitments for themselves and for future generations, without the opportunity of examining the alternatives. Any implication that they should relinquish important rights and place them irrevocably into the hands of even the best talent which the engineering profession could offer, would not only be a reflection on the good sense of the general public, but would also constitute an exploitation of professional obligations. DETAILED REVIEW Wafer for Southern California The past several years represent an important period in the study of water supplies in California. Based on a long record of earlier studies and inventory of water resources, several fundamental facts have been estab- lished : 40 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS (1) A shortage of water is developing iu Southern California which, at the present rate of growth in con- sumption, is likely to reach a critical stage by 1970-75 when the remainder of the currently available water resources in that region will have been fully developed. (2) The resources of fresh water which fall on the northern region of the State, and which are largely being wasted by drainage into the Pacific Ocean, offer an opportunity for diverting surplus waters to Southern California to meet local demands for the foreseeable future. (3) In view of the statewide nature of the problem, the 1957 Legislature has established a Department of Water Resources to examine the engineering and economic problems involved in conducting water from the north to the south, and to determine how such a development could be carried out to best serve the public interest. (4) "Water rights matters as they apply to the Department's responsibilities are, of course, the major con- cern of the Water Rights staff members. Acting under legislative directives (Section 10500, Water Code), the Department of Water Resources, in order to insure the orderly development of the State's water resources, has reserved approximately 90 per cent of the present surplus waters on the major streams of the State for use in furtherance of general or coordinated plans for development of the State's water resources." (First Annual Report, Dept. of W.R. 1956-57.) This is a major assignment and a tremendous responsibility; the significance of this combination of a new public organization and the unprecedented responsibilities with which it is confronted must be kept in mind. A seasoned organization with a high record of performance, if given an assignment of competently planning a pi-oject only one-tenth in magnitude of the one here under consideration, would find itself hard pressed to fulfill its responsibilities in a commendable manner. Appoinfment of Board of Consulfing Engineers These facts, undoubtedly, influenced the Director of the Department of Water Resources during the latter months of 1957 to appoint an independent Board of Con.sulting Engineers. This appointment was of historical importance in several respects: 1. The Director indicated his determination to draw on the full resources of the engineering profession in developing the basic plans for the Feather River-Southern California Aqueduct along sound and economical lines. 2. The Board was assured of the requisite freedom and independence in the exercise of its responsibilities. 3. The Board accepted exceptionally great responsibilities in examining the merits of a project of unprece- dented magnitude, and in committing its professional obligations of serving the public interest. In view of the confidence generally accorded to the engineering profession, this demanded that the Board discharge its obliga- tions within the highest standards of the profession. i Terms of Reference On January 10, 1958 the Director of Water Resoiirces addressed the following terms of reference to the Board : "Under legislative directive this Department is making a comprehensive investigation to determine the best system to deliver waters of the Feather River Project throughout that portion of California lying south of Latitude 35° 45'. "We request that the Board of Consultants review these studies from time to time, and all other pertinent data and that you report to the Director, Department of Water Resources, your opinion as to which aqueduct system would be in the best interests of the State of California and of the potential users of that water in the southern portion of this State. "Within the limits of available funds, you are free to devote whatever time you find necessary. The staff of this Department will assist you in every way possible in your review of their studies. If at any time further studies are found necessary or desirable, please so advise me so that arrangements may be made. At your first meeting, we will advise you as to the funds that are available for the services of your Board. "Your review and report should include consideration of the following elements of the problem and any others you deem significant: "1. Costs of construction of each alternative system or variant. "2. Time required for construction of each alternative system or variant. j "3. Special hazards that could affect construction costs or times for construction. "4. Special hazards that could affect future operation of each system or variant. "5. Power and energy requirements and feasibility of recovery of power and energy. | INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 41 "6. T'nit costs of transportation and delivery of water to each sub-area in excess of the cost of development and transportation of that water southerly to Latitude 35° 45'. "7. Prices that users of water for municipal and industrial purposes could be expected to pay for water delivered to each sub-area. "8. Prices that users of water for irrigation use could be expected to pay for water delivered to each sub-area. "9. Growth in demand for supplemental water for domestic and industrial purposes and the sub-areas in which such demands will develop. "10. Growth in demand for supplemental water for irrigation use and the sub-areas in which such demands will develop. "11. Regulatory storage required for economical operation and the time and place where such storage should be provided. "12. Integration of supplies of water of the Feather River Project with the supplies available from local sources, from the Colorado River and from other sources, for each sub-area, with particular reference to the quality of the water available from these sources and through the Feather River Aqueduct System and to operation of ground water basins. "13. Proper points of delivery of Feather River Project water to the water supply systems of the local con- tracting agencies. "It is respectfully requested that your Board furnish me within ninety days subsequent to the first meeting of the Board, your comments and advice on the studies which the staff of this Department have made to date and the current and projected work programs." Board Acfivifies Following its appointment, members of the Board devoted themselves to an examination of the voluminous reports which have been developed during the past years, and to a review of current studies which were being carried out bj' the various engineering divisions of the Department of Water Resources. The Board held a total of nine formal meetings and forwarded its observations to the Director of "Water Resources in the form of some eighteen formal communications from the Chairman or Vice Chairman, together with various letters from individual Board members dealing with matters concerning their specialized areas of interest. A significant step was taken by the Board when it held public hearings in Los Angeles on May 12 and 13, 1958. At these meetings official representatives from the three power agencies, from the Metropolitan Water District, and from other interested agencies submitted their preliminary views for the Board's consideration. In its formal communication of August 4, 1958, the Board informed the Director : "The Board is of the definite opinion that it is unlikely that it will be possible to complete the necessary investigations and prepare a final report to permit the selection of the most feasible route prior to July 1, 1959. At the same time, the Board understands the obligation of the Department to present a report to the legislature at its session during the early part of 1959. It is therefore, recommended that an Interim Report be submitted to the legislature giving a summary of progress to date and advising that the final report wiU be made available later in the year. This procedure would permit the completion of the pumping power and pumped storage studies as outlined and which, in our opinion, must be completed before any rational decision can be made as to the most feasible route. ' ' In this letter, the Board also stated that : "The Final Report submitted by the Department should, in the Board's opinion, represent the best the engineering profession can provide. It should be thorough, complete and defensible in all respects. The physical facilities as proposed and operating procedures should be sound from the standpoint of standards as applied by the many large water utilities in the State. The pumping and power features should be thoroughly coordinated with the power facilities and the resulting financial analyses should reflect probable power costs and power sales at the various aqueduct facilities. In other words, when the Final Report is released, it should embody a complete practical plan of development from sources to the service areas. The facilities should be designed to supply both irrigation and municipal water to the designated service areas in accordance with the best practices and in complete coordination with the water and power utilities." Preliminary Departmental Report On February 12 and 13, 1959 the Board met in Los Angeles for the purpose of reviewing a first draft of a proposed report which had been designated as "Bulletin No. 78, Preliminary Summary Report on Investigation of Alternative Aqueduct Systems to Serve Southern California". The meeting of the Board had been called as part of the preparations for official publication of ' ' Bulletin 78 ' ' at a public hearing on February 26 of the following week. However, advance copies of the proposed Bulletin 42 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS were uot available for examination during the Board meetings, and the Board adjourned without taking formal actions. Nevertheless the public hearing was held on February 26, and subsequently the Director informed the Board that "the California Water Commission by formal resolution had approved the overall concept of 'Aque- duct System "B" ' (as presented in "Bulletin 78") for transport and delivery of water from Northern Cali- fornia to Southern California." Shortly after this public hearing the project became the subject of active legislative consideration. On June 17, 1959 the Legislature passed a bill formalizing the project, and a proposal is to be siibmitted to the State electorate in November, 1960, in the form of a referendum on a bond issue of 1.75 billion dollars with which to finance the construction of a part of the project. These events, in effect, have given "Bulletin 78" the status of a document of historical importance. Revised Terms of Reference The Department continued with the preparation of various studies correspinding to the Board's terms of reference, and as had been requested from time to time by the Board. These studies were particularly concerned with analyses of financial feasibility of the project. However, in April the Director requested that the Board's final report be limited to the following four facets of the problem : (a) Determination of probable future water requirements. (b) Determination of probable time when water from Northern California will be required. (c) Designation of areas to be served by the aciueduct to Southern California. (d) Selection of the most favorable aqueduct system. This request was confirmed in the Director's letter of June 19, 1959 addressed to the members of the Board. Although I recognize the need for dealing with the realities of currently available information and of accomplished facts, I feel obliged, nevertheless, to consider myself bound by the original terms of reference. I have, therefore, sought to discharge my responsibilities as I regard them in relationship to the public interest, and in terms of a perspective from which I cannot depart. Board Responsibilities The Board of Consulting Engineers, in several respects, has been confronted with responsibilities of unprece- dented importance. On behalf of the engineering profession the Board has had a duty similar to the obligation which the Supreme Court of the United States has in the judicial or legal area. Originally the Board was presented with the opportunity of developing a masterful report, based on an impartial analysis of all relevant factors, and of interpreting and translating a highly involved technical proposal of unprecedented magnitude into understandable language for the responsible citizen. Certainly this project is of such importance that nothing less than the best should have come forth. However, instead of this, the time limit for the Board's services was reached before it was in a position to present a conclusive report. Planning Concept of Issue The basic issue is this: (1) Shall a project concept be developed in which the first stage is clearly defined but of limited scope, capable of supplying the amount of water needed in the foreseeable future, financed within the limits of current abilities and means, and capable of earning realistic revenues for repayment, and with the possibilities of expansion, as may be determined by some future decision of the citizens? Or (2), shall a concept be adopted of a "global" or "total project" of unprecedented size, which is aimed at some arbitrarily chosen objective more than a half century in the future, with the attendant inability to forecast ultimate costs, prices of water, growth of demand, repayment schedules, economic stability or depressions, and similar imponderables ? Notwithstanding the fact that the first concept represents the conventional and feasible approach, the currently adopted project is based on the second concept. Such an open-ended program of public works would tax the imagination of even the most competent planning engineers, if they tried to define the broad spectrum of responsibilities which are implied in its execution. At this stage the overriding problem is to guard against the possibility of public officials and taxpayers, by a simple vote, adopting unlimited commitments for themselves and for future generations, without the opportunity of examining the alternatives. Any implication that they should relinquish important rights and place them irrevocably into the hands of even the best talent which the engineering profession could offer, would not only be a reflection on the good sense of the general public, but would also constitute an exploitation of professional obligations. Any inference, at this stage, that the project has had the benefit of a complete engineering study and repre- sents the best product of the engineering profession, in which the public can repose its full confidence is, in my INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 48 opinion, wholly unwarranted. The execution of a "global" or "total plan of development" under the proce- dures evidenced to date would result in such a concentration of responsibilities and authority as to violate the most elementary principles of sound engineering, as well as of good government and of public service. Financial Feasibiiify A demonstration of "financial feasibility" of a project requires the determination of the most economical project concept in terms of a self-contained first stage, in terms of the estimated first cost, in terms of the estimated operating costs of the project, and in terms of the resulting revenues which may reasonably be expected. Such investigations are a fundamental part of the basic planning for a new project ; failure to develop them would constitute a failure in professional responsibilities. The expression "financial feasibility", when correctly applied, is one of major importance; in simple terms it means that the project will pay for itself under conventional policies of operation, and that the bonds to finance the project are saleable. However, in modern times considerable effort is being made to give this expres- sion new definitions and interpretations which tend to undermine the entire process of project planning and financing. The financial feasibility of a sound project is readily defined, provided all of the essential factors have been presented in a fair manner. In examining an engineering report, it should be possible for any person of reasonable competence in the field of finance to satisfy himself regarding the validity of the claims of financial feasibility. In view of the considerable abuse which is practiced in the use of the term "financial feasibility", it is important to recognize that other definitions of this expression deserve examination; some may be unsup- portable or deliberately misleading. The demonstration of financial feasibility of a project, as presented in a sound engineering report, is essentially the same information which eventually appears in a prospectus at the time the bonds are offered for sale. Potential investors have developed considerable confidence in honestly prepared prospectuses and it is, of course, of greatest importance that the financial picture for this California project be presented within the limits of such accepted practice. This should have been defined in the present case for a practical first stage of develop- ment, and there is no reason for mystery or guesswork. A study of the expected revenues from this project calls for estimating the price of water delivered to each of the various sub-areas in Southern California, as suggested in the original terms of reference. This, of necessity, requires consideration of the cost of bringing the water from Northern California to Avenal Gap, together with the cost of delivering the water southward from Avenal Gap and pumping it by the most economical means over the Tehaehapi Mountains to a suitable terminal reservoir and into a primary distribution system. The opinion has been advanced that it is not feasible to estimate the earning capabilities of a project without having contractual commitments from the prospective consumers. This, however, is not a valid claim. By developing dependable market studies, the experienced engineer is capable of making fair appraisals and esti- mates (for a reasonable period ahead) of all elements of a project, including revenues from water supply and from electric power. The Department submitted a series of "Cost Recovery Schedules", one for each of the eleven service areas south of the San Francisco Delta, to the Board at its meeting in Sacramento on April 24, 1959. These schedules, or tabulations, were stated to represent "payout tables" for the project. The purposes of these financial analyses, as stated in the Department's official report on Page VII-1 of "BiiUetin No. 78", were to ascertain "(a) the financial feasibility, apart from considerations as to sources of capital investment funds, of constructing each system, (b) the portion of the total capital investment in each system attributal to delivering water to each service area, and (c) the unit cost of water delivered to various points on the systems." It should be noted that the analyses cover a period of 103 to 105 years. For each service area, the estimated "equivalent annual cost" per acre foot of water is shown on the bottom of the corresponding tabulation. These figures (in round numbers) for all eleven service areas are also tabulated in Table 24, page VII-7 and on Page VIII-13 of "Bulletin 78". Unfortunately, the studies of estimated costs and revenues and other elements of the financial picture, which were presented to the Board up to the time of its final meeting, were not adequate to allow sound conclusions to be reached in compliance with the original terms of reference. The Benefit-Cost Ratio For certain types of proposed projects attempts have been made in recent years to demonstrate their justifi- cation by means of computations which purport to show that the expected benefits from the project exceed the estimated cost of the project. Such computations are referred to as "henefit-cost analyses", and are claimed to indicate the so-called "economic feasibility" of a project; they are generally being introduced on projects 44 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS for which it is difficult, or impossible, to demonstrate "financial feasibility" by means of conventional "revenue- cost analyses". The hazard in using evaluations of benefits, instead of revenues, for justifying a proposed project, lies in the arbitrary way in which "benefits" can be evaluated and manipulated. This is a departure from the economic principles which are generally employed, and tends to weaken the protection of the public interest which is traditionally afforded by sound engineering planning. A means for exploiting the planning procedures is thus opened. One of the principal conclusions (No. 10) stated in "Bulletin 78" is: "This system, designated Aqueduct System 'B' in this report, is feasible of construction and operation from an engineering standpoint; is economically justified, having a ratio of primary benefits produced to costs of 2.38; and is financially feasible from the standpoint of recovery of the incurred costs, from water revenues." Unfortunately, no demonstration of "financial feasibility" in the traditional engineering manner has been presented. Furthermore, the ' ' benefit-cost ratio ' ' has little significance and no direct relationship to the conven- tional concept of "financial feasibility." Financing Policy Estimates of the revenues required to liquidate the bonded indebtedness were carried forward for a period of over 100 years, without regard to the conventional concept of ' ' financial feasibility ' ' based on staged develop- ment and a fifty-year limit for debt repayment. Instead, it was assumed that bond issues which were limited to a fifty-year life, but which had not been fully amortized, would be reissued at maturity for an additional period of up to fifty years, without regard to the financial market or the credit position of the State at that time. Furthermore, any operating deficits encountered during the 100-year period were assumed to be met by issuing more bonds. By inference also, any limited water rights would be committed for a similar period of over 100 years. The interest rate was assumed at 3^/2 %, which cannot be considered a realistic basis. Although a low interest rate, below the prevailing market, helps to keep down the indicated price for delivered water, it also gives a misleadingly favorable picture of the "financial feasibility" of the project. This is equally true of the approach of considering onl3^ the "global" project, with water rates set so low that the resulting revenues would require the period for completing the bond repayments to be stretched out to more than 100 years. A serious defect in engineering analysis of the financing problems is implied in the sequence of published pronouncements regarding the size of the proposed bond issue, as reported in several numbers of a national engineering magazine. In January 1959 the proposed bond issue was announced as $658,000,000. Three months later the bond issue was reported to be $960,000,000, and in May a proposal for a bond issue of $1,750,000,000 was reported. The inference of such a range of estimates is that the financial planning for the project has been developed without regard to the recognized professional disciplines. "Bulletin 78" indicates that instead of dealing with a limited project calling for the delivery of 3,880,000 acre-feet of water in the ultimate plan, it is actually proposed to build a project capable of delivering 8,000,000 acre-feet; this would involve expenditures which are likely to exceed 6 billion dollars. The question of fiuancing such a tremendous project calls for examination of the State's other general financ- ing requirements, its bonding capacity in the coming years, the hazards to the State's credit position, and the problems of the various local agencies which are expected to finance distribution facilities and other structures to implement the main water delivery system. The State's Financial Position Various Legislative reports provide valuable references for examining the financial position of the State. These have an important bearing on the problem of financing the Aqueduct Project by means of General Obligation Bonds. In the Twelfth Partial Report by the Joint Committee on Water Problems of March 24, 1959 the Committee reports on pages 12, 13 and 22 : (Page 12) "The present rate of bond sales will double the State's bonded indebtedness within approximately four years and thus bring it up among the top ranking states in bonded indebtedness per capita. The existing rate of increase in the State's general obligation bond indebtedness is presently reaching problem proportions even without any bonds for water projects." (Page 13) "It thus can be seen that the financial position of the State is not encouraging. Funds for water resources development are being sought at a time when the State has a serious general fund deficiency which does not finance its existing programs. At the same time the State is already placing general obligation bonds on the market at a rate which requires careful management not to depress the market. As the latest program to be added by the State, water resources development stands in an unfavorable position with respect to funds. ' ' INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 45 (Page 22) "Great care in the authorization and timing of bond issues for water resources development, or for other purposes, will be required to preserve the State's credit position and avoid excessive interest costs. In fact, careful management will be required to permit any water project construction program to be financed". The "Report of the Joint Legislative Tax Committee" published by the Senate of the State of California in May 1959 stated in its "Conclusions" (Page 40) : "In recapitulation, California in the 1959-60 Fiscal Year finds itself on the brink of one of its most serious fiscal crises. Governmental functions are being carried out only at the cost of an ever widening gap between revenues and expenditures. Available reserves are either dwindling or have been committed so as to leave no hope from this quarter for substantial budgetary aid beyond June, 1959. This dark financial outlook results primarily from the unparalleled population growth taken in conjunction with the necessity to match federal aid programs and the pressing need for a water program." "Presently earmarked funds and continuing appropriations leave less than one-third of state expenditures under the direct budgetary control of the Legislature. This situation derogates the traditional and historic role of the Legislature to determine the application of the citizens' tax moneys to the problems of State. As the con- trol of the budget function is removed from the people 's elected representatives, the people are left without voice in the expenditures of their public moneys. The net effect is that when unanticipated financial demands arise, the Lgislature, restricted by earmarked funds and the semifixed demands upon the available General Fund, has little alternative, on a short term basis, but to meet the emergency by expropriating reserves or increasing taxes. Reserves are now near complete depletion and only the latter course will be available in the future." Pumping and Power Recovery The idea of conveying the water over the Tehachapi Mountains, to an elevation of some 3,500 ft. above sea- level, and down on the southern slope, is a valid concept, provided the most economical system of pumping and power recovery is employed. The aqueduct section known as the ' ' Tehachapi Crossing ' ' will represent the largest investment along the route of the aqueduct, and the choice of pumping and generating equipment for this section, with related operating procedures, requires particularly careful engineering study. At the outset, five alternative schemes of pumping and power recovery were suggested for study. Some, obviously, had more merit than others, but it is quite feasible, for those skilled in the art, to make the requisite technical and financial analyses of the various alternatives within the available time, and to develop acceptable demonstrations of the relative merits of such alternatives, as well as of the one scheme which is superior to the others. Such an analytical process has the advantage of letting the evidence speak for itself and thereby removing any implications of personal or partisan bias. Although my professional experiences and background in this specialized field have given me a level of judgment on which the outcome of such comparative studies could be predicted with reasonable accuracy, I consider it presumptuous to suggest that my judgment be accepted solely on faith and confidence. I preferred to rely on the outcome of the Board's specifications for carrying out such studies. If these specifications had been respected, I am confident that it would have resulted in producing conclusive evidence, to the satisfaction of all concerned, regarding the best means for conveying the water over the mountain range. Furthermore, it should be noted that, in an Engineering Report made for the State in 1955, this problem was examined with considerable care. The most obvious technical solution, namely, a pumping scheme utilizing off-peak electrical energy from the utility systems, combined with on-peak generation of energy in the power recovery plants on the south side of the mountains, and return of the resulting energy to the utility systems, was shown to offer several important advantages: Firstly, the net cost of the energy required for conveying the water across the mountain range can be reduced substantially below the cost involved in other alternatives ; and secondly, this, in turn, contributes to a lower cost for the delivered water. Although some increase in the size and cost of the water passageways is required in the ultimate stage for such intermittent operation, together with other provisions to assure maximum dependability of operation for such an interchange of electrical energy, subsequent studies during the past two years have demonstrated the feasibility of incorporating such provisions without losing the advantages previously mentioned. In the course of these studies the managements of the utility systems have displayed a highly cooperative attitude in seeking a solution which will best serve the public interest. It is difScult to understand why a scheme, with the fundamental advantages and economies as forecast in the Engineering Report of 1955, has been displaced by a new proposal which involves a questionable concept of pumping, without acceptable precedent, together with the idea of the State building its own steam boiler plants. A plan for taking advantage of the tremendous resources of power supply from the California utility systems would contribute not only to a reduction in the cost of water delivery, but also to a reduction in capital costs 46 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS by eliminating the construction of special steam facilities. Furthermore, a supply of power from the existing utility systems has considerably greater dependability, since a great diversity of power sources would be avail- able, along with the organizational resources, with which to meet any emergency. To whatever extent such a cooperative system of operation contributes to the reduction in the cost of delivery of water, and to greater reliability of service, the utility systems should be given the opportunity to participate in the program. However, contrary to this, the economic potentialities in this respect have not been given full consideration in "Bulle- tin 78". An adequate solution of the "Tehachapi Crossing" problem, in terms of the best technical and operating features for pumping and power recovery, and in terms of optimum economies and financial feasibility, was called for by the Board in its letter of August 4, 1958. These studies were considered by the Board as a prere- quisite "before any rational decisions can be made as to the most feasible route". Administrative Responsibilities A very important factor in developing a new project concept is the organizational plan for managing the financing and construction of the project as well as its ultimate operation. This has a direct bearing on the ultimate cost of delivered water to the service areas. A number of large public agencies in various parts of the United States provide a pattern of competent administration and operation of similar projects. Through a long- standing record of good performance and service, substantially free of political controls, such agencies have demonstrated their capabilities and sense of responsibility to the public as well as to the investors. Although this question of a most suitable type of administrative agency received limited consideration for the present project, it appears to be of such basic importance that its further examination should be given highest priority. APPENDIX "A." FORECAST OF BONDED INDEBTEDNESS (Due to California Water Plan) State of California In order to illustrate the impact which the currently proposed Water Plan would have on the State 's financial position, the relevant data have been assembled and are presented graphically in Charts No. 1 to 4. (It should be noted that Charts No. 3 and 4 are hypothetical studies, without regard to the probability of future modifica- tions in financing policies. Their purpose is to show the implications of current proposals for financing the Water Plan.) Chart 1. Annual Tax Collections and Borrowings The lower line shows "Annual Tax Collections" from 1945 to 1959, corresponding to data presented in the California Budgets of 1957-58 and 1958-59. Annual tax collections have increased from less than 0.5 to more than 2.0 billion dollars in the past 14 years. However, since 1946 tax collections have been insufficient to meet annual obligations. The general obligation bonds which have been issued each year to obtain the additional funds required to meet financial commitments are shown by the shaded area, while the upper line shows the annual financial commitments. Before 1945 a policy of balancing budgets by means of tax collections had been in effect; in fact, the total bonded debt was reduced by 40 per cent between 1940 and 1945. Beginning in 1946, this trend was reversed, with general obligation bonds being sold each year in increasing amounts. At present, the rate of borrowing through the sale of general obligation bonds is $310,000,000 per year. According to a U. S. Department of Commerce Bulletin of March 31, 1959, the State of California borrowed more money in 1958 than did any other State in the Union, namely, $337 million. In round figures this amounted to more than twice the borrowing of the next-highest state, New York ; four and one-half times that of each of the next three highest states, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Texas; and nearly twelve times that of the state of Michigan. Chart 2. Trends of Bonded Indebtedness, Population and Per Capita Bonded Indebtedness The growth in debt due to borrowing by issuing general obligation bonds is shown by the line AB, "Cumula- tive Bonded Indebtedness". From 1945 to 1959, the debt has increased, in round figures, from $100 million to $1,700 million, or to 17 times the 1945 figure. By comparison, the relative rate of growth in California's popula- tion, which is generally considered as spectacular, is shown by the lower dotted line. From 1945 to 1959 the population has increased from 8.5 million to 15.3 million, or to 1.8 times the 1945 figure. INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 47 3..0 1945 1950 1955 I960 YEAR CHART 1 ANNUAL TAX COLLECTIONS and BORROWING Dec^3^1^5^ 48 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS 1945 1950 1955 1960 YEAR CHART 2 TRENDS IN POPULATION, BONDED INDEBTEDNESS and PER CAPITA BONDED DEBT Dec. 31, 1959 INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 49 1950 I960 1970 YEAR 1980 1990 NOTE : Assuming tax revenues increased after I960 to meet all State Obligations except for water plan. (See line BC) CHART 3 FORECAST OF CUMULATIVE BONDED INDEBTEDNESS FOR STATE WATER PLAN Dec. 31. 1959 50 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS Pi < O Z o I— I 1950 I960 1970 YEAR 1980 1990 NOTE: Assuming new bonds issued after I960 in current annual amounts to supplement tax revenues for meeting all State obligations apart from Water Plan, (See line BF) CHART 4 FORECAST OF CUMULATIVE BONDED INDEBTEDNESS for STATE WATER PLAN Dec. 31, 1959 INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 51 In other words, since 1945, the bonded debt has increased at a considerably greater rate than the population. This is illustrated by the middle line, "Per Capita Bonded Indebtedness" which shows that by 1959 the per capita debt had increased to a point 9.4 times the 1945 figure. In this connection Mr. Robert Harkness, Chief of the State's Budget Division, Department of Finance, stated on January 29, 1958: "The present rate of bond issues will double the State's bonded indebtedness within approximately four years and thus bring it up among the top ranking states in bonded indebtedness per capita." He also pointed out that: "The existing rate of increase in the State's general obligation bond indebtedness is presently reaching problem proportions even without any bonds for water projects." The statement by the Los Angeles Panel of Financiers on November 13, 1957 is also significant: " The big supply of State of California general obligation bonds with large and frequent offerings has pushed up the interest rate. This has also increased interest costs on bonds of California cities and districts. Some investors have their portfolios pretty full of State of California bonds, and they are loath to buy more except at liberal interest rates. Investors generally like diversity in their bond portfolios. A large supply of bonds does affect the market and the interest rate." (See Subcommittee Report on Policies for Water Projects, Joint Committee on Water Problems. March 24, 1958. Page 13.) Chart 3. Forecast of Cumulative Bonded Indebtedness for State Water Plan (See note on page 46) (Based on assumption that tax collections would be increased after 1960 to meet all State obligations except for the Water Plan) Chart 3 shows a forecast of total bonded indebtedness which would be incurred under the assumption that after 1960 no issues of general obligation bonds would be required except for the financing of the proposed Water Plan. This would require an increase in annual taxes of about $310,000,000. The line AB from Chart 2 is reproduced in the lower left of Chart 3 to show bonded indebtedness since 1945. The bonded debt is expected to reach $2.02 billion in 1960. The line BC represents the assumption of no increase in debt after 1960 for financing of State programs other than the Water Plan. New issues of general obligation bonds which would be required to finance the San Joaquin-Southern Cali- fornia Aqueduct south of the Delta are represented by the line BD. These bond issues would cover capital costs of construction "plus operating deficits." (Note: Data for this part of the Water Plan were taken from eleven "Cost Recovery Schedules" or financing analyses of Aqueduct System "B", which were presented to the Board of Consulting Engineers in Sacramento on April 24, 1959. Assumed costs per acre-foot of delivered water as used in these tables, are reproduced to the nearest dollar on pages VII-7 and VIII-13 of "Bulletin 78"; these unit costs of water apparently served as the basis for the Department's estimates of future water demands and deliveries. Thus, on page VIII-14 it is stated "Since water deliveries from the aqueduct system were adjusted to the rates of economic demand for water that will occur at the foregoing costs, and since full recovery of invested capital with interest was achieved from water revenues over the postulated period of 50 years for each stage of aqueduct construction, the aqueduct system from this standpoint is considered financially feasible.") Still more bond issues, represented by the increase in debt between curves BD and BE, would be required to finance construction of the Northern storage and diversion facilities which are required to augment the supply of water for the aqueduct. (Data for this part of the Water Plan were obtained from the brochure, "Water — Today and Tomorrow" published by the Department of Water Resources in 1959.) These various bond issues would increase the bonded indebtedness, in round figures, from $2 billion in 1960 to $6 billion in 1990. It is to be noted that during the nest 30 years three water bond issues, of $1.75 billion each, would be required to finance the water program as proposed in the references cited above. Chart 4. Forecast of Cumulative Bonded Indebtedness for State Water Plan (See note on page 46) (Based on assumption that new bonds would be issued after 1960 in current annual amounts to supplement tax collections for meeting various State obligations in addition to the Water Plan) In the lower portion of Chart 4 (to a compressed scale) the curves AB, BC, BD, and BE which were pre- sented in Chart 3 are reproduced for comparative purposes. In the upper portion of Chart 4, the effect of continuing the current policy of borrowing is projected into the future. In this case, it is assumed that issuance of general obligation bonds at the present rate of $310 million per year would be required in the future for State obligations other than the Water Plan. This would result in a total debt amounting to $11.3 billion in 1990, as indicated by the line BF. Above this would be superimposed the borrowing necessary to finance the Water Plan as described for Chart 3, which would bring the total bonded indebtedness to the amounts indicated by the line BH. The combined result would be to increase the State's bonded indebtedness, in round figures, from $2 billion in 1960 to over $15 billion in 1990. 52 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS STATEMENT IN REPLY TO MINORITY REPORT The minority report prepared by Adolph J. Ackermaii, member of the Board of Consultants, was received by the Department of Water Resources on Janviary 8, 1960. A review of Mr. Ackerman's report indicates that it contains several mis-statements as related to the final edition of Bulletin 78, to present statutes and to the bond issue bill (the Burns-Porter Act, Chapter 1762, Statutes of 1959), notably: 1. The letter of January 10, 1958, from the Director of Water Resources to the Board, quoted in full in Mr. Ackerman's report, sets forth the purpose, scope and areal coverage of the Board's activities. The letter of June 19, 1959, from the Director to the Board, also quoted by Mr. Ackerman, was in response to the Board's request for clarification on several points. Six members of the Board considered the June 19, 1959, letter as the clarification which had been requested by the Board, not as a change of instructions. It will be noted that at no time was the Board of Consultants asked, 7wr did the Board itself ask, to give consideration to the feasibility of any of the facilities to be located north of Avenal Gap (approximately 35°, 45' north). These facilities include Oroville Dam, Reservoir and Power Plants ; the Upper Feather River Basin Features ; the Delta Water Project ; the North Bay Aqueduct ; the South Bay Aqueduct ; San Luis Dam and Reservoir ; the Delta to San Luis Canal ; the San Luis Canal; the Pacheco Pass Tunnel Aqueduct; and the San Joaquin Valley Drainage System. These features are all encompassed within the State Water Facilities to be financed under the Burns-Porter Act, but are not within the purview of Bulletin 78. 2. As indicated by Conclusion No. 16 of Bulletin 78, "Pending further study none of the operational schemes evaluated or referred to in the Bulletin should be considered adopted features of the San Joaquin Valley-Southern California Aqueduct System", the Department of Water Resources is fully aware of the need for additional studies to determine the most feasible method of pumping and power recovery, contrary to Mr. Ackerman's statement. Attention is also invited to the statements appearing on pages 53 and 54 of Bulletin 78 relating to this general subject. Six members of the Board of Consultants considered that the work accomplished by the Department of Water Resources, sup- ported by special consultants for review of pumping plant design, was sufficient to select the most feasible route for the San Joaquiu-Southern California Aqueduct System. 3. Conclusion No. 11 in Bulletin 78 states : "This optimum aqueduct system is adaptable to stage construction over a 55-year period consistent with the buildup of economic demand for water therefrom." Mr. Ackerman has failed to acknowledge this conclusion in stating that : "Instead of determining the most economical and financially feasible 'first stage' which would meet the demands for water in the foreseeable future, with provisions for expansion as and when justified by future circumstances, the concept of 'global' or 'total planning' of a project to meet demands in the year 2020 has been introduced." 4. The cost recovery schedules, referred to by Mr. Ackerman as having been submitted to the Board on April 24, 1959, were preliminary in nature and, responsive to the recommendation of the Board, are not included in Bulletin 78. Financial analyses of aqueduct systems A, B. and C, as presented herein in Tables 28, 29, and 30, respectively, do not propose the large operating deficits as implied by Mr. Ackerman. 5. Statements made by Mr. Ackerman relating to (1) the cost of all aqueduct and regulatory works south of the Delta, (2) the facilities to be provided by the proposed $1.75 billion bond issue, and (3) the ability of the State of California to assume an additional bonded indebtedness of $1.75 billion are not within the scope of the studies reported in Bulletin 78, nor are they within the scope of study for which the Board of Consultants was retained. Analyses of such factors require data and information beyond that presented in Bulletin 78 and heyond that requested by the Board or any member thereof. 6. Mr. Ackerman's analyses presented in Appendix A "Forecast of Bonded Indebtedness" of his report appear to be based upon information which he did not obtain nor request from this Department and which is completely at variance with the terms of the Burns-Porter Act, the California Water Fund Act, the Davis-Grunsky Act, the present requirements for repayment as set forth in the Water Code, and with the policies adopted by the State for financing and repayment of the State Water Facilities. &.^^B— Harvey 0. Banks Director INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 53 REPORTS OF CONSULTANTS FOR REVIEW OF PUMPING PLANT DESIGN June 25, 1959 Mr. Harvey 0. Banks, Director California Department of Water Resources Post Office Box 388 Sacramento 2, California Dear Mr. Banks: In accordance with a request made by you in July, 1958, the undersigned consultants. Dr. A. G. Christie and Professor A. Hollander, jointly and in cooperation with the engineering staff of the Department, have studied the possible application of steam turbines for driving pumps for the Feather River and Delta Diversion Projects. Special attention was given to the study of turbine drive at Pumping Plant In-VI, because the com- bination of large capacity requirement and very high operating head at this plant gave promise of an installa- tion possessing both simplicity of design and good operating economy. Comments on the merits of steam-drive for Pumping Plant In-VI were submitted in individual letters, Dr. Christie's letter of October 9, 1958, concentrating on discussion of the steam turbine application and Professor Hollander's letter of October 1, 1958, concentrating on the pump application. Opinions as to the practicability and expected reliability of the application were expressed in these letters, and subsequently confirmed by design studies and development of a suitable pump layout by the Byron Jackson Company, as follows : (1) Single-stage centrifugal pumps for the required combination of very large capacity and high head have not been built heretofore, and it will therefore be necessary to conduct developmental work and extensive model tests to optimize hydraulic and mechanical features. Such model tests would be required regardless of the prime mover employed, whether it be a steam turbine or an electric motor. (2) Pumps of design, operating head, and characteristics similar to those required for the steam-drive application have been produced in sizes greater than 5000 Horsepower and are in service today. Test data taken from these pumps have been used to predict, by the application of well-established principles, the per- formance of a pump of the required characteristics. There is no doubt as to the engineering feasibility of such a pump. (3) Steam turbines are well suited as prime movers for pumps and may be expected to show a high degree of reliability in such service. j- i j (4) Steam turbine equipment for the operating conditions contemplated would represent no radical departure from previous constructions. . , , • (5) Auxiliary equipment associated with the pump and the steam turbine would be of conventional design. In summary, it is stated that the major components, as well as the auxiliary equipment, for a steam-drive installation at Pumping Plant In-VI are considered quite practicable of design and construction. The opinion is confidently expressed that the contemplated combination of these components would give an entirely satis- factory operating installation. Very truly yours, /S/ A. G. Christie Consultant on Steam Turbine Applications /S/ A. Hollander Consultant on Pumping Equipment Applications 54 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS Byron Jackson, Division of Borg-Warner Corporation P.O. Box 2017, Terminal Annex, Los Angeles 54, California, U.S.A. July 2, 1959 Mr. Harvey 0. Banks, Director California Department of Water Resources P. 0. Box 388 Sacramento 2, California Subject: Feather River Project Station VI Pumping Equipment State Agreement #250189 Byron Jackson Order # L-338953-A Gentlemen : Under the terms of subject order Byron Jackson was directed to assist in the selection of pumps suited for the proposed direct steam-drive pumping application at Pumping Plant VI of the Feather River Project acqueduct; (sic) make alternative designs and estimate costs and weights of pumps; and prepare layout draw- ings of the pumping equipment and appurtenances thereto. Under date of February 6, 1957 a preliminary letter was forwarded, reporting on a number of discussions held with representatives of your office, and stating that a completely successful design could be produced for the outlined conditions. This statement was predicated upon the accomplishment of an exhaustive model investigation of the many and varied problems involved. Design studies have been carried out to assist in pump selection, preliminary design and layout, preliminary cost and weight estimates, and station layout. After some preliminary work in which tentative designs were suggested for both the high head pumps and their vertical suction boosters, models were selected from among our many pump designs. It was then possible, by factoring, to make hydraulic layouts, select impellers, and predict hydraulic performance. Weights, pattern costs, casting, fabricating, and machining costs have since been calculated or estimated. This information will be forwarded to you within a week. Performance curves PC 25098 and PC 25099 showing anticipated performance of the suction boosters and the high head pumps are enclosed. The single suction specific speeds (in GPM units) of the vertical booster of 1925 rpm, and the high head pump of 1805 rpm are optimum. Efficiencies shown on enclosed curves are the minimum expected for models. Outline drawings showing the High Head Pump dimensions (Dwg. 2E 1585), and the Suction Booster and High Head Pump (Dwg. 2F 866) are also enclosed. In our study of this problem, an effort has been made to recommend the combination of pumps best suited to this particular installation. This requires a medium-head vertical booster pump at relatively slow speed to produce the NPSH required by the high head turbine-driven unit. A unique casing design has been suggested for the high head tinit to permit the use of reasonable sections, simple bolting, and fully confined, circular gaskets, while at the same time permitting high test pressures without danger of leakage or rupture. As pointed out in our letter of February 6, 1959, and reiterated above, the scope of this problem is such that it should be studied in great detail by the use of homologous models. In addition to head, capacity, and power, numerous details should be thoroughly investigated on the model level. It is emphasized that extensive model work is required for all pumping projects of any considerable size, e.specially where previous work can not be applied directly. This would be true regardless of the type of driver used. We again offer our cooperation and facilities as may be required to prodiiee models and perform required tests. Very truly yours, Byron Jackson Division Borg-Warner Corporation /S/ Carl Blom Vice President and Manager of Engineering INVESTIGATION OP ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 55 Los Angeles, California March 27, I959 I Mr. Heirvey 0. Banks, Director Department of Water Resources P. 0. Box 388 Sacramento 2, California Dear Mr. Banks: As members of yo\ir Engineering Advisory Committee on the Feather River Project Alternative Aqueduct Route Studies, ve have been pleased to periodically review the progress made by your engineers and economists on these studies. We have regarded this opportunity to serve as a distinct privilege. Our participation has been as individual engineers familiar with the water field ajid acquainted with the various local areas of interest. The personnel of your staff have been most cooperative in working with and considering the expressed objectives of the Committee. The Committee has found the engineering principles and criteria used by the staff to be sound. The frequent meetings with your staff have developed our understanding of the bases of the report so it is -id-th great confidence that we endorse Bulletin No. 78, "Preliminary Summary Report on Investigation of Alternative Aqueduct Systems to Serve Southern California", February, 1959» This Committee agrees with findings of the report that Aqueduct System B is the most economical means of serving v;ater to areas south of Avenal Gap. 66 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS Mr. Harvey 0. BarUcs, Director -2- March 27, 1959 We thank you for the privilege of serving on your Committee. Very truly yours. C±^ Louis J. Ale:>^der, Chief Engineer S. C. Water Company, Los Angeles Paiil Bailey, Consult iiw- Engineer Orange County Water District Robert H. Born, County Hydraulic Engineer, San Luis Obispo County Paul Beennann, Dir. of Public Works, City of San Diego Doyle F. Boen, Gen. Mgr. and Chf. Engineer, Eastern Mun. ■{feter Dist, E. Fitzgerald Dibble, Consulting Engineer, San Bernardino MuaicipaJ. Water District ^\U-A>-vA-A-^Ly^>iA:_ George L. Henderson, Consulting Engineer, Bakersfield, Kern County blmgren. General Chief Engineer, Sa County Water Authority Henry Karfer, Consulting Engineer Kings River Water Conservation Dist. Norman H. Caldwell, County Director of Public Works, Santa Beirbara County William S. Peterson, Gen. Mgr. and Chief Engineer, Department of Water and Power, City of Los Angeles Br^nnan S. Thomas, Gen. Mgr. and Chief Engineer, Long Beach Albert A, Webb, Consulting Engineer, Western Municipal Water District of Riverside County BULLETIN NO. 78 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS TO SERVE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA I CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Since the original authorization by the Legislature in 1951 of the Feather River and Delta Diversion Projects as the initial units of The California Water Plan, a question has prevailed -with respect to the route, or routes, by which water from the projects should be delivered to the vast and and ever-growing metropolitan areas of southern California. Basically, this question is centered around the selection of one of two general aqueduct locations, either an inland align- ment with a relatively high pumping lift required to cross the mountains at the southern end of San Joa- quin Valley, or a lower level coastal alignment extend- ing from the San Joaquin Valley near the Kings- Kern Countjr line through San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties, and into Los Angeles County. Other related matters affecting southern California, over which questions have been raised, include: the time when additional imported water will be needed and how i-apidly this water will be utilized once it has been introduced; the ability of project beneficiaries to pay for surplus northern California water; water service to the various portions of southern California with construction of one or another of the routes ; the availability and cost of energy for pumping ; the possi- bility of recovering a portion of the energy consumed in pumping; and the feasibility of bringing water from the Delta to southern California from financial and economic standpoints. Further, the extensive and dynamic growth experienced in southern California since 1951, in itself, has dictated a re-evaluation of the Feather River and Delta Diversion Projects as they relate to this area. Commencing in fiscal year 1956-57, the Department of Water Resources, under legislative authorization and appropriations, undertook a detailed investigation of alternative aqueduct routes to southern California to supplement and extend prior work on this problem. The investigation was designed to provide answers to the foregoing questions, and, from engineering and economic analyses, to determine the proper location and capacity of aqueduct facilities to serve surplus northern California water to southern California. AUTHORIZATION FOR INVESTIGATION Statutory authorization of the Feather River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Diversion Projects is contained in Division 6, Article 9.5 of the California Water Code, which is quoted as follows: "11260. The units set forth in publication of the State Water Resources Board entitled 'Report on Feasibility of Feather River Project and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Di- version Projects Proposed as Features of the California Water Plan,' dated May, 1951, as modified in the publication of the Division of Water Resources entitled 'Program for Financing and Constructing tlie Feather River Project as the Initial Unit of the California Water Plan,' dated February, 195-5, and in- cluding the upstream features set forth in Chapter VI of the 1955 report, except the features on the south forli of the Feather River, subject to such further- modifications thereof as the de- partment may adopt, and such units or portions thereof may be constructed by the department and maintained and operated by it to such extent and for such period as the department may determine, as units of the Central Valley Project separate and apart from any or all other units thereof." (Emphasis supplied.) This investigation was authorized and funds pro- vided therefor by the California State Legislature in Item 419.5 of the Budget Act of 1956, which is quoted in part as follows: "419.5 — ^For surveys, explorations, investigations, preparation of construction plans and speci- fications ; surveys of, negotiations for, and acquisitions of, rights of way, easements, and property, including other expenses in connection therewith, for the Feather River Project, as authorized by Section 11260 of the Water Code and as modified by the re- port of the Division of Water Resources of February, 1955, entitled 'Program for Financing and Constructing the Feather River Project,' and as may be modified subsequently. Water Project Authority 9,350,000 provided, that this appropriation shall re- main available for expenditure until .June 30, 1960 ; provided further, that, notwithstand- ing any other provisions of law, the appro- priation made by this item may be expended to reimburse the Division of Water Re- sources Revolving Fund for expenditures incurred prior to July 1, 1956, which may be properly chargeable to this item ; pro- vided further, that $3,550,000 of this item shall be used only for engineering and ex- ploration work, and for acquisition of reser- voir sites for the Alameda-Contra Costa- Santa Clara-San Benito branch aqueduct in Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara and San Benito Counties ; provided further, that $500,000 of this item shall be used only for studies of alternative coastal aqueduct routes; provided further, that $200,000 of this item shall be used only for studies of alternative aqueduct routes to San Diego County ; provided further, that .$200,000 of this item shall be used only for location studies, surveys, engineering and exploration worli for an aqueduct to service areas within west and south San Joaquin Valley, includ- ing Kern County . . ." The Governor's budget, as submitted, which was the basis for the afore-mentioned Budget Act, had re- quested an amount of $197,900 from the foregoing $9,350,000 appropriation for exploratory and in- vestigational work on alternative routes for the San Joaquin Valley-Southern California Aqueduct through the Tehachapi Mountains (Inland Route). (59) 60 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS _ Additional funds for continuation of the investiga- RELATED INVESTIGATIONS AND REPORTS tion were provided by the Legislatures of 1957 and 1958_ The investigation of alternative routes for the San Item 417 of the Budget Act of 1957 is quoted as Joaquin Valley-Southern California Aqueduct is inti- follows : mately related to and in effect a continuance of certain „,H- T^ . ,■ ■ f .• 1 • 1 .• prior investigational work of the former Division of 417 — For studies, invcstisations, geologic exploration tjt tj i"-'-^ ^ivioiv^^j inehuiiug other necessary expenses to determine Water Resources and other State agencies on water the best and most economical aqueduct routes problems and water resource developments in the for the delivery of water to the lower San Joa- Oi 4. -d ^ j j ^ -i 1 1 /• ^1 quin Valley and Southern California, Depart- btate. Reports and data available from these investi- ment of Water Resources, payable from the In- gations were Utilized in the preparation of this report, vestment Fund $673,000" Use was also made of pertinent material and data con- Item 425 of the Budget Act of 1958, which is tained in reports of other agencies. quoted in part as follows, appropriated a total of $3,723,672. ^"6 California Wafer Plan "425 — For surveys, explorations, investigations, preparation of The Unprecedented development of California, with construction plans and specifications; surveys and nego- attendant increases in demands for water during tiations for rights-of-way, easements and property, in- -nrr u -rrr tt j ^i • t ^ 1 j? n • eluding other expenses in connection therewith, for the World War II and the years immediately following, Feather River Project, as authorized by Section 11260 of served to Stimulate public concern over the State 's the Water Code . . ." ^^^^^ supply problems. The California State Legis- Of the above amount, $760,000 was budgeted for the lature, in recognition of the growing statewide water completion of the aqueduct studies. problems, by Chapter 1541, Statutes of 1947, directed In connection with the original appropriation in the State Water Resources Board to conduct an in- 1956, the Legislature approved Senate Concurrent vestigation of the water resources of California, des- Resolution No. 19 pertaining to studies of aqueduct ignated the "State-wide Water Resources Investiga- routes to San Diego County, which is quoted as fol- tion". Funds were provided in the 1947-48 budget for lows: commencement of the investigation and additional "Whereas, The Division of Water Resources of the Depart- ^^nds were provided through 1955 by Subsequent ment of Public Works has under consideration and study the Legislatures. selection of alternate aqueduct routes to San Diego County in ™v <D lieved to result in conservative estimates, particularly bOURCtS OP WATER SUPPLY FOR with respect to the development of and demand for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA water by irrigated agriculture. In a subsequent sec- j^. -^ ^^gjj recognized that most of the southern Cali- tion of this chapter there are presented the results of ^^^.^-^^ ^^^^ ^^^ existing or future requirements for estimates of variation in projected irrigated agricul- ^^^^.^^ ^^^ j^^ ^^^^^^ ^^ presently available water sup- tural development with price. pljpg rpj^^ eventual need for importation of substantial The preliminary costs employed in preparing the quantities of surplus northern California water to the basic estimates of growth in demand for imported southern California area was set forth in State "Water water are as follows: Resources Board Bulletin No. 3, "Report on The Cali- Cost at main j ^^.^^jj^ ^y^^p^. pjj,,^ - , aqueduct, tn dollars _. , , . , j. ^, • ^ .• c i Service area per acre-foot In developing plans for the importation of supple- Kern County mental water from northern California, consideration Upper Antelope Plain 16 must be given to the availability of other possible Avenal Gap to Pumping Plant In-III 10 sources of water to supply the forecast water needs of Pumping Plant In-III to Pumping j ^j^^^.^ ^j^^^^ ^^j V ^ influence the timing and Plant In-IV lo ■ -i t ^ j.i. n ^• Pumping Plant In-lV to Pumping rate of growth in economic demand for northern Call- Plant In-vi 24 fornia water. San Luis Obispo 26 Santa Barbara 27 Loca/ Wafer Resources Ventura County 49 With few exceptions, local water resources are now Antelopo-Mojave 38 fully developed and, in fact, the existing economy in AVhitewater-Coachella 52 many portions of the area is subsisting on ground Southern California Coastal Plain and ^ Overdraft. This annual Overdraft is estimated Coastal San Diego County 4£i vmi^i I INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 69 to be about 300,000 aere-feet in the South Coastal Area, approximately 100,000 aere-feet in the Antelope- Mojave area, and about 540,000 aere-feet in westerly and southerly Kern County. There is an increasing public awareness of these dwindling water reserves. Continuing and progressive lowering of ground water levels with increased pump- ing costs, intrusion of sea water in coastal areas, and exhaustion of water supplies in certain other areas have stimulated an ever increasing use of imported water where available. South of the Tehachapi Moun- tains, this has been reflected in continued annexations to The Metropolitan Water District of Southern Cali- fornia. Restrictions on use of local ground water sup- plies have been put into effect by both voluntary action and court decree in several areas, which have also resulted in increased use of imported water and annexations to the District. In San Luis Obispo County and, to a lesser extent, in Santa Barbara, Ventura and San Diego Counties, there are additional local water resources economically feasible of conservation. However, as is shown in this chapter, satisfaction of the estimated future economic demand for water in these counties will require im- portation of substantial amounts of water from out- side sources. Estimated annual safe yields of water from con- sidered maximum probable development of local sources are presented in Table 2 by service areas. Importafion From Existing Sources Large water importation projects have been con- structed in the past and are now delivering water to various portions of the southern California area. The Friant-Kern Canal of the Federal Central Valley Project supplies substantial quantities of water to the north central portion of Kern County. However, wa- ter service from this canal is not provided to, nor is contemplated for, the westerly and southerly portion of the County. The Los Angeles Aqueduct, which has been in oper- ation for many years, brings water from the Owens- Mono basins to the City of Los Angeles. The aque- duct is capable of delivering an average of about 320,000 acre-feet per year and has been operated for the past several j^ears at essentially full capacity. The Coachella Valley County Water District has been distributing Colorado River water to its service area in Improvement District No. 1. Additional quan- tities of imported water which would be needed in portions of the Whitewater-Coachella area outside of this service area, primarily for urban growth, must be supplied from other sources. Colorado River water is also served to a substantial portion of the South Coastal Area through facilities of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern Cali- fornia. As stated, the claimed rights of the District in and to water of the Colorado River amount to 1,212,000 acre-feet per annum. In 1950-51, the Dis- trict sold 167,000 acre-feet of water to its member agencies. In 1957-58, sales of Colorado River water by the District had increased to about 540,000 acre-feet, which represents an average anmial increase of about 53,000 acre-feet. The rights of California agencies in and to the waters of the Colorado River are now in litigation instituted by Arizona. Other Possible Water Sources Several other sources of water supply were con- sidered as either possible alternatives to importation of water from northern California or with respect to the effects of these sources on the rate of growth in demand for northern California water. Reclamation of Water from Sewage. At the pres- ent time there are over 600,000 acre-feet of sewage be- ing discharged to the ocean annually from the metro- politan areas of southern California. Over the past several years, the Department of Water Resources has made studies of the feasibility of reclaiming water for beneficial use from this source. These studies have indicated that about 40 per cent of the total volume of sewage currently being discharged to the ocean could feasibly be reclaimed, at costs ranging from $13 to $40 per acre-foot, depending on the location of the recla- mation plant, use of the product, and other pertinent factors. The quantity that might be reclaimed is lim- ited by the excess mineral content of the sewage from some of the contributing areas and by the possible markets or uses for such reclaimed water. The min- eral quality of much of the sewage tends to contin- ually deteriorate with increasing industrial develop- ment unless steps are taken to segregate industrial wastes and dispose of them separately. Reclaimed water cannot be used directly for general water supply purposes. Potential markets or uses for reclaimed water would, therefore, be limited to cer- tain industrial purposes, recharge of ground water aquifers, repulsion of sea water intrusion, and minor agricultural and recreational purposes. Separate dis- tribution systems would be necessary, adding to the expense. Sewage from most of the inland area is al- ready being effectively reclaimed through use for irri- gation or disposal to ground water. The recharging of ground water basins by spread- ing or injection offers the best possibility for use of reclaimed water. On a large scale, the amount of water that could be put to general use in this manner would be limited by infiltration rates of these lands, trans- missibility of the aquifiers, pumping patterns, and availability of sufficient ground water storage. Care must be exercised in utilizing ground water storage so as not to interfere with the storage capacity needed for conservation of local runoff. It is also important that there be no continuous recycling of reclaimed water. In order to avoid increases in mineral concen- 70 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS tration, to levels which would render the water unfit for use, and the creation of adverse salt balance condi- tions in the underground basins, the recharge would necessarilj'' be limited to the coastal plain where only one re-use would occur. The expanding use of detergents is causing increas- ingly severe problems in the treatment of sewage. It is very costly to remove detergents sufficiently to pre- vent foaming in the effluent. It should be noted that the total quantity of sewage discharged to the ocean is not all "wasted" since it serves a necessary beneficial purpose in disposing of unusable saline and toxic waste products from iirban development. It was concluded that with the establishment of a definite market and the demoustration that the re- claimed water is competitive in cost to other sources of water available at the time such reclamation is contemplated, this source of water supply might sat- isfy a small increment of the total water demand of a portion of the coastal segment of southern California. This increment of supply might also be important in the event there is a delay in the introduction of north- ern California water to the area. However, this reclaimed water, because of its limited magnitude and because of the problems inherent in its reclamation and utilization, cannot be considered as a substitute for importation of water from northern California. Desalinization of Drainage Waters from Imperial Valley. An investigation was made of the possibil- ity of reducing the salt content in waters entering the Saltou Sea through the New and Alamo Rivers from Imperial Valley and transporting this water to the South Coastal Area. At the present time, the mem- brane demineralization process appears to be the least expensive method for reducing the mineral con- tent of this water from 2,000 parts per million to roughly 500 parts per million. It should be noted that the mineral content of this water lias increased in the last few years. The cost of desalinization of the 1.2 million acre-feet of Avater annually available from this source would be about $140 per acre-foot. Amortiza- tion of the capital investment plus annual operation and maintenance charges for the facilities to transport the water from the edge of Saltou Sea to Ferris Reser- voir in Riverside County would be approximately $45 per acre-foot, resulting in a total estimated unit cost in the order of $185 per acre-foot. In addition to the direct costs involved, considera- tion must be given to possible adverse effects that might result to recreational areas now developing around the Salton Sea. Without inflow to the Sea from the New and Alamo Rivers, evaporation over a period of years would practically eliminate this body of water. Investments amounting to several millions of dollars have been made along the shores of Salton Sea and, with the demand for recreational areas in southern California, additional expenditures are to be expected in this area. Conversion of Sea Water. A source of water for municipal and industrial uses which has received widespread publicity during recent years is the ocean. The desalinization of ocean water has been studied by the Department of Water Resources and by the Stan- ford Research Institute under contract with the De- partment as well as by University of California, the Office of Saline Water, United States Department of the Interior, and other research groups. Study has been made of all known methods of accomplishing this conversion. Conversion on the scale which must be considered as an alternative supply to water from northern Cali- fornia has never been undertaken. The best estimates that can be made at this time of accomplishing such conversion and reducing the mineral content of sea water to a usable quality range from $160 per acre- foot to over $600 per acre-foot, depending on the method. These estimates postulate further technolog- ical advances in order to reduce the cost to the low value. In addition, substantial costs would be incurred in pumping and conveyance of this supply from sea level to points of use inland. Water from this source, on the basis of the best information available at this time, is not competitive in cost to other sources of additional water supply for southern California, nor is thei-e any reason to expect that it will become com- petitive in cost in the foreseeable future. Summary. In view of the foregoing, it was con- cluded that an alternative source of water supply that meets the criterion of practicability, and is of compar- able magnitude and economically competitive with water imported from northern California, is not avail- able to the southern California area, and that in the foreseeable future the expected economic growth of this area is dependent upon this importation. How- ever, as is related in Chapter VII, the estimated costs of water from these sources do aid in establishing the value or benefit in supplying northern California water to the southern California area. INVENTORY OF LAND AND WATER RESOURCES The maximum limit to which irrigated agricultural or urban areas can develop is basically dependent upon the nature and areal extent of lands available for these uses. Further, the near fut^ire growth or change of these land uses is greatly influenced by the existing type and areal extent of land utilization. Accordingly, lands within the southern California area were evaluated with respect to their adaptability for various water using developments after determina- tions had been made of the present level of such devel- I INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 71 opnient. Summarized in Table 1 are the results of this evaluation by service areas. TABLE 1 PRESENT WATER SERVICE AREA AND IRRIGABLE OR HABITABLE LANDS (Values in acres) TABLE 2 ESTIMATED SAFE YIELD OF LOCAL WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT Area Irrigated lands" Urban, suburban and military lands" Total present water service area Total irrigable and /or habitable areai" San Luis Obispo Service Area". Santa Barbara Service Area«., 22,600 78,700 ■15,600 ■112,800 28,200 ■191,500 464,900 368,400 Totals- Coastal Los Angeles County^. 101,200 91,700 101,800 98,900 85,800 79,500 ■118,400 457,900 69,200 29,. 500 53,600 170,800 ■1119,700 549,600 171,000 128,400 139,400 ■1150,300 833,300 808,700 332,600 Coastal Riverside Countye Coastal San Bernardino 483,000 274,700 Coastal San Diego County!". . 713,600 Totals. Southern Cali- fornia Coastal Plain and Coastal San Diego County Serv- 457,700 123,200 357,800 103,100 65,100 681,000 26,100 26,300 ■112,400 10,600 1,138,700 149,300 .384,100 ■1115,500 75,700 2,612,600 211,300 Kern County Ser^■ice Area*" - _ Antelope-Mojave Service Area*^ - .. 1,162,100 i Whitewater-Coachella Serv- ice Area"" 1 » Gross areas containing inclusions of non-water-using lands. *> Includes presently developed water-using areas. " The data for this area were obtained from Department of Water Resources Bulle- tin No. 18, and represent the net areas of land use as of 1953. ■1 Does not include large military reservations in these areas. « 1957 field survey. ' Summation of 1957 field survey in Upper Santa Clara River Valley and 1955 field survey in coastal plain. B Summation of 1957 field survey in Upper Santa Ana Basin and 1958 field survey in Santa Margarita Kiver watershed. •■ 1958 field survey. ' Not determined. Availability of land not considered to be a limiting factor to development in these areas. As previousl}^ stated, estimates were also made of the dependability and magnitude of local water sup- plies either presently developed or feasible of devel- opment. In the case of possible future development, consideration was given to the probable cost of these supplies as compared to the estimated costs of im- ported water, local attitudes toward financing of works, water rights, and other items influencing local water supply development. The estimated safe annual yield of present and projected local water supply de- velopment by decades for the period from 1960 to 2020 is set forth in Table 2. Values for coastal Los Angeles County include the supply from the Owens- Mono basins sources through the Los Angeles Aque- duct estimated at 320,000 acre-feet per annum. URBAN DEVELOPMENT Of particular importance in planning delivery of additional water to the southern California area is the probable location and rate of growth of future urban development. Estimates of this growth were (In Ihousands of acre -feet per annum) Area 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 San Luis Obispo Service 88 175 94 181 128 181 147 181 174 181 187 181 189 Santa Barbara Service Area" 181 263 743 154 135 135 111 275 743 154 135 135 111 309 743 154 135 135 111 328 743 154 135 135 111 355 743 154 135 135 111 368 743 154 135 135 HI 370 Coastal Los Angeles Countyi" 743 154 Coastal Riverside County Coastal San Bernardino County 135 135 Coastal San Diego County 111 Totals, Southern California Coastal Plain and Coastal San Diego County SerWce Area Metropolitan Water Dis- trict's Present Service Area" 1,278 1,029 149 400 130 1,278 1,029 179 520 130 1,278 1,029 205 520 130 1,278 1,029 205 520 130 1,278 1,029 205 520 130 1,278 1,029 205 520 130 1,278 1,029 205 Kern County Service 520 Antelope-Mojave Service 130 Whitewater-Coachella Service Area^i - " Docs not include Cuyama Valley or Carrizo Plain areas. !> Includes supply available from Los Angeles Aqueduct at 320,000 acre-feet per year. " These values also hicluded In those areas containing this district. ■1 Data not available. based on projections of population and studies of probable future economic conditions in this area. The nature and extent of future economic and population growth, and the related development and uses of land, water, and other natural resources in California will be aifected both by future levels and patterns of the national population and economy, and by the economic and geographic resources, conditions, and potentialities for growth within the State itself. Accordingly, the scope of these studies included the national as well as the state level in order that the best possible picture of conditions influencing the size and distribution of California's future population might be obtained. Population Projections Population forecasts were made for the period from the present until year 2020. The following summarizes the principal general as.sumptions employed in the study : (1) There will be no devastating war, deep and prolonged economic depression, or widespread disaster occurring in the nation or California. (2) There will be a continued long-term growth of the economy of the same general trend experi- enced between 1910 and 1958, which may in- 72 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS elude recessions such as those experienced dur- ing the last ten years. "High", "median", and "low" projections of the population of the United States, California, and the southern California area were made on the basis of three sets of detailed assumptions regarding future conditions. The latest available population data for all areas were obtained from authoritative sources. Projections of future population for the United States and California were then computed through applica- tion of fertility, mortality, and net migration rates to the present age and sex distribution of the popula- tion. These estimates were prepared for each five-j'ear interval in the future with increases and decreases calculated by application of the anticipated rates of change. The elements of change were derived from detailed .studies of the probable range of future fer- tility and mortality rates and net migration for the particular area concerned. The latest projections of the United States Bureau of the Census and other agencies making projections of population were con- sidered in these studies. The net migration rates used were based on a study of census regions of the entire United States. The State's population was distributed among the geographical regions of the State by analyzing, for each region, historical growth trends, patterns of eco- nomic development, relative advantages for urban growth, net areas of vacant habitable lands, and ex- pected changes in urban population densities. In developing the regional populations, use was made of prior studies of regional land and water re.sources by the Department of Water Resources, and studies of economic potentials developed for various regions by the Department and other agencies. From analysis of the results of the projections of high, median, and low populations for the nation, California, and the southern California region, and the basic assumptions employed in connection there- with, it was concluded that the median projections were most probable of attainment. The median projec- TABLE 3 ESTIMATED PRESENT AND FUTURE POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES, CALIFORNIA, AND THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION Year- United States California Southern California region^ 1958 1960 1970 1980- 173,435,000 180,400,000 210,000,000 247,000,000 288,000,000 330,000,000 375,000,000 420,000,000 14,612,000 15,830,000 21,700,000 28,200,000 35,000,000 42,000,000 49,000,000 56,000,000 8,705,500 9,380,000 13,100,000 16,838,000 19 920 000 1990 2000 2010 2020 23.080,000 25,955,000 28,550,000 • As of July 1. '' Southern California region comprises the nine southern California counties of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Kern, Los Angeles. Orange, San Ber- nardino, Riverside, and San Diego. tions were, therefore, adopted for use in water re- quirement forecasts. Set forth in Table 3 are the estimated present popu- lations of the United States, California, and the southern California region, and the median projec- tions therefor by decades to j'ear 2020. The foregoing projections correlate closely with the latest projections of the Bureau of the Census and other demographic authorities. The estimated future population of each of the nine southern California counties and selected subdivisions thereof are presented in Table 4 and are shown graphically by Figure 1, entitled "Historical and Projected Median Population in California and Se- lected Southern California Areas". These forecasts were made in a manner similar to that described for the southern California region. In distributing the regional population to certain subdivisions thereof, use was made also of a method known as the "con- centric theory of growth". This method correlates the relationships between population densitj-, time, and distance from the center of large metropolitan areas. For the Antelope-Mojave Service Area, the data and conclusions contained in Appendix A, "Long Range Economic Potential of the Antelope Valley- Mojave River Basin, January, 1959", prepared under contract with the Department by the firm of Booz, Allen and Hamilton, were given special consideration. The projected population for the Antelope-Mojave Service Area shown in Table 4 is in close agreement with the projection in Appendix A through year 1990. Thereafter, the difference between the two projec- tions increases, with the Appendix A projection being substantially greater by year 2020. The basic cause of this difference appears to lie in the projected re- lationships between this area and the other regions of the State. The projections reported herein are based upon studies encompassing all regions of the State and the future economic interrelationships thereof, which were beyond the scope of the investiga- tion reported in Appendix A. In any event, both projections show that Cali- fornia's continuing population expansion will force the creation, in 60 years or less, of a large metropolis in the Antelope-Mojave desert, which would exceed the present populations of all but eight of the leading- metropolitan areas in the nation. It was estimated that other outlying areas in the southern California region will likewise experience great percentage gains in population throughout the study period as the present urban centers become saturated. Los Angeles County is expected to main- tain its lead in population, however, and also will exhibit a numerical gain therein greater than the total population forecast for any other county in the State. During the ensuing 20 years, it is considered that there will be a high probability for projected median FIGURE I FORNIA AND SELECTED SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREAS FIGURE I ____^ — ^ — CALIFORNIA ■^^ T0TAL-9S0UTHERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES -^ SOUTH COASTAL AREA ,^ METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT SERVICE AREA -4 LOS ANGELES COUNTY ^. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY -^ SAN DIEGO COUNTY ■^^ RIVERSIDE COUNTY AREA ■^ VENTURA COUNTY z L,-^'^^ -J ^^^ z -• HISTORICAL -F ROJECTEg, „-^;rC''^ ^^_- ^— — ^ ^ ^ ^ --^ -— - ^ iO / <^ ^ " . . — ■ ■ / y ,^- ■ y yy y ^ ' « ^ _,,,--—' yy' / ^' 9*^ y ' — ' ^ 7 , y /^ . i> ^ y ^^^^ r^' ^^^ 2 /^ /' c -'" " .^ ^ ' ' / / / / ^ -y . "^ - - " ^ ' 10 / / .#* / ^^ / /■ / y ^^ yy- ^' / / / / y yy .■^ < ?! / / / • y. .y^ ^^^'^ ■^ WHITEWATER -COACHELL A SERVICE AREA / / / ' / / A-' ^•^^ o / / / • /' — ^ >^ o z / J /I y^ / ^./^ A y / ■ ■ y y .* / / y ^/"^ y / y / /\-^ y ^ f y / y y . l^ y^' / ' / ^<^ ^ / .y /--^ / .^ X / . • * y D ,^J y^ ">^^ .•• < = 4 /x' ^^^ x/ y NOTES: X /' / / / 1 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT AREA INCREASED BETWEEN 1930 AND 1956 BECAUSE OF ANNEXATIONS 2 ANTELOPE-MOJAVE AREA COMPRISES PORTIONS OF LOS ANGELES. SAN BERNARDINO. AND KERN COUNTIES t- 1 ^•:-.-- -^ S SOUTH COASTAL AREA COMPRISES VENTURA AND ORANGE COUNTIES AND COASTAL PORTIONS OF LOS ANGELES, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES I960 YEARS HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED MEDIAN POPULATION IN CALIFORNIA AND SELECTED SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREAS DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1959 FIGURE 2 ■KERN COUNTY SERVICE AREA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA (EXCLUDING KERN COUNTY SERVICE AREA ) ■SOUTH COASTAL ARE A .INCLUDES VENTURA AND ORANGE COUNTIES AND COASTAL PORTIONS OF LOS ANGELES, SAN BERNARDINO, RIVERSIDE, AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES ■SANTA BARBARA SERVICE AREA (SEE NOTE "d" ON TABLE 5 ) SAN LUIS OBISPO SERVICE AREA (SEE NOTE "e" ON TABLE 5 ) ANTELOPE -MOJAVE SERVICE AREA 2020 NIA AREA FIGURE 2 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 liJ 200,000 o < 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 -KERN COUNTY SERVICE AREA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA (EXCLUDING KERN COUNTY SERVICE AREA ) -SOUTH COASTAL ARE A , INCLUDES VENTURA AND ORANGE COUNTIES AND COASTAL PORTIONS OF LOS ANGELES, SAN BERNARDINO, RIVERSIDE, AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES -SANTA BARBARA SERVICE AREA (SEE NOTE "d " ON TABLE 5 ) -SAN LUIS OBISPO SERVICE AREA (SEE NOTE "e" ON TABLE 5 ) ANTELOPE - MOJAVE SERVICE AREA 1990 YEARS 2000 2010 2020 PROJECTED AREAS OF IRRIGATED CROPS IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1959 INVESTIGATION OP ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 73 TABLE 4 PRESENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA ' (Values in thousands) Area 1958 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 943.4 941.5 2.0 875.3 258.2 184.6 161.9 470.5 402.3 121.6 5,792 5,731 5,087 596.8 591.5 1,020 1,018 2.3 960 279 200 180 513 449 144 6,185 6.115 5,460 692 675 1,455 1,452 2.9 1,369 443 322 281 830 695 208 8,078 7,898 7,014 1,320 1.298 1,900 1,895 3.7 1,789 710 525 482 1,310 1,029 306 9,700 9,270 8,098 1,900 1,857 2,350 2.341 4.5 2,201 1,120 840 770 1,975 1,482 531 10,310 9,632 8,326 2,320 2.243 2,800 2,784 6.3 2,585 1,680 1,275 1,159 2,610 1,894 754 10,660 9,808 8,474 2,620 2,475 3,150 3,110 7.6 2,837 2,260 1,730 1,550 3,150 2,270 958 10,880 9,908 8,551 2,800 2,621 3,455 3,396 8.5 Present Metropolitan Water District Service 3,055 2,700 Coastal Riverside County^ 2,080 Present Metropolitan Water District Service 1,840 3,550 Coastal San Bernardino County 2,580 Present Metropolitan Water District Service 1,128 Los Angeles County 11,100 10,015 Present Metropolitan Water District SerWce 8,630 2,950 Present Metropolitan Water District Service Area 2,747 Totals — Present Metropolitan Water 6,837 7,856 175.3 7,419 8,476 182 10,170 11.690 288 12,532 14,623 425 14,070 16,620 635 15,447 18,387 1,000 16,517 19,826 1,350 17,400 Totals — Southern California Coastal Plain 21,030 1,700 Totals — South Coastal Area 8,031 123.5 66.5 8,658 148 70 11,978 207 92 15,048 283 130 17,255 385 205 19,387 520 340 21,176 695 520 22,730 915 San Luis Obispo County 700 Totals — Santa Barbara and San Luis 190.0 142.0 54.0 279.4 241.4 218 157 60 291 249 299 330 99 385 325 413 726 159 480 395 590 1,188 249 620 503 860 1,619 367 850 685 1,215 1.951 488 1.150 922 1,615 2,222 575 Kern County 1,480 1,184 Totals — Southern California Region 8,706 9,380 13,100 16,838 19,920 23,080 25,955 28,550 ■ Median population projection. ' That portion of Coastal Riverside County that will be served from the San Diego Aqueduct is tabulated with San Diego County. "= Differences in the population projected in these counties and the corresponding service areas are negligible. •* Comprises portions of Kern. Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties. * Portion of Colorado Desert Area in Riverside County. populations to be realized. This is indicated by high and low southern California region population fore- casts, which show a four per cent variation from the median population in 1980. Over the full study period, the probable deviation from the median pro- jection increases, with the difference between the high and low projections being about 12 per cent in 2020. Economic Development In California, as in other areas, net in-migration, population growth, and economic expansion are inter- dependent. Intermittently in the past, the State 's pop- ulation has momentarily surged ahead of employment opportunity. However, considering the last 50 years as a whole, California's population growth has been ac- companied by a related increase in economic activity and employment. As a necessary phase in accurately estimating the levels of in-migration to California and to aid in evaluating the reasonableness of the statis- tical projections of the State's population, the prob- able future economic activity in the State and south- ern California was studied. These studies enabled relationships to be derived between economic activity, employment, and population. The results of these studies indicate that the econ- omy of the State and that of the nine southern Cali- fornia counties through 1980, at least, would expand at a rate that M'OLild attract the projected in-migration and support the forecast populations. IRRIGATED AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT The southern California area has experienced an intensive development of irrigated agriculture wher- ever water supplies have been available. Because of favorable climatic conditions, coastal portions of the 74 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS area have supported agriculture of types which pro- duce higli financial returns. Inland portions of the area, particularly Kern County and the Antelope- Mojave Service Area, have a more limited crop adapt- ability. Forecasts of irrigated acreage related localized cli- matic limitations on crops to factors of land adapt- abilitj' and availability, anticipated gross and net financial returns by crops, costs of water to the farmer, and general patterns of development estab- lished by precedent and environment. Because Cali- fornia's agricultural products are utilized throughout the nation, studies of the national market and this State's participation therein were also necessary. Land adaptability was determined from the land classification surveys. Available irrigable land indi- cated in the surveys was reduced over time by the urban development projected to occur on agricultural land. As outlined earlier, the full costs at the main aque- duct, associated with delivering water to each service area, were used in projecting land use and attendant water demands. Projection of Irrigaied Acreage The projection of irrigated agricultural acreage for each service area was made after compiling and ana- lyzing the following factors : 1. Availability and quality of land, with considera- tion of encroachment by urban and industrial development. 2. Crop adaptability. 3. Present agricultural development patterns. 4. Market for farm products. 5. Residual income available to the farmer for pay- ment of water charges and for incentive to farm, and probable return on investment. 6. Cost of water, including distribution costs. 7. Existence of local water development organiza- tions. TABLE 5 PRESENT AND PROJECTED NET AREAS OF IRRIGATED CROPS IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA » (In thousands of acres) Area 1957 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Coastal San Diego County and Southwestern Riverside County'' «61 «48 70 72 82 46 58 44 97 93 61 47 75 72 80 45 22 14 87 83 95 75 70 67 67 40 5 3 54 51 121 108 66 63 48 32 1 18 16 151 128 64 62 31 21 11 10 166 134 62 60 18 11 6 5 174 129 56 54 8 5 1 1 178 Present Metropolitan Water District Service Area _ __ -_ _- 117 Coastal Riverside County'' - 46 Present Metropolitan Water District Service Area 44 Present Metropolitan Water District Service Present Metropolitan Water District Ser-vioe Orange County Present Metropolitan Water District SerWce Area Totals — Present Metropolitan Water 303 261 236 219 221 210 189 161 Totals — Southern California Coastal Plain 374 117 325 122 291 124 254 111 257 94 252 84 239 63 224 Ventura County .- 51 Totals— South Coastal Area 491 72 18 447 72 20 415 72 23 365 83 31 351 89 43 336 89 44 302 92 42 275 Santa Barbara Service Area^ 93 38 Totals — Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Service Areas'''' 90 89 335 92 90 358 95 87 432 114 78 "606 132 66 771 133 50 831 134 32 'sio 131 Antelope-Mojave Service Area 28 Whitewater-Coachella Service Area' Kern County Service Area 797 Totals — Southern California Area.. 916 988 1,028 1,161 1,319 1,350 1,279 1 231 » Net area excludes roads, highways, farm lots, and noninigable lands within gross irrigated land areas. t» That portion of coastal Riverside County that will be served from the San Diego Aqueduct is tabulated with San Diego County. e Estimate based on San Diotjo County Agricultural Commissioner Report, 1957. ^ Excludes Cuyama area of Santa Barbara Cnunty. • Excludes Santa Maria, Carrizo Plain, and Cuyama areas of San Luis Obispo County. ' Agricultural acreages for Whitowater-Coacholla area not tabulated. INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 75 The future pattern and extent of crops were esti- mated hy decades after study of the foregoing factors. Those crops that may be expected to produce maxi- mum net returns on the required investments were of prime importance in establishing future cropping patterns, while analyses of future markets enabled estimates to be made on extent of acreages of each crop. The estimated rate of growth of irrigated acre- age was governed both by the magnitude of the aver- age net returns on investments in the various subunits as compared with historical growth rates, under dif- fering rates of return, and by local organizational factors. The projections of irrigated acreages resulting from these stvidies are summarized for selected subdivisions of the investigational area in Table 5, and are shown graphically on Figure 2, entitled "Projected Areas of Irrigated Crops in the Southern California Area". The effect of urban encroachment is evident from values shown for the coastal counties, with coastal Los Angeles County showing a decrease to a mere 5,000 irrigated acres by 1970. However, the areas con- taining large expanses of presently nonirrigated land, such as southwestern Riverside, San Diego, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Kern Counties, may be expected to experience an increase in irrigated agriculture. Projections of irrigated land were not made for the portion of the Whitewater-Coachella Service Area considered for northern California wa- ter service, since it was estimated that crops climati- cally adapted to this area would not have sufScient ability to pay for this water. Similarily, the areal ex- tent of irrigated agriculture in the Antelope-Mojave Service Area is shown to decrease with time for this reason and because of encroachment of urban lands. WATER REQUIREMENTS Total future water requirements were estimated by applying appropriate values of unit water use to the projections of population and irrigated acreages. These estimates were prepared without regard to source of water supply, and are to be differentiated from estimates of "economic demand for imported water". Unit Urban Wafer Use E.stimates of future unit values of urban water use were prepared from analyses of historical trends in these values and relating thereto the factors of climate, levels of industrial development, per.sonal income, and price of water. These trends were developed from data obtained for some 30 communities in the southern Califorina area covering the period from 1930 through 1955. It was found that per capita use of water has been increasing. On the basis of analyses of the fore- going influencing factors, it was considered that this general trend would continue in the future. The values of unit urban water use so derived are averages representing all uses in economically balanced urban areas including industrial, commercial, residential and municipal, as well as losses within local distribution systems, expressed on a per capita basis. Presented in Table 6 are the projected values of unit urban water use employed in the study. These values are considered conservative and are substan- tially below those that would result from extrapola- tion of the rate of increase in unit iirban water use exhibited during the period from 1930 to 1955. In certain parts of the southern California area, a portion of the water delivered for use returns to underground storage basins and is available for re- use. Under such conditions the net areal water require- ment would be less than the requirements computed by employment of the foregoing values of per capita water use. Also, the manner and procedures followed in disposing of sewage affect the net areal water re- quirements. The experience of highly developed southern California communities, such as Los Angeles TABLE 6 PROJECTED AVERAGE UNIT VALUES OF URBAN WATER USE IN SELECTED AREAS San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Upper Santa Ventura and Orange San Fernando Ana River Counties. Coastal and Basin, White%vater- San Diego Remainder of Plain of San Gabriel .\ntelope-Mojave Coachella Metropolitan Coastal San Los Angeles County VaUeys Service Area Service Area Area Diego "ounty Gallons Acre-feet Gallons Acre-feet Gallons Acre-feet Gallons Acre-feet Gallons Acre-feet Gallons Acre-feet per per per per per per per per per per per per capita capita capita capita capita capita capita capita capita capita capita capita Year per day per annum per day per annum per day per annum per day per annum per day per annum per day per annum 1960 166 176 0.186 .197 198 210 0.222 .235 225 240 0.252 .269 300 310 0.336 ..347 140 154 0.157 .173 190 200 0.212 1970 .224 1980 186 .208 220 .246 250 .280 320 .358 168 .188 200 .224 1990 192 .215 230 .258 255 .286 330 .370 182 .204 200 .224 2000. _ 198 .222 235 .263 260 .291 340 .381 196 .220 200 .224 2010 202 .226 240 .269 260 .291 345 .386 200 .224 200 .224 2020 206 .2.31 240 .269 260 .291 350 .392 200 .224 200 .224 NOTE: The values in this table represent all uses in urban areas, and include estimated losses within local distribution systems. 76 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS County, has been that as communities approach a high degree of land utilization, aesthetic conditions force the disposal of sewage to the ocean. Another impor- tant factor forcing ocean disposal of wastes is the threat of pollution of underground water by highly mineralized or toxic industrial wastes. It is anticipated that in other areas, where substantial population growth is forecast, and which now discharge their sewage to underground basins, sewage facilities will be constructed with ocean outfalls. Of particular significance in this regard are the communities in the Upper Santa Ana Valley area of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, the inland valleys of Ventura County, and the Santa Maria Val- ley of Santa Barbara County. Projected unit values of net urban water use in these areas are presented in Table 7. TABLE 7 PROJECTED UNIT VALUES OF NET URBAN WATER USE IN SELECTED SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREAS (1 n acre-feet per ca aita per annum) Ojai and Santa Clara Upper Valleys in Santa Ana River Ventura County Calleeuas Basin in and Santa Maria Creek Basin Riverside and VaUey in in San Bernardino Santa Barbara Ventura Year Counties County County 1960 0.106 078 078 1970... .133 083 083 1980 .118 087 087 1990... .172 129 090 2000 .233 .178 2010 .262 2020 .262 .208 208 Nef Urban Wafer Requirements Projected net urban water requirements were de- rived by application of appropriate unit values of net water use to the population projections. Set forth in Table 8 are the resulting estimates of net urban water requirements by decades for the service areas in the southern California area. Unit Agricultural Water Use For many years, the Department of Water Re- sources and other agencies have made field investiga- tions and compiled data relative to the unit use of water by irrigated agriculture. These data were util- ized in this investigation. In areas where return flows from applied irrigation water would not be recovered for re-use, unit values of total applied water were utilized to estimate net water requirements. In areas overlying unconfined ground water basins, where ex- cess irrigation applicaitons return to ground water storage and thus are available for re-use, water re- quirements were based on unit values of consumptive use of applied water. Unit values of consumptive use of applied water by representative crops so employed are set forth in Table 9. Table 10 sets forth unit values of applied water for these crops. Net Agricultural Water Requirements Appropriate unit values of water use from Tables 9 and 10 were applied to projected acreages of irri- gated crops to estimate net agricultural water re- quirements. These estimates are presented in Table 11 for the various service areas of the southern Cali- fornia area. GROWTH IN ECONOMIC DEMAND FOR IMPORTED WATER Estimates of the growth of economic demand for imported water were prepared from the projections of urban and irrigated agricultural development and water requirements therefor, giving consideration to the present and probable future magnitude of local water .supplies. Other than in the service area of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, these estimates represent the demand for surplus northern California water. After the date of full utilization of the available supply of Colorado River water, demands for imported water in the Metropoli- TABLE 8 ESTIMATED FUTURE NET URBAN WATER REQUIREMENTS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SERVICE AREAS (In acre-feet per annum) Year Kern County Southern California Coastal Plain and Coastal San Diego County Present Ser\-ice Area Metropolitan Water District Ventura County Wliitewater. Coachella .\ntelope. Mojave Santa Barbara San Luis Obispo I960.. .50.000 70,000 103,000 139,000 198,000 280,000 365,000 1,. 539, 000 2,239,000 2,911.000 .3,490,000 4,119,000 4,601,000 4,927,000 1,365,000 1,976,000 2,544,000 2,980.000 3.465.000 3.822.000 4,078.000 25,000 43,000 67,000 111,000 193,000 275,000 302,000 12,000 21,000 34,000 55,000 81,000 112,000 135,000 17,000 37.000 86.000 143,000 197.000 238.000 271.000 21,000 31,000 43,000 62,000 93,000 132.000 178,000 8,000 11,000 17,000 31,000 59,000 97,000 135,000 1970 1980_. 1990.. .- 2000 2010. 2020 FIGURE 4 SOUTH COASTAL AREA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL PLAIN AND COASTAL SAN DIEGO COUNTY SERVICE AREA. PRESENT M.W.D. SERVICE AREA KERN COUNTY SERVICE AREA -VENTURA COUNTY SERVICE AREA ANTELOPE-MOJAVE SERVICE AREA SANTA BARBARA SERVICE AREA WHITEWATER-COACHELLA SERVICE AREA •SAN LUIS OBISPO SERVICE AREA note: SOUTH COASTAL AREA INCLUDES VENTURA AND ORANGE COUNTIES AND COASTAL PORTIONS OF LOS ANGELES, SAN BERN ARDINO, RIVERSIDE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES. iZOOO 2010 2020 :RN CALIFORNIA water IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREAS FIGURE 4 3,000,000 2,000,000 LiJ UJ 1,000,000 Ll 900,000 1 800,000 q: 700,000 < 600,000 z 500,000 cr UJ 400,000 1- < * 300,000 < 2 tr u 200,000 h. _l < O z a: UJ cr o 100,000 90,000 z 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 2 o < 40,000 30^000 20,000 15,000 10,000 SOUTH COASTAL AREA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL PLAIN AND COASTAL SAN DIEGO COUNTY SERVICE AREA. PRESENT M.W.D. SERVICE AREA KERN COUNTY SERVICE AREA VENTURA COUNTY SERVICE AREA ANTELOPE-MOJAVE SERVICE AREA SANTA BARBARA SERVICE AREA WHITEWATER-COACHELLA SERVICE AREA SAN LUIS OBISPO SERVICE AREA note: SOUTH C04STAL AREA INCLUDES VENTURA AND ORANGE COUNTIES ANO COASTAL PORTIONS OF LOS ANGELES, SAN BERNARDINO, RIVERSIDE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES. I960 1965 1970 2010 2020 PROJECTED GROWTH IN DEMAND FOR SURPLUS NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREAS DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1959 INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 77 TABLE 9 ESTIMATED UNIT VALUES OF CONSUMPTIVE USE OF APPLIED WATER BY REPRESENTATIVE CROPS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA (In feet of depth per annum) County San Luis Obispo Coastal Inland Santa Barbara Coastal Inland Ventura Coastal Inland Los Angeles Coastal Antelope Valley Orange Riverside Upper Santa Ana San Bernardino Upper Santa Ana Mojave Area _. Kern Kern County Service Area. Antelope Valley San Diego Coastal Inland Al- falfa 1.9 2.6 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.4 2.4 3.0 2.8 2.1 2.8 3.1 3.0 2.4 2.5 Citrus, sub- tropi- cal 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 2.3 1.4 1.5 Wal- nuts, decid- uous 0.7 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 2.2 1.3 2.1 2.3 2.2 1.9 1.8 Truck crops "^ 3.0 2.8 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.4 2.4 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.0 1.4 3.0 2.8 Field crops 0.8 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 2.0 0.7 0.7 2.2 1.6b 2.0 1.4 1.5 Hay and grain 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.5 Flow- ers, nurs- ery 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 * Double-cropping of truck crops assumed in all areas with the exception of the Antelope Valley and Mojave areas and Kern County. ** Excluding weighted average value of consumptive use for cotton. This crop re- quires 2.3 acre-feet per acre. tan Water District area must also be satisfied by water from the north. These estimates of economic demand are to be dis- tinguished from estimates of overdraft or other meas- ures of need which may be developed without regard to the cost of water available to satisfy that need. Estimates of economic demand for imported water developed herein reflect the cost-price relationship assumed for purposes of the investigation and, also, the individual factors peculiar to each service area which would tend to stimulate or inhibit the use of imported water. Table 12 presents the resulting estimates of growth in economic demand for imported water by decades to year 2020 for the several service areas. Figure 3, entitled, "Historical and Projected Growth in De- mand for Imported Water in Present Metropolitan Water District Service Area" shows the growth in demand for imported water in the present service area of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and demonstrates the need for additional imported water in the District service area by 1970. TABLE 10 ESTIMATED UNIT VALUES OF APPLIED IRRIGATION WATER ON REPRESENTATIVE CROPS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA " (in feet of depth p 2r annum) County Al- falfa Citrus, sub- tropi- cal Wal- nuts, decid- uous Truck crops*' Field crops Hay and grain Flow- ers, nurs- ery San Luis Obispo Coastal Inland Santa Barbara Coastal Inland Ventura Coastal Inland Los Angeles Coastal Antelope Valley 2.9 3.7 3.0 2.9 3.0 2.7 3.4 6.0 3.4 4.7 3.5 5.6 3.9 6.0 3.5 3.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.1 2.7 2.5 2.9 2.4 2.5 0.9 1.6 1.6 1.9 1.7 1.8 2.1 4.4 2.1 2.2 2.2 4.2 2.9 4.4 3.1 3.0 3.8 3.6 3.4 4.6 2.8 3.2 3.4 2.8 3.4 2.2 2.2 3.0 1.8 2.8 5.0 4.7 1.1 1.9 2.0 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.7 4.0 1.7 1.4 1.4 4.4 2.3» 4.0 2.4 2.5 0.1 0.6 0^7 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.6 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.8 1.1 1.6 0.7 0.8 1.5 4.3 4.3 Riverside Upper Santa San Bernardino Upper Santa Ana Mojave Area ,_ Kern Kern County Service Area. Antelope VaUey San Diego Coastal Inland 3.3 3.3 " Expressed as net duty of applied water measured at the farmer's headgatc. ^ Double-cropping of truck crops assumed in all areas with the exception of Ante- lope Valley and .Mojave areas and Kern County. "^ Excluding weighted average value of applied use for cotton. This crop requires 2.7 acre-feet per acre. Figure 4, entitled, "Projected Growth in Demand for Surplus Northern California Water in Southern California Areas" graphically presents the estimated growth in demand for surplus northern California water in selected southern California areas. As shown in Table 12 and Figure 4, it was esti- mated that the 1,800,000 acre-feet of water per annum considered for delivery to the area south of the Te- hachapi Mountains in the 1955 report on the Feather River and Delta Diversion Projects will be sufficient only for about twenty years after northern California water is introduced into this area. Further, the eco- nomic demand for water from northern California therein was estimated to continue to grow, reaching nearly three and one-half million acre-feet annually by 2020. The table and figure also show that by year 2020 the economic demand for this water was esti- mated to approach the following annual amounts: Kern County Service Area, 1,800,000 acre-feet; Ante- lope-Mojave and Whitewater-Coachella Service Areas, 300,000 acre-feet ; Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS TABLE 11 ESTIMATED FUTURE NET REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER BY IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SERVICE AREAS" {In acre-feet per annum) Year Kern County Southern California Coastal Plain and Coastal San Diego County Ventura County Present service area Metropolitan Water District Antelope- Mojave Santa Barbara San Luis Obispo I960 896,000 1,174,000 1,644,000 2,072,000 2,220,000 2,148,000 2,092,000 519,000 494,000 445,000 4.58.000 468,000 459,000 454,000 182,000 186,000 165,000 143,000 126,000 97,000 78,000 412,000 395,000 338,000 339,000 329,000 308,000 280,100 216,000 209,000 190,000 160,000 110,000 87,000 68,000 143,000 145,000 170,000 183,000 183,000 188,000 188,000 46,000 1970 . - 52.000 1980 72,000 1990 103,000 2000 - 104,000 2010 - 99,000 2020 90,000 " Agricultural water requirements for Wliitewater-Coachella area not t,nbulated. TABLE 12 HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED ECONOMIC DEMAND FOR IMPORTED WATER IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA" (In thousands of acre-feet per annum) Area Coastal San Diego County and Southwestern Riyerside County >> Present Metropolitan Water District Service Area Coastal Riverside County •>„ — -- Present Metropolitan Water District Service Area Coastal San Bernardino County Present Metropolitan Water District Sen-ice Area Coastal Los Angeles County - Present Metropolitan Water District Service Area Orange County - Present Metropolitan Water District Service Area --- Totals — Present Metropolitan Water District Service Area « Totals — Southern California Coastal Plain and Coastal San Diego County Ventura County — — Totals — South Coastal Area Santa Barbara Service Area San Luis Obispo Service Area — -- - Totals — Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Service Areas — Antelope-Mojave Service Area Whitewater-Coachella Service Area Kern County Service Area*^ Totals — Southern California Area 1950 69.3 69.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.6 60.6 35.7 35.7 165.6 165.6 0.0 165.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 136 127 33 33 303 303 132 132 603 612 612 1970 319 289 45 45 662 662 193 193 1.210 1,240 10 1,250 15 146 1980 474 418 60 58 26 26 1,191 1,067 263 259 1,828 2,014 41 !,055 58 63 80 823 659 565 114 109 154 64 1,384 1,209 352 341 2,288 2,663 55 2,718 112 142 35 1,409 4,416 2000 826 695 261 242 317 135 1,484 1,295 421 395 2,762 3,309 115 3,424 121 28 149 175 55 1,606 5,409 2010 914 753 405 366 451 203 1,,551 1,349 465 432 3,103 3,786 168 3,954 154 37 191 195 90 1,700 6,130 2020 993 794 480 426 519 243 1,602 1,394 511 472 3,329 4,105 236 4,341 196 55 251 208 100 1,785 6,685 * Values include demands for net Colorado River Aqueduct supply amounting to a maximum of 1,150,000 acre-feet annually, but exclude demands for Los Angeles Aqueduct supply of 320,000 acre-feit annualb', which is treated herein as part of the local water supply. •> That portion of Coastal Riverside County that will be served from the San Diego Aqueduct is tabulated with San Diego County. ' First delivery of Colorado River water to the Metropolitan Water District area occurred in 1941. •* Values do not include supply from Friant-Kern Canal. Service Areas, 250,000 acre-feet; Ventura County, 240,000 acre-feet ; coastal plain of southern California and coastal San Diego County, 3,000,000 acre-feet. Factors Affecting Estimates The foregoing projections of growth in economic demand for imported water necessarily were devel- oped on the basis of many estimates and assumptions, variations from which would tend to increase or de- crease these projections. Basic assumptions included those relating to factors of aqueduct location and timing of construction, population forecasts, manner of sewage disjjosal, rate of overdraft on ground water basins, rates of unit water use, availability of local water supplies, climate, cost of imported water, and water quality considerations. It is believed that, al- INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 79 though variations in any of these items wonld change the demand for imported water at any given time, there is a greater probability for an increase than for a decrease in the projected demands for imported water. Possible variations in three of the basic assump- tions and the resulting effects thereof on the estimated rate of growth in demand for imported water are discussed herein. Climate. Since the entire investigational area ex- periences a climate of a cyclic nature, the use of im- ported water will vary during wet and dry portions of the cycle because of differences in the availability of local water supplies. The demands developed herein reflect long-term mean conditions of climate. Annual variations in the use of water in urban areas during periods of differing weather conditions are compara- tively small. Agricultural uses, wherein a greater pro- portion of the annual moisture requirements are sup- plied by rainfall during wet periods, generally may experience a substantial variation. In general, how- ever, although variations will occur from year to year, the projected long-term trend of water requirements may be expected to prevail. Cyclic climatic conditions may cause a substantial variation in the relative magnitude of use of imported and local water in portions of the South Coastal Area. The estimates of growth in economic demand for im- ported water were based on the eventual "safe yield" operation of local water supply facilities, including underground basins with, however, the continuance of overdraft in most underground basins postulated for varying periods into the future. Notwithstanding this continued overdraft, the occurrence of a series of wet years in all probability would reduce the amounts of imported water purchased both for direct use and for ground water recharge. Conversely, an ensuing dry period would occasion greater deliveries of imported water than would be postulated on the "average". It is believed that over a long-term period the demand for imported water, based on average water supply conditions, would prevail even with respect to re- charge of ground water basins with imported water. In those ground water basins wherein extractions are limited by court decree or by stipulation of the users, the weather conditions of a given year have a com- paratively limited effect on the amounts of imported water utilized. In San Diego County, where relatively large surface storage reservoirs have been constructed on most streams, the opportunity exists for operation of these reservoirs in conjunction with imported water so as to realize a yield therefrom greater than the safe yield which would be estimated for conditions of no im- ported water supply. This can be done only so long as excess aqueduct capacity supplying imported water is available to make up ensuing deficiencies in supply that would result from overdrawing the surface stor- age. When the full delivery capacity of import fa- cilities together with the safe yield of local water resource developments approaches the total water re- quirements of the area, this practice would have to be discontinued. The long-term effect on the use of imported water by this method of operation was con- sidered to be of relatively small magnitude. Price of Imported Water. Within the range of costs estimated for delivery of surplus northern Cali- fornia water by the alternative aqueduct .systems, it does not appear that there would be a significant vari- ation in the magnitude of demand for water by urban entities. However, it was estimated that use of im- ported water by irrigated agriculture in the central coastal counties, coastal San Diego and southwestern Riverside Counties and, most particularly, in Kern County would be significantly affected by variations in the price of water charged to the irrigators. In support of the foregoing conclusion with respect to use of si;rplus northern California water for urban purposes, selected communities in the Southern Cali- fornia Area were investigated to ascertain the present cost of water to consumers therein. It was found that the actual cost to the consumers in the sampled areas ranged from a low of about $35 per acre-foot to a high of $168 per acre-foot. The majority of communities sampled indicated costs to the consumers on the order of about $75 per acre-foot. These costs are not directly comparable to the computed costs of northern Cali- fornia water presented in this Bulletin, as they reflect the many expenses associated with distribution beyond the principal conveyance systems. Included among these are costs of distribution, meters and services, customer accounting, taxes, and general administra- tive expense which, it was estimated, averaged be- tween $40 and $70 per acre-foot. Production, treat- ment, and conveyance expenses were estimated to average from about $20 to $40 per acre-foot. Thus, although direct comparisons of present water costs with probable future costs, after introduction of northern California water to supplement the other available supplies, are difficult to prepare, the fore- going values woi;ld indicate that the resultant change in the direct cost to the ultimate consumer would be comparatively small. Results of studies of the variation in growth of irri- gated acreage and demand for imported water with price are i^resented in Figures 5, 6, and 7. As shown on these figures, this variation would be the greatest in the Kern County Service Area, where residual income from production of climatically adapted crops available for payment of water and incentive to farm, is less than for the higher value crops which can be grown in other portions of the area. The relationships shown on Figures 5, 6, and 7 were utilized in adjusting capacities of alternative aque- duct systems in consistency with the estimated eco- nomic demand for imported water. 80 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS Water Quality. A basic assumption in the pro- jections of water demand was that water adequate in quality as well as in quantity would be available to all service areas. A further discussion of the economic implications of variations in the quality of water im- ported for use in the Upper Santa Ana Valley and coastal San Diego County is presented in Chapter III. The estimates of demand for imported water in the Antelope-Mojave Service Area do not reflect consid- eration of possible salt balance problems in the under- ground basins in these areas. Depending on the exact physical conditions in these basins, the manner in which they are operated in the future, and other fac- tors which are unknown at this time, it is possible that the cited estimate of demand for surplus northern California water would be increased by about ten per cent, or in the order of 25,000 acre-feet annually by year 2020. I FIGURE 5 112 104 96 LJ 88 o < <0 o 80 72 < O 64 56 oc Mi < ? 48 < 40 o a: a: 32 24 16 DEMAND FOR IRRIGATION WATER >5o X X ^ \, \ --^t:^ \ ^ \ \ 10 20 30 40 50 PRICE OF WATER AT THE MAIN AQUEDUCT IN DOLLARS PER ACRE -FOOT ips between d price of surplus northern california water Santabarbara counties FIGURE 5 56 52 48 44 uj 40 36 32 O X I- 28 24 20 16 12 IRRIGATED AREA 10 20 30 40 50 PRICE OF WATER AT THE MAIN AQUEDUCT IN DOLLARS PER ACRE-FOOT 112 104 96 88 a: o < 80 Q 72 < O 64 56 < s 48 z o I— < 40 o q: (E (t 32 o u. n z 24 < 5 16 DEMAND FOR IRRIGATION WATER ^\ X X ^ \ V ~"~~"=^ \ ^ ^"^ \ \ 10 20 30 40 50 PRICE OF WATER AT THE MAIN AQUEDUCT IN DOLLARS PER ACRE -FOOT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN IRRIGATED AREA, DEMAND FOR IRRIGATION WATER, AND PRICE OF SURPLUS NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER IN SAN LUIS OBISPO AND SANTABARBARA COUNTIES DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1959 FIGURE 6 ALUES REFLECT USE OF BOTH COLORADO RIVER WATER AND 560 520 111 O < CO Q z < CO 3 O X I- < z o (- < (9 a. o < 2 480 440 400 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 DEMAND FOR IRRIGATION WATER ^ 4°ao V ^ "^ *x '^^ V ^ ^ _ 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 PRICE OF WATER AT T HE MAIN AQUEDUCT IN DOLLARS PER ACRE- FOOT S BETWEEN IN WATER, AND PRICE OF IMPORTED WATER : AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES FIGURE 6 note: IN THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT SERVICE AREA, VALUES REFLECT USE OF BOTH COLORADO RIVER WATER AND NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER. IRRIGATED AREA 260 240 220 200 180 160 ^ =^ ^ ■12.20 L_ N \ ■■v ■^205^ 140 s \ -^^40 ~~ "^ ■^^ 80 fin 40 20 n 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 PRICEOFWATER AT THE MAIN AQUEDUCT IN DOLLARS PER AC RE -FOOT o X 560 520 480 440 400 360 320 280 240 < 200 o ac (r rr 160 o 120 80 40 DEMAND FOR IRRIGATION WATER ^ 4£4o_^ ^^ ^ ^^ s ^ ^ ^--^ 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 PRICE OF WATER AT THE MAIN AQUEDUCT IN DOLLARS PER ACRE- FOOT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN IRRIGATED AREA, DEMAND FOR IRRIGATION WATER, AND PRICE OF IMPORTED WATER IN VENTURA, COASTAL RIVERSIDE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES L DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1959 FIGUFTE 7 2800 2600 2400 111 I UJ o < \m £3 Z < o X 2200 2000 1800 1600 UJ I- < IT a: o ti. < 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 DEMAND FOR IRRIGATION WATER ■s*^,^^ -:990^__^_^ ^ ^^ ^^ ^ ^^^a^s^^^^^ ^~~~~ 3 6 9 12 15 PRICE OF WATER AT THE MAIN AQUEDUCT IN DOLLARS PER ACRE-FOOT S BETWEEN b PRICE OF SURPLUS NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER \N JOAQUIN VALLEY) HGURE 7 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 O 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 IRRIGATED AREA ^0^^^^ -^^^^^^ 'TSS--^ ^-^--^ 5 oST" ■■'^•^^--^ ^^^-- ^^ 2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 o z 1800 1600 ft 1400 < z o 1200 5 1000 K 800 < 600 400 200 3 6 9 12 15 PRICE OF WATER AT THE MAIN AQUEDUCT IN DOLLARS PER ACRE- FOOT DEMAND FOR IRRIGATION WATER i^ .^990^^^ ^=^^-^, gPgQ -~~~^ ---i»;s___^ "^^ 3 6 9 12 15 PRICE OF WATER AT THE MAIN AQUEDUCT IN DOLLARS PER ACRE-FOOT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN IRRIGATED AREA, DEMAND FOR IRRIGATION WATER, AND PRICE OF SURPLUS NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER IN KERN COUNTY (SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY) DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1959 CHAPTER WATER QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS With the introduction of northern California water to the area south of the Tehachapi Mountains, there will be available throughout a large portion of this area three major sources of water supply, namely, local water obtained largely from underground sources,* Colorado River water from The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and northern California water. In planning for the proper location and capacity of facilities to deliver this new supply of water from the north, not only must recognition be taken of the quantitative needs of the area for water but also, since each of these three supplies varies markedly in its mineral quality, consideration must be given to the water quality requirements of the beneficial uses to which this water will be put. Water quality considerations therefore are a de- terminant, in this area, in the development of a plan for optimum utilization of these various sources of water supply. The purposes of the studies described in this chapter Avere to identify present or potential water quality problems, to evaluate these problems with respect to the selection of an aqueduct system, and to determine the influence of these problems on the timing and magnitude of deliveries of northern California water to portions of the Southern Califor- nia Coastal Plain and Coastal San Diego County Serv- ice Area. Of particular importance in regard to the physical and economic effects of utilizing the cited sources of water supply in the future and in developing an opti- mum plan of utilization therefor, are the Upper Santa Ana Valley and coastal San Diego County areas. The studies reported on herein were therefore concen- trated in these areas although consideration was given , to the entire area where the three sources of water supply will be available in the future. The specialized nature of the water quality study and the need for research in developing basic data therefor made it desirable to have an outside research organization perform this work. The Stanford Re- search Institute conducted this study under contract with the Department of Water Resources and pre- pared a report, published as Appendix B to this Bulletin, entitled "Effects of Differences in Water Quality, Upper Santa Ana Valley and Coastal San Diego County, January, 1959". The findings of this report are summarized in this chapter and were em- ployed in analyses presented hereinafter. * In addition, water from the Owens Valley-Mono Lalse Basin is available to the City of Los Angeles. WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS The problems of water quality are generally classi- fied as mineral, physical, and sanitary. Many munic- ipal water systems treat their water supplies to elim- inate undesirable conditions resulting from one or more of these problems. Industrial users also find it necessary to treat water before use, particularly for boiler-feed purposes. Agriculture generally experi- ences difficulty only with mineral problems. With re- spect to selection of the location and capacity of an aqueduct .system to deliver northern California water, it is only the mineral quality problems that are perti- nent. However, as in any source of water supply, physical and sanitary quality conditions must also be considered in the utilization of northern California water for urban use. Mineral Quality The mineral content of a water supply can be highly significant with respect to beneficial uses thereof, and the amounts and compositions of the mineral constituents will result in limitations in vary- ing degrees on the type and extent of its use. The United States Public Health Service has established recommended and mandatory upper limits of concen- trations of certain mineral constituents for drinking water, generally applicable to municipal uses. These are reproduced in Table 13. Based upon projections of the factors influencing the mineral quality of waters entering the Sacra- mento-San Joaquin Delta, an estimate was made of the probable long-term maximum mineral content of northern California water to be diverted therefrom for conveyance to the south, which is also presented in Table 13. This estimate of the future quality of northern California water is predicated on the even- tual construction of works in the Delta to separate saline return irrigation waters. Should these works not be constructed, an increase in the concentration of mineral constituents shown in Table 13 may be expected. There are also presented in Table 13 data on the mineral constituents in Colorado River water deliv- ered to the treatment plant at La Verne through the Colorado River Aqueduct. These data represent his- torical conditions and are the mean of 16 yearly averages of constituents in Colorado River water de- livered to the treatment plant. No consideration was given to any possible future change of the mineral quality of this water supply. (81) 82 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS TABLE 13 RECOMMENDED LIMITS OF MINERAL CONSTITUENTS IN DRINKING WATER AND MINERAL CONSTITUENTS OF COLORADO RIVER AQUEDUCT WATER SUPPLY AND SURPLUS NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER (In parts per million) Limiting concentrations of mineral constituents for drinking water » Mineral quality of imported water supplies Constituent Colorado River Aqueduct water b Surplus northern California water" 1.5'! 0.3 125 250 250 O.l'i 0.05'i 0.05'! 3.0 0.05<1 15 0.001 -- 500 (1,000 permitted) 0.4 Trace 31 90 328 7A 86 112 141 0.4 0.13 726 343'^ 226 Iron and Manganese to- Trace 30 34 Lead Hexavalent Chromium -- Phenol 20 Sodium and Potassium Bicarbonate 28 100 2 Less than 0.5 Total Dissolved Solids . Hardness as CaCOa (ppm) Total Noncarbonate 200 100 20 ■ United States Public Health Serriee Drinking Water Standards, 1946. *> Mean of IG yearly averages of mineral quality of water delivered to treatment plant at La Veine. *^ Estimated quality of water to he diverted from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta during an eigiit-year drought period when mineral content would he highest, assuming full upstream development of water storage and utilization, and con- struction of Delta improvement works. *• Mandatory upper limits: others are recommended. ® Softened Colorado liiver water has hardness of 123 ppm. It will be noted that the United States Public Health Service specifies a total dissolved solids con- tent of 1,000 parts per million as an upper limit for drinking water standards. This compares with a total dissolved solids content of 200 parts per million for northern California water and 726 parts per million for Colorado River water, as shown in the table. Hardness * is another expression of mineral content of water which is significant in its use for urban pur- poses. Hardness is generally evidenced to the domestic consumer by inability to develop suds when using soap ; it also causes scaling pi'oblems in boilers. Waters containing 100 parts per million or less of hardness are considered soft ; those containing 101 to 200 parts per million, moderately hard ; and those containing in excess of 201 parts per million as very hard. The long-term historical records of quality of Colorado River water and the estimated future quality of sur- plus northern California water from the Delta indi- cate the respective degrees of hardness, as tabulated in Table 13. The Metropolitan Water District softens Colorado River water at its La Verne treatment plant to a hardness of 125 parts per million. However, with the District's existing distribution system' this soft- ened water would not be available to most commu- nities in the Upper Santa Ana Valley and coastal San Diego County. Therefore, if softening is required in these latter areas, additional treatment plants would be required. It should be noted that under both mineral concen- tration and hardness standards, northern California water is considered to be of excellent mineral qualitj^ The quantity of total dissolved solids in a water supply for agricultural use is also important, as is the presence of specific mineral elements in varying pro- portions, such as the sodium percentage t and the presence of boron, lithium, fluoride, and chloride. Care must be exercised to avoid the accumulation of exces- sive concentrations of salts in the root zone. The higher the mineral content of the irrigation water, the greater the problems will be in this respect. Dis- regarding effects upon underlying ground water basins and downstream re-uses of the water, irriga- tion water to be used on relatively free draining soil may contain up to 1,000 parts per million of dissolved solids. Under special conditions, waters of higher solids concentrations may be utilized satisfactorily for production of the more salt-tolerant crops. The greater the quantity of dissolved solids in the irriga- tion water, the greater will be the amount of addi- tional water necessary for leaching the solids from the soil. In areas where tight soils are being utilized for irri- gated agriculture, such as on the hillside slopes of northern San Diego County and areas in the San Ja- cinto Valley, increased applications of water would be required for removal of salts and, in many instances, installation of soil drainage facilities would also be required to remove the excess water containing the leached salts. Mineral quality may be a critical factor in supple- mental water supplies used for municipal or agricul- tural purposes in areas overlying unconfiued ground water basins such as those in the Upper Santa Ana Valley. Use of water for urban purposes results in an increase in the dissolved solids content of the return flows from these uses, as does the evaporation and transpiration inherent in use of water for irrigation. The return flows from these uses percolate to the underlying ground water, mingle with natural sup- plies, and are re-used through ground water pumping. If water supplies of high mineral content are im- ported for use in a basin, degradation of the quality of the water in underground storage to unusable con- * Hardness is a measure of total calcium and magnesium salts expressed as equivalent parts per million of calcium car- bonate (CaCOa). t The sodium percentage is 100 times the quantity of sodium ions in a water divided by the total positive ions in the water. INVESTIGATION OP ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 83 centrations will be more rapid. Under continuation of these conditions, combined with limited natural out- flow from the basin to carry away accumulated salts, the ground water may eventually build up a dissolved solids content so great as to destroy the utility of the ground water basin. This condition may be alleviated by increasing the outflow from the basin, thus removing additional quantities of dissolved solids. The construction of an ocean outfall sewer from the Upper Santa Ana Valley, postulated in Chapter II for primarily aesthetic rea- sons, would also serve to stabilize and even reduce the salt content in local ground water basins. However, the greater the mineral content of the source water, the greater the required outflow. Physical Quality Physical properties of water include temperature, color, turbidity, odor, and electrical conductance. Electrical conductance is often used as a measure of total dissolved solids. Turbidity, color, and odor are sometimes caused by the type and amount of aquatic organisms present in water. Other than electrical conductance, these phj-sieal properties generally are of no consequence in the use of water for agricultural purposes. However, urban use generallj^ requires the disinfection and treatment of water to remove offensive odors, color, and tur- bidity. Physical quality problems will be encountered and treatment will be required in the use of both northern California and Colorado River water for urban pur- poses. Therefore, this particular problem will not result in signiflcaut differences in economic effect by use of either of these two water supplies. A later sec- tion of this chapter discusses treatment of northern California water. ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS Studies were made of the economic effects of the use of imported water supplies of differing quality for the Upper Santa Ana Valley and coastal San Diego County. These studies evaluated differences in eco- nomic effects as reflected in : ( 1 ) ground water basins, (2) agricultural use of water, and (3) urban use of water. The general approach consisted of evaluating the over-all cost differential to water users in the Up- per Santa Ana Valley and coastal San Diego County if projected demands for imported water therein were met with water supplies of qualities equivalent to those shown in Table 13 for Colorado River water and for surplus northern California water. The following discussion is based on the data and conclusions re- ported by Stanford Research Institute in Appendix B. Ground Water Basins An analysis was made of Bunker Hill, Riverside, San Timoteo, and Chino ground water basins in Up- per Santa Ana Valley. The San Jacinto area, being practically a closed ground water basin with localized problems, will require further detailed study before the economic effect of quality of imported waters therein can be evaluated. In the San Diego County coastal area, ground water basins are of limited extent and return flows from imported water do not find their way into usable ground water basins in signifi- cant amounts. An operation study over time, from 1960 to 2020, was made for each of the four basins including inflow from natural sources; applications of local and im- ported water in accordance with projected water de- mands; estimated interchanges between basins by export, import, and surface or underground inflow and outflow; flood flows and ground water effluent from the entire Upper Santa Ana Valley to Orange County by way of the Santa Ana River; and, in in- creasing quantities after 1985, outflow by way of an outfall sewer discharging into the ocean. Assumptions were made as to the volume of ground water that could reasonably be considered subject to the mixing of natural waters and return flows. Results of the operation study indicated that, with importation of water equivalent in quality to that of Colorado River water to meet all projected demands for imported water, ground water in the Chino Basin would have exceeded 1,000 parts per million of total dissolved solids by about year 1982. At that time, out- flow through the Santa Ana Narrows to Orange County would have reached the same quality. It was further found that, under the study conditions, ground water in San Timoteo Basin would not have exceeded 1,000 parts per million total dissolved solids until several years after the year 2000. Bunker Hill Basin ground waters, while steadily increasing in con- centrations of dissolved solids, would not have ex- ceeded concentrations of 1,000 parts per million dur- ing the study period. The Stanford Research Institute study also indi- cated that in the Riverside Basin, which is the smallest of the four in terms of estimated total storage capacity and mixing volume, the total dissolved solids content of the ground water would reach 1,000 parts per mil- lion by 1976, increasing to about 1,300 parts per mil- lion by 1982. On the contrary, the study estimated that, if north- ern California water were to be utilized for meeting imported water demands, the ground water quality would not reach the 1,000 parts per million limit in any of the basins. Estimated maximum concentrations would be 830 parts per million in 1995 in the Chino Basin, 470 parts per million in 1990 in the San Timo- teo Basin, 390 parts per million in 2020 in the Bunker 84 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS Hill Basin, and 950 parts per million in 1990 in the Riverside Basin. After reaching these estimated peak values it was estimated the quality of ground water would thereafter improve. Based upon the foregoing study, it is considered reasonable to assume that if importation of northern California water to these basins were to begin no later than the year 1982, continuity of the utility of ground water therein would be assured and the total dissolved solids in the ground waters of the various basins would be reduced over time, eventually reaching a stabilized value well below 1,000 parts per million. However, water quality conditions in certain localized areas may necessitate the advancement in the date when northern California water should be made avail- able to the Upper Santa Ana Valley. The economic effect of use of Colorado River water in the Upper Santa Ana Valley, from the standpoint of ground water development, was estimated on the basis of eventual loss of the use of the Riverside, Chino, and San Timoteo ground water basins, and the loss of the use of water entering Orange County at the Santa Ana Narrows. The safe yield of these basins and the annual supply to Orange County is estimated to be 176,000 acre-feet per year. The eco- nomic loss to the area was computed by evaluating this water at an estimated cost of importation of an equal amount of water at $25 per acre-foot, which value is less than the actual cost of imported northern California water. This economic loss would amount to a total annual value of $4,400,000. Not evaluated in the study is the possible loss of utility of these ground water basins for conservation, regulation, and distribution of local and imported water supplies. Should degradation of the waters in the basins to the point of unusability occur, large capital expenditures for surface reservoirs and dis- tribution facilities would have to be made to replace these important functions. Agriculiural Uses The economic effects in agricultural uses were de- termined by computing, for the two basic water qualities considered, the excess water applications re- quired to leach salts from the root zones of the various crops grown in the study area and, where applicable, the costs of fertilizer washed away by leaching water and the costs of tile drains to remove the leachate. Es- timates of necessarj^ excess water applications were based upon projections of irrigated acreage by crops and the .soil types upon which these crops would be grown. Fertilizer losses were estimated by relating crops and fertilizer applications to the volume of leaching required. Excess water costs were assumed to be $25 per acre-foot for the purposes of the study. Costs of tile drain systems were averaged over the 60- year period of study from 1960 to 2020. It was found that the annual increase in costs to agriculture would be between three and four million dollai's over this 60-year period as a result of the use of imported water supplies of a quality equivalent to Colorado River water rather than water supplies of a quality equivalent to that of northern California water. Urban Uses The economic effects of water quality in urban areas were computed for three major types of such uses : industrial, commercial, and residential and pub- lic purposes. Differences in costs of industrial oper- ations were evaluated on the basis of costs of such items as water treatment, operating esi^enses for removing boiler scale or other deposits in industrial equipment, and the relative number of times water could be re-used in industrial processes. Differences in costs for commercial establishments and for residential and public uses were estimated on the basis of costs of treatment to reduce hardness. These costs were based on estimates of the long-term average costs of construction and operation of cen- tralized water softening plants. The increased cost to urban entities in the Upper Santa Ana Valley and coastal San Diego County, which would result from use of waters of the quality of Colorado River water rather than that of northern California water, was found to increase steadily through the study period. This increase would result from both the projected urban expansion and the in- creasing dependence upon imported water. The cost differentials obtained ranged from $828,000 per year in 1960 to more than $19,000,000 per year in 2020. Although not evaluated in Appendix B, similar differences of economic effects would be experienced with use of the two water supplies in urban areas in the westerly coastal plain areas. These latter differ- ences were considered, however, in evaluating the effect of water quality problems on aqueduct system selection, as described in Chapter IV. EFFECTS OF WATER QUALITY ON SELECTION OF AN AQUEDUCT SYSTEM Prom the standpoint of meeting projected demands for imported water, it would be possible to delay de- livery of northern California water to the Upper Santa Ana Valley and coastal San Diego County from 1982 until about 1992, by utilizing in these easterly areas, including those areas where Colorado River water is not presently available, the entire claimed rights of the Metropolitan Water District in and to the Colorado River supply and by utilizing northern California water in the coastal plain areas to the west. Thereafter, the former areas would require northern California water to sustain further growth. However, the economic effects of differences in wa- ter quality have a definite bearing upon the proper I w \ INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 85 timing of delivery of northern California water in the Upper Santa Ana Valley. Further, these economic effects are significant in determining the relative quantities of northern California water to be deliv- ered in the easterly and westerly portions of the Southern California Coastal Plain and Coastal San Diego County Service Area. The economic effects of water quality differences were employed in Chapter IV along with main aque- duct and local distribution costs in determination of timing and relative quantities of northern California water delivered in the easterly and westerly areas. Determination of sizing and timing of construction of facilities in Aqueduct System " B " and " C ", herein- after described, was based in part on analysis of the effects from a water quality standpoint of delaying in- troduction of northern California water to the east- erly portion of the service area from 1982 until 1992. In delaying the delivery of northern California water to the Upper Santa Ana Valley, about 600,000 acre-feet annually of northern California water would have to be delivered to the San Fernando Valley after 1992 for service in the westerly coastal plain area rather than to Upper Santa Ana Valley and coastal San Diego County. This is equivalent to the incre- mental amount of Colorado River water served to the easterly areas which otherwise would have been deliv- ered to the westerly coastal plain area. It was estimated that such a delay would result in both loss of the utility of certain of the ground water basins in Upper Santa Ana Valley and the safe yield thereof, and increased costs to urban and agricultural users in the easterly areas. The total increased cost to the Upper Santa Ana Valley and coastal San Diego County which would result from the ten-year delay, measured as the value of the safe yield of the local supply which would be lost, and increased costs to urban and agricultural users from differences in water quality, was estimated to amount to nearly $200,000,- 000, or an average of about $20,000,000 per year. This is equivalent to about $25 per acre-foot for the esti- mated amount of imported water required during this period. Not included in this estimate is the value of the utility of the ground water basins for regulatory storage purposes and for distribution of local and imported water supplies. Furthermore, the plan of delaying introduction of northern California water to the easterly areas would result in long-term mineral quality of the mixed water supplies of 50 parts per million higher in coastal Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties, and an equal decrease in mineral concentration in the Orange and Los Angeles Counties area. "Without the delay and with the eventual delivery of a greater supply of northern California water into the easterly areas, the long-term quality throughout all portions of the service area would be equivalent and satisfactory for all projected uses. This factor is discussed further in Chapter IV. TREATMENT OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER Water delivered to southern California from the Delta through the San Joaquin Valley-Southern Cali- fornia Aqueduct System may be expected to have a maximum concentration of about 200 parts per million of total dissolved solids with a hardness, measured as calcivim carbonate, of up to 100 parts per million under the postulated adverse conditions. Softening of this water will not be necessary for most domestic, commercial and industrial uses. Certain uses found in industry would require special treatment of the water. For the principal urban, commercial and indus- trial uses, however, the only treatment necessary will be filtration and chlorination. It is considered that no treatment would be required for agricultural use. The turbidity in Delta water exhibits a wide varia- tion during the year, being the greatest during periods of winter rain floods. Although additional turbidity may be added in regulatory reservoirs in southern California during periods of local storm water inflow, the over-all effect of storage in the aqueduct system reservoirs will be beneficial in reducing turbidity. The range in concentrations of turbidity carried in the supply delivered to the service areas will probably be from 20 to 100 on a turbidity index. The acceptable maximum level of turbidity for drinking purposes is generally set at 10. It is considered that filtration and chlorination would be necessary before distribution of the supply within the service areas for urban pur- poses. It is probable that rapid sand filter plants with chemical coagulants added would be used for filtration purposes. Cosi of Processing Water in Filf ration Plants Based upon the large capacity filtration plants oper- ated by The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the City of San Diego, it was estimated that the cost of filtering and chlorinating northern California water for urban use would approximate $7.00 per acre-foot. This cost was estimated on the basis of a plant of 250 million gallons per day capac- ity at a construction cost of $66,000 per million gal- lons per day of capacity plus $10,000 per acre for the necessary land. Operation and maintenance costs were estimated to be $1.75 per acre-foot, and chemical costs, including chlorine, were estimated to be $3.00 per acre-foot. These costs were included in the economic analyses discussed in Chapter VII. As stated both in Chapters VI and VII, such costs were assumed to be a local responsibility and required facilities were not considered features of the main aqueduct system. CHAPTER IV ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS The "aqneduet system" concept was set forth in Chapter I as the logical basis for planning aqnednct facilities to convey surplus northern California water from the Delta to the southern California area. The selection of an aqueduct system resolved itself into two phases : the selection of an aqueduct route, or routes, to serve areas where an economic demand for supplemental water will exist; and determination of proper staging and sizing of aqueduct system facili- ties consistent with projected demands for water and basic economic principles. This chapter presents the alternative aqueduct systems which could best meet forecast economic de- mands for imported water in the southern California area, the procedures by which these systems were developed, and the estimated costs thereof. The loca- tions of these aqueduct systems are shown on Plate 7, "Alternative Aqueduct Systems". DESIGN AND COST ESTIMATING CRITERIA Design and cost estimating procedures of two de- grees of detail were utilized in this investigation: (a) reconnaissance-type designs and cost estimates used for preliminary evaluation of numerous aqi^e- duct routes; and (b) more refined designs and esti- mates for those aqueduct systems selected for detailed study. In the first instance, planning was based on avail- able United States Geological Survey maps supple- mented by field reconnaissance. Costs were obtained from estimating curves specifically developed for the particular facilities considered. In the second case, more detailed mapping and field examination were conducted for aqueduct layout and design. Preliminary designs of structures were based on filed data and quantities were determined from the detailed topographic data. These designs were carried to a degree of refinement sufficient to assure engineering feasibility and provide reasouablj' accu- rate estimates of cost. A detailed discussion of design criteria and cost estimating data are presented in Appendix G of this bulletin, which is published sepa- rately. Design Crifer'ia The design criteria employed for various items of construction are described in the ensuing paragraphs. These criteria provided the basis for development of the cost estimating curves and for the more detailed designs. Selection of Hydraulic Grade Lines. Because of the requirements of multiple pumping lifts on any possible aqueduct route, coupled with power recovery considerations, and the character of the terrain which would have to be traversed, direct determination of definite elevation control points on the optimum hy- draulic grade lines of the aqueduct routes, or of the most economical pumping lifts and power drops, was not possible. The establishment of the position of the hydraulic grade lines for aqueducts considered in this investigation was accomplished by a iinique method developed by Department of Water Resources engi- neers. The method, which has its basis in a branch of mathematics, the calculus of variations, enables the development of criteria for determining the optimum elevation and slope of the hydraulic grade line at any point along an aqueduct route. By this method, it was possible within the limits of accuracy of the data and for a given design capacity in any aqueduct, to make a rapid determination of the optimum hydraulic grade line therein, together with the corresponding mini- mum combined cost of aqueduct and pumping and the economical proportioning of size and type of aqueduct over a given ground profile. Canals. Wherever topographic and hydraulic conditions were favorable, it was determined that canal represented the most economical method of con- veyance. It was found that canal in occasional cuts of up to 100 feet in comnaon excavation was more eco- nomical than closed conduit, and that canal construc- tion could feasibly be employed for transverse ground slopes of up to about 40 per cent. Hydraulic designs were based on concrete lined trapezoidal sections. Typical canal sections are shown on Plates 5 and 6, entitled "Alternative Coastal Aqueduct Plan and Profile ' ' and ' ' Alternative Inland Aqueduct Plan and Profile", respectively. Canal sections having bottom widths of up to 42 feet and depths of water as great as 28 feet were considered. Bench Flumes. In certain reaches, topographic conditions indicated the economic desirability of using reinforced concrete rectangular bench flume construc- tion since a trapezoidal canal was not feasible and pipe line construction was found to be more expensive. This woi;ld occur generally in limited areas of rocky mountainous terrain having transverse slopes greater than 40 per cent. Pipe Lines. Pipe line constriTction was assumed in those instances where neither open channel nor (8T) 88 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS monolithic conduit construction would be feasible. In- cluded in this category are inverted siphon crossings of streams and valleys. Estimates of cost were based on the use of either steel or precast reinforced concrete pipe, depending on the hydrostatic head in the particular location. For purposes of this investigation, concrete pipe was assumed for heads up to about 200 feet, and steel pipe for greater heads. It was necessary to give considera- tion to pipe up to 22 feet in diameter, and to hydro- static heads up to about 1,000 feet. Both steel and concrete pipe manufacturers provided great assist- ance to the Department of Water Resources in devel- oping typical designs for pipe sections. With few ex- ceptions, pipe lines were assumed to be buried in excavated trenches. Shown on Plates 5 and 6, are typical sections of pipe siphons in trenches. Monolithic Construction. Under certain condi- tions, where staged conveyance of multiple precast pipes or open channel conveyance was not economical, and where hydrostatic heads would be low, concrete conduit of monolithic construction was assumed. This conduit would be either a cut and cover horseshoe gravity flow section, or a multiple box section. Pump Discharge Lines and Penstocks. Special study was given to these items because of the great hydrostatic heads involved. High strength steel pipe was assumed for these facilities. Considered in the designs Avere static heads of up to 2,200 feet. Tunnels. Because of the great influence geologic conditions have on the design and cost of tunnels and since many miles of tunnel construction are inherent in any route for delivering water to southern Cali- fornia, special consideration was given to tianneling and tunnel costs. Department of Water Resources geologists devel- oped a method of correlating tunnel design and costs with geologic information. This method, together with the cost estimating data developed therewith, is repro- duced separately as Appendix C of this bulletin. Three types of tunnels were considered, all of which would be concrete lined: (a) gravity flow tunnels with moderate external pressures, which would be horseshoe in section; (b) gravity flow tunnels de- signed to resist great external pressure, which would be circular in section; and (c) pressure flow tunnels which would also be circular in section and would have a steel liner plate as well as concrete lining. Tunnels with internal diameters up to 23.5 feet were studied. Typical tunnel sections are shown on Plates 5 and 6. Wasteways. The purposes of wasteways are to provide a means of safely disposing of excess water and of draining the aqueduct for repairs. Wasteways were located to discharge into natural drainage chan- nels where possible, and into constructed conveyance channels where natural channels were not available, and costs were estimated therefor. Pumping and Power Plants. Several methods of pumping and power recovery were considered in the investigation, as outlined in Chapter V. Pumping and power plants would be of the semi-outdoor type. Studied were pump lifts varying from about 100 feet to 2,200 feet and power drops of up to 1,100 feet. Individual consideration was given to the selection of the most economical pump or turbine installation con- sistent with the particular conditions at each site. The bases for designs were developed with the assist- ance of equipment manufacturers and Departmental consultants, and from investigation of existing instal- lations. Dams and Reservoirs. The dam sites investigated were found best suited to construction of fill-type structures. Dams up to 410 feet in height and con- taining as much as 18 million cubic yards of fill were considered. The preliminary designs of these struc- tures varied from homogeneous sections to zoned earthfill and roekfill types. On the basis of foundation drilling, where considered necessary, and laboratory analyses of borrow area materials, typical designs were prepared and carried to a degree of detail suf- ficient to establish the stability of the section and obtain a preliminary estimate of cost for the struc- ture. Hydrologie analyses were made to determine required spillway capacities. Miscellaneous. Typical designs were prepared for bridges, turnouts, gates, valves, drainage facilities and other appurtenances of the aqueducts. These fa- cilities were largely of conventional design. Cosf Estimates The estimates of cost shown hereinafter were based on construction prices prevailing in the fall of 1958. It was considered impractical for this report to pro- ject long-term price levels and the effect thereof on aqueduct system cost. It is recognized, however, that a long-term inflationary trend does exist. The effect of this trend would be to favor near future expendi- tures over deferred costs in evaluating staged con- struction of facilities. Capital Costs. The capital costs of facilities were based upon quantities obtained from the preliminary designs previously described and estimated unit costs for various items of constriiction. In addition to the estimated construction cost, allowances were provided in the amount of 15 per cent for contingencies and 10 per cent for engineering and supervision, or a total of 25 per cent for facilities to be constructed south of Avenal Gap. For construction north of that point, a total allowance of up to 30 per cent for engineering and contingencies was provided because of the greater uncertainties involved in constructing the aqueduct INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 89 through certain of the extensive subsidence areas north of Kettleman City. Unit costs for construction items were obtained from several sources. Reports of the Daily Constrvie- tion Service on recent construction contracts through- out the western United States were employed as a guide in selecting unit prices. These prices were modi- fied, where required, in order to reflect particular conditions for the item under consideration. The costs of both reinforced concrete and steel pipe were supplied by major pipe manufacturers in the southern California area. In consultation with person- nel of the Department of Water Resources, certain of these companies made field inspections of the job sites and prepared detailed cost schedules. Contacts were made with numerous other manufac- turers, and costs obtained for special items such as valves, gates, and other aqueduct appurtenances, and for pumping and power plant equipment. Annual Costs. The annual costs for operation, maintenance, and replacement, excluding the cost of energy for pumping and interest and amortization on the capital investment of conveyance and storage fa- cilities, were developed largely from the experience of agencies operating large water supply projects. These included the United States Bureau of Reclamation, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern Cali- fornia, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the East Bay Municipal Utility District, and others. On the basis of the experiences of the foregoing agencies, factors were developed to be applied to the capital costs of aqueduct facilities in order to estimate these annual costs. Operation and maintenance costs for pumping and power plants were obtained largely from information available from the Federal Power Commission. Re- placement costs for these facilities were developed in- dependently. Annual costs of energy for pumping, and of interest and amortization of the capital investment, were esti- mated as described in Chapters V and VII, respec- tively. Operaf'ional Criieria In long aqueducts, economic considerations gen- erally dictate a continuous flow operation with the use of terminal storage to regulate this flow to the de- livery demand schedule. Although this basic concept was used generally for facilities south of Avenal Gap, certain variances were necessary. As described more fully in Chapter VI, a peaking operation was required in the main aqueduct for service to the Kern County Service Area. Conse- quently, aqueduct facilities in the San Joaquin Val- ley were designed to deliver to this area a monthly supply equal to 21^ per cent of the annual irrigation demand. Additionally, an allowance of ten per cent of this peak demand was provided for flexibility of op- eration. In certain other instances the capacities of aqueducts, beyond terminal storage regulation, were sized to meet monthly peaks. Intermittent and reversible operation of pumping plants and power recovery developments were con- sidered as described in Chapter V. Reaches of the aqueduct under these schemes required oversizing to various degrees depending on the particular scheme under consideration. In addition to providing storage required for regu- lation of flows for normal operation, certain reservoirs were sized to also provide a three weeks emergency water supply. Consideration was given in some cases to the provision of excess storage capacity to firm up hy- droelectric generation where this was engineeringly feasible and could be done without incurring excessive costs. Maintenance of Aqueducts. It is anticipated that, in general, maintenance requirements for the aque- ducts will be similar in nature and magnitude to those experienced in the normal operation of existing major aqueduct systems in the San Joaquin Valley and southern California. However, there are instances where it is recognized that special maintenance prob- lems may exist. An example of such a case is the aforementioned subsidence areas in the San Joaquin Valley, where investigations are now under way to develop specialized design and construction techniques for the aqueduct. Appropriate maintenance costs for all aqueduct fa- cilities are included in financial analyses presented in Chapter VII. Normal maintenance costs were devel- oped using factors as described in a foregoing section under ' ' Annual Costs ' '. The costs attributable to spe- cial maintenance problems were developed through analysis of each particular situation. During maintenance outages, as well as during un- scheduled periods when the aqueduct might be inop- erative, the water demands on the aqueduct in certain areas could be met from the terminal storage reser- voirs. In other areas, the contracting agencies would provide the necessary storage. Staging of Aqueduct Facilities The staging of aqueduct facilities was based on the estimated rates of growth in economic demand for im- ported water and the time value of money with re- spect to effects thereof on the sizing of initial facilities and the timing of subsequent stages. The proper stag- ing of aqueduct conveyance facilities, and selection of proper initial capacities thereof, are important fac- tors in financing and have a direct bearing on unit costs of water that would be delivered by the San Joaquin Valley-Southern California Aqueduct Sys- tem. Estimates of cost were prepared for a wide range 90 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS of capacities for all types of conveyance conduits, as well as for pnmping and power plants, to arrive at a practical schedule of staging that would result in a minimum cost of water. The hj'di'aulic characteristics, methods of construc- tion, and costs per unit of cai^acity for various types of aqueduct facilities are inherently different. The economical initial capacit}'' and the capacities of sub- sequent stages of these facilities also will differ. The staging assumed for these various facilities is dis- cussed in the ensuing paragraphs. Canals. Because of the hydraulic characteristics of canals, wherein large increases in capacity are realized for relatively small increases in cost, it is generally not economical to stage this type of aque- duct. However, because of the great distances postu- lated for canal consti-uction, the large capacities contemplated, and the recognized long-term demand considered for service, analyses were made of the economics of two-stage construction of canals. Of particular importance in this regard was the almost continuous reach of canal from the Delta to the Tehachapi Mountains, a di.stance of about 300 miles. A series of analyses was made of this canal for conditions of Aqueduct Sj'stem "B", hereinafter described. Single-stage construction, two-stage con- struction with the second canal built in 1990 to serve the increment in demand until j'ear 2020, and a two- stage plan with the second canal built in year 2005, were considered. These three alternatives were com- pared b.v present worth analyses, discounting costs to 1965, and using interest rates of 2i, 3, 3^, and 4 per cent. The analyses were made for each of twelve reaches between the Delta and the Tehachapi Moun- tains, and for this section of the aqueduct as a whole. Considering the entire length of canal, single-stage construction appeared to be more economical than either of the two-stage plans for each of the interest rates employed. Similar results were foiuid for all of the individual reaches, with exception of one 34-mile reach of canal north of Avenal Gap. In this instance it was found that two-stage construction would be slightly more economical under both plans at a 4 per cent interest rate, but that single-stage construction was more economical at a 3i per cent rate. The results of these analyses for the entire length of canal from Pumping Plant I to Pumping Plant In-VI are sum- marized in Figure 8, entitled "Relationship between Costs of Single-Stage and Two-Stage Canal in the San Joaquin Valley". It should be noted that the increase in cost of this canal from a capacity designed for the 1990 demand to that estimated for 2020 would be about 81 million dollars, or 31 per cent. Thus, for an initial increase in cost of 31 per cent, the total annual delivery capac- ity would be increased about 100 per cent or from about 4 million acre-feet to about 8 million acre-feet. In view of the foregoing, for purposes of the analyses necessary for aqueduct system selection, single-stage construction was assumed for all canal sections. It is recognized that in the final design phase, it may be found desirable or necessary to reduce postulated initial canal capacities for reasons that cannot be ascertained at this time and to provide for staged construction. Related to the matter of canal staging in the San Joaquin Valley is an alternative plan, under consid- eration at this time, for providing water service to the Kings River Conservation District. The growth in demand for imported water in this area was estimated to be very slow but reaching large quantities late in the study period. Consequently, the revenues to pay for this necessary capacity would not be forthcoming for many years in the future. Preliminary analyses indicate that it may be desirable to serve this area by a separate aqueduct and not provide capacity for the area in the main aqueduct south of San Luis Reser- voir. Tunnels. The relationship of the hydraulic char- acteristics of tunnels and the costs of construction, as in canals, generally favors single-stage construction. Economic analyses made for the various considered tunnels confirmed the probable economy of single- stage construction, which was iised in the analyses presented herein. Pipe Lines. On all aqueduct routes, the long build-up in water demands and the inherent ease of staging by successive installation of parallel pipe lines dictated multiple unit construction of this type of facility in most cases. Staging has the further advan- tage of avoiding installation in rough terrain of the almost unprecedented sizes of conduit that would be required to carry several thousand second-feet of flow in a single line. The exceptions to mviltiple-stage con- struction would be short, low-head siphons where the additional cost of the transition sections from canal to multiple-barrel conduit would more than offset possible savings in multi-unit pipe line construction. Although a detailed study was made of optimum combinations of unequal stages, it was decided that the savings effected were of such a marginal nature that for purposes of the preliminar,y design and esti- mates of cost, only equal staging of pipe lines should be considered. The time of installation of each stage of pipe line construction was coordinated with the installation of pumping units. Staged development of pipe line reaches of the aqueducts would result in the installa- tion of from two to four barrels. Pumping and Power Plants. Pumping and power plants were sized and staged so that additions to capacity would closely match biiild-up in water de- mand yet would provide adequate allowance for nee- FIGURE 8 YEAR OF DESIGN DEMAND 9 9 2005 2020 DESIGN DEMAND IN MILLIONS OF ACRE-FEETPER ANNUM 4.1 7.2 COST OF FIRST STAGE IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS 257. 4 3 20.7 338.2 FIRST STAGE CONSTRUCTION COSTS ASSUMED EXPENDED IN YEAR 1965. ALL FUTURE EXPENDITURES DISCOUNTED TO THIS YEAR. 2005 2010 TAGE CANAL CONSTRUCTION 2015 2020 iSTS OF SINGLE-STAGE AND IHE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY FIGURE 8 < < O 450 z >- o (/) - O ^390 370 350 338.2 330 •^^^^ ^ YEAR OF DESIGN DEMAND DESIGN DEMAND IN MILLIONS OF ACRE-FEETPER ANNUM COST OF FIRST STAGE IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS 199 4,1 257.4 - 2005 7.2 3 20.7 2020 8.1 338.2 - a FIRST STAGE CONSTRUCTION COSTS ASSUMED EXPENDED IN YEAR 1965 ALL FUTURE EXPENDITURES DISCOUNTED TO THIS YEAR. - \> \<1 \ <^ \^ X ^\. \ COST OF S \ CONSTRUC \ (DESIGNED \ DEMANDS NGLE STAGE TION TO SERVE WATER IN YEAR 2020) \ • ^ \\ ~^^~ - ~ r^^^ 1985 1995 2000 2005 2010 YEAR OF SECOND STAGE CANAL CONSTRUCTION 2015 2020 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COSTS OF SINGLE-STAGE AND TWO- STAGE CANAL IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1959 I I INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 91 essary maintenance outages of pumping and gener- ating unitf?. Additions to pumping plants were sched- uled one unit at a time, except in a few cases where anticipated rapid build-up in water demand was found to give greater economy for a two-unit installation. Construction of successive pumping and power plants along an aqueduct reach was scheduled to be con- current so that all pumping units in the "string" could be completed and placed in service simiiltane- ouslj'. Pumping installations considered herein would have as many as 16 units. Power plants would have a maximum of six units. AQUEDUCT ROUTES Between the Delta and the coastal plain of southern California there are numerous alignments over which aqueducts could be constructed. The relative merit of any given alignment must be evaluated in terms of its cost and the degree of water service provided to areas of need as compared to other possible align- ments. There are three general route areas which might be considered for an aqueduct from the Delta to southern California: the west side of the San Joa- quin Valley ; the east side of the San Joaquin Valley ; or to the west through the coastal counties. From the Delta to the latitude of the Kings-Kern County line, it was concluded in prior studies of the Division of Water Resources, that an inland align- ment along the west side of the San Joaquin Valley was definitely superior to any other route. Such an alignment, which would traverse smooth gentle slop- ing valley lands, would be less costly than other possi- bilities and would provide service to areas of great water need en route. Also, advantage could be taken of the San Luis Reservoir site near Los Banos, where provision for about 2,100,000 acre-feet of offstream storage would be possible. Such a facility is needed to provide economical conservation of the surplus waters available in the Delta. South of the Kings-Kern County line, however, two general aqueduct routes to the area south of the Te- hachapi Mountains are apparent, each with obvious advantages and disadvantages. The continuation of the inland route along the west side of the San Joa- quin Valley, although shorter and with a minimum of construction problems, would require crossing of the formidable barrier at the southern end of the valley posed by the Tehachapi Mountains. A crossing of these mountains would require pumping water up to an elevation of about 3,400 feet. The other possibility, a coastal route, would extend to the west from the San Joaquin Valley, in the vicinity of Avenal Gap near the Kings-Kern County line, and follow an alignment through San Liiis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, and thence into the San Fer- nando Valley in Los Angeles County. This route, although requiring lesser pump lifts than the inland route, would involve more expensive aqueduct con- struction because of inherent topographic and geol- ogic conditions. As stated, both of the general route areas contain geologic and topographic features that present prob- lems in the alignment, design, and construction of an aqueduct. The coastal route would encounter difficult tunneling conditions in crossing the Coast and Trans- verse Ranges, particularly at the San Marcos Pass area near Santa Barbara and the Polonio Pass area in the Temblor Range on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. Unstable slopes also pose problems, particularly on the seaward slopes of the Santa Lucia Range between the Cities of San Luis Obispo and Santa Maria. The inland aqueduct would pass through areas in the San Joaquin Valley near Taft and Mari- copa and "Wheeler Ridge, where surface soils consoli- date and subside rapidly when wetted. Leakage of water from canals proposed through these areas could cause damaging settlement to structures. Another problem along the inland aqueduct route area is en- countered at the Tehachapi Mountains crossing where faults and some unfavorable tunneling ground would be encountered. Both the coastal and inland aqueduct routes cross not only the San Andreas fault, the largest fault system in California, but other smaller faults. Consequently, careful consideration must be given to seismic hazards throughout most of the area traversed by the routes. Further, along both route areas, there is a paucity of good dam sites and suitable reservoir storage sites required for aqueduct opera- tion. The foregoing problems and others too numerous to mention were identified and feasible solutions thereto were developed. Estimates of co.st presented herein reflect any unusual design considerations, and the resulting preliminary aqueduct plans represent minimization of over-all cost consistent with safety and security of the aqueduct. Route Evaluation Over 100 aqueduct alignments were investigated south of Avenal Gap. These included 57 coastal align- ments, 42 inland alignments, and seven "intermedi- ate" alignments. The principal alignments investi- gated are shown on Plate 3 entitled, "General Loca- tions of Investigated Aqueduct Alignments". Preliminary Studies. Preliminary estimates of cost were prepared for each of these routes. Considera- tion was given to both capital costs and annual costs, the latter including costs of operation and mainte- nance and of energy for pumping. The various possi- bilities of recovering energy to reduce net pumping costs were studied. The geology along the various alignments was ex- amined by field reconnaissance to determine probable tunneling conditions, to classify materials for excava- tion, and to evaluate foundation conditions at loca- tions considered for structures. Faults and other 92 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS geologic hazards near aqueduct alignments and struc- tures were located and studied. More refined studies were made of the alternative routes found to be superior. From these geologic and engineering analyses, there was developed for each alternative route area an aque- duct alignment which would be engineeringly feasible of construction, exhibit a minimum potential hazard that might cause failure of the aqueduct and disrup- tion of water service, and which would have a lesser cost and provide a greater degree of water service than other feasible possibilities. The Coastal Area. In the coastal area four gen- eral alignments were selected for further analyses, namely, the "shoreline", "foothill", "tunnel", and "Carrizo Plain" routes, as shown on Plate 3. Of these, the foothill route was selected as the optimum location for a coastal aqueduct as it has the least capital and annual costs and provides the highest degree of water service en route. San Joaquin Valley. In the San Joaquin Valley, three routes were subjected to more refined study : one leaving the vicinity of San Luis Reservoir at an ele- vation of about 540 feet ; another at 360 feet ; and the third, a "trough" route, at about 220 feet. It was found that the "360" route, which would be at an elevation of 325 feet at Avenal Gap, and would follow an alignment similar to that presented in the 1955 re- port, was superior to the other two from the stand- point of over-all cost, including the cost of water serv- ice to lands in the San Joaquin Valley, and was selected as the optimum location therein. In this selection, recognition was given to the problem of sub- sidence along the "360" route and to the additional construction costs in areas where this might occur. The Tehachapi Mountains. The proper location and elevation for a tunnel, or tunnels, through the Tehachapi Mountains was given careful consideration. The selection of the proper location and elevation of the tunnel is a function of the location and elevation of service areas to the south, particularly in the An- telope-Mojave Service Area, the cost of pumping, and the geologic conditions of the area considered for tun- neling. The Tehachapi Mountains is an area of high seismic activity, with numerous large faults, such as the Pastoria, Garloek, German and San Andreas as shown on Plate 3, in this area which may be considered ac- tive. Therefore, in locating a tunnel a major consider- ation is the future security of the facility. Further, tunneling conditions vary widely. Because of the ex- tensive faulting, rocks have been crushed in many areas, which would result in expensive tunnel con- struction. In view of the foregoing, pi-ograms of subsurface exploration were concentrated in this area during both the prior investigation and the current investi- gation. As a result of this exploration work, it was found that the tunnel alignment that would provide a maximum of security to the aqueduct and probably would have minimum costs would extend from the vicinity of Pastoria Creek on the north to Cottonwood Ci'eek on the south. For delivery of water to the Antelope-Mojave Serv- ice Area, it was determined that the optimum eleva- tion for a tunnel through the Tehachapi Mountains would be about 3,000 feet. However, this elevation would place the tunnel about 260 feet underground at the point where it would cross the Garloek fault. The inherent hazards of such a crossing were felt to out- weigh the economic disadvantages of pumping to a higher elevation. Therefore, it was concluded that the tunnel elevation should be not less than about 3,300 feet in order to effect a surface crossing of the Gar- lock fault. In the 1955 report, in order to avoid the high pump- ing lift, a study was made of a tunnel at elevation 1,870 feet which would terminate in Elizabeth Lake Canyon, a distance of some 26.7 miles from the north portal thereof in the San Joaquin Valley. Since this tunnel would intersect nearly all the major fault sys- tems in the area, and would have cover up to 3,900 feet, such an alignment was considered from this standpoint to be too hazardous for the construction of a major aqueduct sj^stem. Further, there is great uncertainty as to the actual cost of construction of such a tunnel. Tehachapi Mountains to Coastal Plain. South of the Tehachapi Mountains, two general alignments de- scribed in the 1955 report were found definitely supe- rior to the others considered. One of these would pass through Castaic reservoir site and into northern San Fernando Valley, and the other would follow along the north side of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains and into the Upper Santa Ana Vallsy through Devil Canyon. These routes were selected for further detailed analyses. ^ Detailed Studies. For detailed studies of the se- lected alignments as shown on Plate 4, entitled "Lo- cations of Coastal and Inland Aqueduct Routes ' ', and possible dam and reservoir sites, about 664 square miles of mapping at scales ranging from 1 inch: 100 feet to 1 inch : 400 feet were obtained, largely by pho- togrammetric methods. Supplemental map coverage was also obtained from other agencies where avail- able. Nearly 12 thousand feet of diamond drilling was performed at critical tunnel locations, dam sites, and other contemplated structures. In addition, 123 shal- low borings were made at various reservoir sites to determine availability of borrow materials. Each aque- duct alignment was walked in the field and materials to be excavated were classified. INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 93 lu the San Joaquin Valley extensive soil testing was performed on samples obtained from exploratory bor- ings along the alignment, and plots of ponded water were installed as part of a continuing study to eval- uate the problem of shallow subsidence caused by set- tlement of soils when saturated. Laboratory analyses were made of material in potential borrow areas for earth-fill dams. In addition, a search for concrete ag- gregate which would be needed for construction pur- poses was made along the alternative aqueduct align- ments. Estimates of cost were prepared on the basis of this more detailed information, as described pre- viously. It is recognized that during subsequent phases of engineering study of the aqueduct system, modifica- tions in detail will be made of the selected aqueduct routes. Such modifications may be found necessary at the time of selection of the operational scheme to be employed on the aqueduct system which, as herein- after described, cannot be selected at this time. The Coastal Route The selected coastal aqueduct route, shown in plan and profile on Plate 5, would divert from the San Joaquin Valley-Southern California Aqueduct at ele- vation 325 feet about five miles north of the Kings- Kern County line. A forebay, designated Las Perillas Reservoir, which would vary in capacity depending on the operational scheme employed, would regulate diversions to a coastal aqueduct. The aqueduct would proceed westerly, largely in canal section, a distance of 24 miles to the east portal of the Polonio Pass Tunnel. In this reach, three pumping plants, C-3, C-4, and C-5, would be required to raise the water to an elevation of about 1,200 feet at the tunnel portal. The Polonio Pass Tunnel would be about five miles in length and would be constructed through folded and faulted sandstone, shale, and serpentine. Move- ment along the San Andreas fault, which lies 4,000 feet west of the tunnel site, and along smaller asso- ciated faults cutting across the alignment, has frac- tured much of the rock in the area. Exploratory drill holes indicate that approximately 75 per cent of the rock that would be penetrated by the tunnel would be moderately to very blocky and seamy, with the re- mainder being crushed. Squeezing ground conditions during tunnel construction should be anticipated. From the west portal of the Polonio Pass Tunnel the aqueduct would proceed southwesterly across the Upper Salinas Valley mostly in canal section to Cuesta Pass in the Santa Lucia Range. The aqueduct would cross the San Andreas rift zone on the surface. The Cuesta Pass Tunnel would be at about elevation 1,040 feet and would have a length of approximately two miles. The tunnel would penetrate very blocky and seamy sandstone, shale, diabase, and volcanic rocks. An existing water supply tunnel parallels the proposed alignment about 2,000 feet to the southeast. Construction history of this tunnel indicates that al- though small water inflows, running ground in small fault zones, and heavy ground in small serpentine seams wei-e encountered, these problems did not se- riously impede construction. It is anticipated that similar conditions would be encountered along the proposed tunnel alignment. Beyond Cuesta Pass, economic analyses indicate the desirability of lowering the hydraulic grade line in the aqueduct apjDroximately 500 feet by means of a power drop near the City of San Luis Obispo. This would make it possible to construct the aqueduct pri- marily in canal section and low head pipe line south- ward along the gentle slopes at the base of the Santa Lucia Range to the Santa Maria River. Power recov- ered at this drop on a continuous basis could be trans- mitted for delivery to the pumping plants required both to the north and south. This possibility is dis- cussed more fully in Chapter V. The aqueduct would pass north and east of the City of Santa Maria, and would cross the Cuyama River above its confluence with the Sisquoc River in a siphon. There, Pumping Plant C-6 would raise the hydraulic grade line to about elevation 540 feet. From this point, a canal would continue to a siphon crossing of the Sisquoc River where Pumping Plant C-7 would lift the water to about elevation 890 feet. This would place the hydraulic grade line at the general elevation of the rolling foothill area extending south from Santa Maria Valley to the Santa Ynez River, permitting canal and low head conduit construction, as well as enabling a gravity delivery into Caehuma Reservoir, if desired. After crossing the Santa Ynez River in siphon, the alignment would turn eastward to a tunnel through the rugged Santa Ynez Mountain Range at San Mar- cos Pass, with a hydraulic grade line elevation of about 850 feet. The San Marcos Pass Tunnel would be about five miles in length, and would penetrate moderately to very blocky and seamy sandstone and shale. Explora- tory drill holes indicate that large water inflows would be encountered during construction of this tun- nel. Although abnormally high temperatures and gas were not detected in these exploratory drill holes, high heading temperatures and occasional gas pockets might be encountered during construction. Such con- ditions were experienced during construction of the existing Tecolote Tunnel, located approximately five miles to the west at an elevation of about 650 feet. The south slopes of the Santa Ynez range fall away steeply to the ocean and in many places are being sub- divided rapidly for residential development near the elevation considered for aqueduct construction. It was concluded that economies of construction would be effected if the aqueduct were placed in a series of 94 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS tunnels paralleling the coastal front of the mountains. These tunnels would have a total length of about 14 miles, proceeding eastward from the San Marcos Pass area to the Carpinteria area, where the aqueduct would continue in siphon to two short tunnels in the Casitas Pass area. Geologic conditions eneouutered by the Santa Barbara Tunnels would be similar to San Marcos Pass Tunnel, although smaller water in- flows may be expected. The hydraulic grade line elevation in tlie vicinity of Casitas Pass would be about 715 feet. The tunnels at Casitas Pass would penetrate sandstones, conglom- erates, and shales. Although no serious tunneling dif- ficulties are anticipated in this area, some squeezing ground might occur in the shales. From these tunnels, the alignment would continue in siphon crossing the Ventura River and through several short tunnels east of the Ventura River to Sexton Canyon, where the grade line elevation would be about 650 feet. From Sexton Canyon, the aqueduct would continue southeasterly in siphon crossing the Santa Clara River near Saticoy, and thence across the Santa Rosa Valley to Conejo reservoir site. The maximum head on the Santa Clara River siphon would be about 500 feet. The aqueduct could discharge water by gravity into Conejo Reservoir, which was considered for capacities up to 205,000 acre-feet with dam heights up to 390 feet. Conejo dam and reservoir site is underlain by vol- canic rocks, sandstone, and shale. The dam would be on volcanic rock, a foundation material whose strength is more than adequate for the structures con- sidered. Although insufficient volumes of alluvial bor- row are available to build the larger structures con- sidered, ample supplies of material suitable for rock- fill construction are present. Water pressure tests conducted in diamond drill holes in the volcanic rock at the dam site showed low water losses. Logs of numerous unsuccessful water wells drilled in the res- ervoir area show that little or no water was en- countered in the volcanic rock, suggesting that the rock has low permeability. It was concluded that leakage probably would not be great at this site. Water would be released from Conejo Reservoir and lifted, by means of Pumping Plant C-8 booster pump, into the aqueduct before Pumping Plant C-8. Pumping Plant C-8, located near Conejo dam site, would lift water from the aqueduct to about elevation 1,100 feet. During months of maximum delivery, a portion of the water lifted by Pumping Plant C-8 would come from storage in Conejo Reservoir, and, in the event of a shut-down of the aqueduct north of this point, emergency deliveries could be made. The aqueduct alignment would continue eastward to a terminal point at the west edge of the San Fernando Valley and would deliver water at a hydraulic grade line elevation of about 1,000 feet into local conve.y- anee and distribution systems as described in Chapter VI. Also, part of the aqueduct flow could be lifted by Pumping Plant C-9 into Bell Canyon Reservoir for regulatory aud emergency storage purposes. Res- ervoirs considered at this site would have a maximum water surface elevation of about 1,320 feet and a storage capacity of 117,000 acre-feet. The maximum height of dam at this site would be 410 feet. The foundation at the Bell Canyon dam site is composed of hard sandstone and conglomerate which provide adequate foundation strength for the con- sidered structures. Sufficient quantities of borrow ma- terial are available for an earthfiU dam of moderate height; however, for larger dams some supplemental rockfill material would have to be transported for dis- tances of up to ten miles. The City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has conducted ex- tensive exploration work at this site. Data available from the exploratory work of this agency were util- ized in this investigation. Inland Route The best inland route, shown in plan and profile on Plate 6, would extend southward in canal about 68 miles from Las Perillas Reservoir, where the water surface elevation would be about 325 feet, to Pumping Plant In-III. A forebay would be constructed in the vicinit}^ of Buena Vista Lake to supply this pumping plant. Pumping Plant In-III would lift the water to about elevation 500 feet. Several schemes of operation have been considered for this pumping plant and for the other pumping and power recovery facilities on the inland aqueduct route, as described in Chapter V. The aqueduct would then swing southerly and east- erly across the south end of the San Joaquin Valley, a distance of about 27 miles to Pumping Plant In-IV. Pumping Plant In-IV, located on the north slope of Wheeler Ridge, would lift the water to an elevation of about 700 feet into a short reach of canal extend- ing to Pumping Plant In-V. Pumping Plant In-V would lift the water to an elevation of about 1,245 feet acro.ss Wheeler Ridge. The aqueduct woidd then continue in canal section eastward about 12 miles across Highway 99 to a point about one mile to the east of Pastoria Creek, where Pumping Plant In-VI would be located. The proposed canal alignment, for a total distance of approximately 15 miles, would traverse areas where .shallow subsidence has been observed, notably in the vicinity of Taft and Maricopa and on the north side of Wheeler Ridge. Because the ground surface in these shallow subsidence areas is subject to rapid set- tlement when wetted, some method of preconsolidation will be required prior to canal construction. Exten- sive studies to determine the most desirable method of preconsolidation of these materials are now being conducted by the Department of Water Resources. INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 95 Pumping Plant In-VI would lift the water from elevation 1,240 feet to elevation 3,415 feet. A pumping lift of this height is entirely without precedent for the large flow rate contemplated. The delivery pipes from this plant would discharge to a series of four tunnels having an aggregate length of about six and one-half miles, with the longest being 3.7 miles in length. The tunnels would be connected by short reaches of siphon. The Tehachapi Tunnels would be constructed through gneiss, schist, and granite. Most of the rock is very fractured. Some zones of moderately fractured and of crushed materials also occur. It is expected that some water inflows would be encountered in the schist and granite. As stated, the Garlock fault present in this area would be crossed on the surface. From the south portal of the Tehachapi Tunnels, the aqueduct would either swing southerly toward the San Fernando Valley or continue southeasterly along the southerly edge of Antelope Valley. As subse- quently related, combinations of these two routes were given consideration. Castaic Route. For this route, the alignment would proceed southward from the Tehachai^i Tun- nels in canal section skirting the westerly edge of the Antelope Valley and would cross the San Andreas fault zone on the surface east of Gorman. From Ante- lope Valley southward, the topography is rugged and mountainous, but the steep slopes provide good sites for hydroelectric developments to recover power from the aqueduct flow as it enters the coastal slope. In this area, the route as herein described is par- ticularly adapted to a continuous flow scheme of oper- ation. With certain modifications, the route is also suitable for most of the operational schemes involving the sale of recovered power. However, should the pumped storage concept of system operation, pre- sented in Chapter V, be adopted for installation, the aqueduct route in this area would be located dif- ferently in order to permit full development of power potentialities inherent in this scheme. A series of tunnels connected by siphons would lead southward through the Ridge Basin area and the Castaic Power Development. These tunnels would pen- etrate sandstones, siltstoues, and shales. It is antici- pated that good tunneling conditions would prevail throughout most of this area, although some water inflows should be expected in the most southerly and longest of these tunnels which would be 5.2 miles in length. A forebay would be constructed above the Castaic Power Development for flexibility of operation. The Castaic Power Development would consist of two plants. Castaic Power Plant No. 1 would lower the hydraulic grade line from about elevation 3,300 feet to about 2,500 feet and would discharge into Beartrap Reservoir on Piru Creek, about 10 miles south of Gorman. Construction of this reservoir would require relocation of a portion of U. S. Highway 99. The reservoir considered at the Beartrap site would have a maximum water surface elevation of about 2,500 feet and a storage capacity of about 56,000 acre-feet, to be utilized in the event of an emergency shutdown on the aqueduct to the north or possibly for regula- tion purposes in addition to Castaic Reservoir. A 56,000 acre-foot reservoir would require a dam about 235 feet in height. The foundation at the Beartrap dam site is in dense, hard shales that dip upstream and strike parallel to the axis, thus providing adequate foundation condi- tions. Suitable construction materials for an earthfill dam are available immediately upstream from the site. Castaic Power Plant No. 2 located at Castaic Reser- voir would lower the hydraulic grade line elevation about 1,000 feet to about elevation 1,400 feet. Castaic Reservoir was considered for storage capacities of up to aboirt 280,000 acre-feet for regulation of the aque- duct flows to the monthly demand schedule. Castaic Dam would be of earthfill construction and would be about 314 feet in height for the maximum reservoir capacity studied. Castaic dam site and the entire reservoir area are underlain by soft sandstones and silty and clayey shales. Laboratory tests available at this time indicate that these materials would provide a suitable founda- tion for the proposed structure. Exploratory drilling indicates that permeable sands and gravels consti- tuting the alluvial fill in the channel section at the dam site reach a depth of about 110 feet. Ample quan- tities of good pervious borrow material are available immediately upstream from the dam site. Impervious borrow is available in terrace deposits and in finer grained sediments surrounding the reservoir area. Consideration in final design must be given to possible seismic activity both in the vicinity of this dam site and the Beartrap site. From Castaic dam site, the aqueduct would cross the Santa Clara River Valley in siphon, and tunnel through the Santa Susana Mountains which separate the Santa Clara River watershed from the San Fer- nando Valley. This tunnel would be about 5.3 miles in length and would penetrate folded shale, mud- stone, sandstone, and conglomerate. Althoi^gh minor pockets of gas and oil might be encountered from place to place throughout the tunnel and the Santa Susana fault would be penetrated near the south portal, it is anticipated that tunneling conditions gen- erally would be good. An existing railroad tunnel and a water tunnel paralleling the alignment two miles to the east successfully penetrated similar geologic conditions. The aqueduct would extend a short distance from the south portal of this tunnel and join local distribu- tion systems near Balboa Boulevard in the north San Fernando Valley. This junction point, designated Balboa Terminus, would be a reinforced concrete 98 FEATHEK RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS Aqueduct Facilities. Diversion of surplus waters from the Delta would be accomplished by Pumping Plant I which would lift the water to elevation 243 feet into a canal extending southerly along the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, a distance of about 72 miles to the proposed San Luis Reservoir near the City of Los Banos. Pumping Plant II would either lift the water from the canal into the 2,100,000 acre-foot capacity reservoir, or into a canal leading therefrom. The maximum lift into the reservoir would be about 325 feet and into the canal about 149 feet. From Pumping Plant II, the canal would continue south- ward to Avenal Gap. It was assumed for purposes of the report that Pumping Plants I and II would be operated by a steam-electrie generating plant. It was assumed that, under contractual arrange- ment with the United States, use would be made of the existing Delta-Mendota Canal of the Federal Cen- tral Valley Project which parallels the proposed aque- duct from the Delta to a point south of San Luis Reservoir. This would enable an early delivery of water to the southern San Joaquin Valley, while the new aqueduct is under construction. The new aque- duct would be available to meet water demands which will develop by 1970. Construction of the San Luis Dam and Reservoir and the aqueduct leading south- ward to Avenal Gap would be started immediately and completed as soon as possible. It was also assumed that the San Joaquin Valley-Southern California Aqueduct System, north of the Avenal Gap area, would be integrated in part with the Federal Gov- ernment's proposed San Luis Project. An estimated amount of about $100,000,000 was assumed in the studies as the Federal Government's share of cost in the aqueduct aud San Luis Reservoir. Between San Luis Reservoir and Avenal Gap, the aqueduct would deliver water to the Kings River Con- servation District and adjacent areas in Fresno and Tulare Counties, to lands in the southwestern portion of Kings County in the vicinity of Avenal Gap, and to the Federal Government's proposed service area in the Westlands Water District in western Fresno County. Total annual water deliveries from the reach of aqueduct between the Delta and Avenal Gap by year 2020 would be about 2,594,000 acre-feet, includ- ing about 1,250,000 acre-feet for the Federal service area. The estimated capital co.sts of the aqueduct includ- ing storage facilities between the Delta and Avenal Gap are shown on Table 14. Aqueduct System "A" This system would comprise a large coastal aque- duct designed to convey water to the southern Cali- fornia coastal plain and coastal San Diego County as well as to the coastal counties of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, aud to the Upper Antelope Plain area in the San Joaquin Valley. A shorter inland aqueduct, proceeding through the San Joaquin TABLE 14 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS OF SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT FROM THE DELTA TO AVENAL GAP (Based on prices prevailing in the fall of 1958) stations in miles Items Costs 0.0 to 72.3 Intake at Delta to San Luis Reservoir Capacity 13,000 cfs, Canal 69.8 miles, San Luis Reservoir $89,511,000, Pumping Plant I $43,811,000, Pumping Plant II $43,886,000. Steam Plant I $35,600,000, Steam Plant II $44 320 000 $338,510 000 i 72.3 to 120.5 120.5 to 154.5 154.4 to 167.3 167.3 to 183,3 183.3 to 194.7 San Luis Reservoir to Panoche Creek Capacity 20,875 cfs, Canal 48.2 miles Panoche Creek to Five Points Capacity 20,019 cfs. Canal 34.0 miles Five Points to Arroyo Paaajero Capacity 14,288 cfs. Canal 12.8 miles Arroyo Pasajero to Kettleman City Capacity 13,288 cfs. Canal 15.9 mUes Kettleman City to Avenal Gap Capacity 12,280 cfs. Canal 11.4 miles 64,710.000 44,210000 1 i 10,760,000 i 13,610000 , 7,900,000 ' $479,700,000 Engineering and Contingencies Total Capital Cost-. 130,030,000 *$609,730,000 • Capital costs include estimated Federal Investment of about $100,000,000 in: facilities for tlie San Luis service area. j Valley, crossing the Tehachapi Mountains and reach- ing as far as Little Rock Creek in the Antelope Val- ley, would convey water for most of the San Joaquin' Valley portion of Kern County, and the Antelope- Mojave and Whitewater-Coachella Service Areas. The general features of this system with "steam- electric and feedback" operational scheme are shown on Plate 7, and the lengths of various types of con- veyance works, pumping lifts, power drops, and regu- latory storage reservoirs, are summarized following: Delta to Avenal Gap Coastal Aqueduct 116 Inland Aqueduct 153 Totals 461 AQUEDUCT Length in miles Canal and flume . 192 116 . 153 Siph on and Miscel- Tunnel penstock laneous 2 1 31 113 6 10 3 Total 19;-5 2(i0 172 37 125 PUMPING PLANTS Number of plants Delta to Avenal Gap 2 Coastal Aqueduct 7 Inland Aqueduct 4 POWER RECOVERY PLANTS Number of plants Delta to Avenal Gap Coastal Aqueduct 1 Inland Aqueduct 1 627 Net operatinff head, in feet 39.J to 571 1,836 to 2,374 3,171 Net operating head, in feet 503 325 ^ I INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 99 REGULATORY RESERVOIRS Gross storage Height of dam capacity, in ahove streamhed, Heservoir acre-feet in feet San Luis 2,100,000 310 Conejo 205,000 390 Bell Canyon 117,000 410 Aqueduct facilities in the San Joaquin Valley would be constructed with the objective of reaching the Wheeler Ridge area and beginning water deliv- eries in Kern County about the year 1965. Concur- rently, construction would progress on the first stage of the large coastal aqueduct to the San Fernando Valley and deliveries would be made in the Central and South Coastal Areas by about 1971, with addi- tional stages constructed to meet the water demand build-up to the year 2020. Construction would be continued on the inland aqueduct from the San Joa- quin Valley through the Tehachapi Mountains to de- liver water into the Antelope Valley, beginning about the year 1972. Regulatory and emergency storage for the large coastal aqueduct would be provided in Conejo and Bell Canyon Reservoirs, with the latter primarily devoted to emergency service. During the early period of build-up of water demand, only Conejo Reservoir would be needed, and completion of construction of Bell Canvon Reservoir would be delayed until about 1994. Projected water deliveries over time to the various service areas from Aqueduct System "A" are pre- sented in Table 15 and are illustrated on Plate 8, entitled "Schematic Diagram of "Water Deliveries from Aqueduct System 'A' ". The estimated capital costs of this aqueduct system with the "steam-electric and feedback" operational scheme are presented by aqueduct reaches in Table 16, and are summarized following : Aqueduct reach Capital cost* Delta to San Luis Reservoir $314,000,000 San Luis Reservoir 112,000,000 San Luis Reservoir to Avenal Gap 184,000,000 Coastal Aqueduct Avenal Gap to San Fernando Valley 1,663,000,000 Inland Aqueduct Avenal Gap to Little Rock Creek 189,000,000 Total $2,462,000,000 • Includes estimated Federal Investment of about $100,000,000 in facilities for San Luis service area. TABLE 15 SCHEDULE OF WATER DELIVERIES FROM AQUEDUCT SYSTEM "A" First ■water deUvery Water deliveries in thousands of acre-feet Service area First year 1965 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Kern County (San Joaquin Valley) 1971 1965 1966 1967 1971 1991 1972 1971 1971 1971 1991 1971 1972 1972 1982 1982 1971 9 8 11 7 1 1 1 17 1 1 1 13 1 26 12 18 95 ""s 68 41 14 95 448 211 34 301 684 340 53 370 743 414 58 370 751 507 61 370 759 593 63 Pumping Plant In-III to Pumping Plant In-IV Pumping Plant In-IV to Pumping Plant In-VI Subtotals 8 123 788 3 '"2 1,378 10 9 1,585 11 7 10 1,689 14 13 11 1,785 15 29 11 San Luis Obispo Subtotals .... 5 35 9 12 19 46 22 20 28 58 24 32 38 69 27 48 55 90 35 61 Santa Barbara Santa Maria Valley. Santa Ynez Valley _ South Coastal Area Subtotals .... .... 56 41 88 "55 114 6 109 144 10 158 186 Ventura County Santa Clara-Calleguas Area 225 Subtotals .... 41 5 70 55 14 87 41 115 20 90 65 168 26 88 81 Antelope-Moj ave Kern County 33 San Bernardino County. . 89 Subtotals .... — - 75 864 142 35 1,513 175 55 2,160 195 90 2,635 208 Whitewater-Coachella Southern California Coastal Plain and Coastal San Diego County 2,955 Totals-. 8 123 1,829 3,230 4,232 4,959 5,525 100 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS TABLE 16 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS OF FEATURES OF AQUEDUCT SYSTEM "A" FOR THE "STEAM-ELECTRIC AND FEEDBACK" OPERATIONAL SCHEME {Based on prices prevailing in the fall of 1958) Stations in miles Iteins Cost Stations in miles Items Cost DELTA TO AVENAL GAP - "$479,700,000 84,980.000 25,600,000 92,270,000 29,020,000 195 to 207-.. 207 to 239--- 239 to 241... 241 to 250--- 230 to 254--- COASTAL AQUEDUCT— Continued Santa Barbara Tunnels to Casitas Reservoir Capacity 4,392 cfs, Casitas Pass Tunnels 1.9 miles. Siphon 10.2 miles — 4 stages @ l,098cfs - 64,670,000 240,070.000 80.160.000 •> 54.100.000 22.300,000 COASTAL AQUEDUCT Avenal Gap to Pumpins Plant C-4 Capacity 6,147 cfs. Canal 12.4 miles, Steam Plant No. 1 $57,600,000, Pumping Plant C-3 $16,512,000—10 units Cm 384 cfs. Penstocks $2,304,000—8 stages @ 768 cfs Oto 1.3. ._ Casitas Reservoir to Conejo Reservoir Capacity 4,377 cfs. Ventura Tunnels 1.0 mile. Siphon 30 . 8 miles— 4 stages (5| 1 ,094 cfs, Conejo Reservoir S31,519,b00- Conejo Reservoir through Pumping Plant C-8 Capacity 4,886 cfs. Siphon 1.4 miles — 4 stages (2) 1,221 cfs. Pumping Plant C-8 $22,144,000—16 units @ ,303 cfs. Booster Pump $2,176,000 — 1 units @ 184 cfs. Penstocks $4,800,000—8 stages @ 610 cfs, Steam Plant No. 2 $38,400,000 Pumping Plant C-8 to Ventura-Los Angeles County Line Capacity 4.774 cfs. Siphon 8.9 miles.— 4 stages @ 1,194 cfs 13 to 18... Pumping Plant C-4 to Pimiping Plant C-5 Capacity 5.250 cfs. Canal 5.0 miles. Pumping Plant C-4 $16,768,000—16 units fil 328 cfs. Penstocks Sl,728,000— 18 to .38--- Pumping Plant C-5 to Shandon Capacity 4,724 cfs. Canal 10.9 miles. Polonio Pass Tunnel 5.0 miles. Siphon 3.8 miles — 4 stages (5) 1.181 cfs, Pump- ing Plant C-5 $14,464,000—16 units @ 295 cfs. Penstocks $2,944,000—8 stages Ventura-Los Angeles County Line to Liberty Canyon Capacity 4,760 cfs. Siphon 4.3 miles — 4 38 to 56-.- Shandon to Huerhuero Creek Capacity 4,717 cfs. Canal 14.9 miles. Siphon 2.7 miles — 4 stages @ 1,179 cfs.. Huerhuero Creek to Santa Margarita Capacity 4,708 cfs. Canal 9.1 miles, Siphon 14.0 miles— 4 stages @ 1,177 cfs.. Santa Margarita to San Luis Obispo Capacity 4,704 cfs, Cuesta Pass Tunnel 2.2 mUes, Siphon 5.6 miles— 4 stages @ 1,176 cfs, San Luis Obispo Po-ner Plant $14,976,000 — 4 units (Si 1.176 cfs. Pen- stocks $1,920,000 — 4 stages @ 1,176 cfs. Transmission Lines $9,152,000 San Luis Obispo to Arroyo Grande Capacity 4,685 cfs. Canal 12.0 miles, Siphon 4.2 miles — 4 stages @ 1,171 cfs.. Arroyo Grande to Nipomo Capacity 4,664 cfs, Canal 5.5 miles. Siphon 4.4 miles — 4 stages @ 1.166 cfs -- 56 to 79... 79 to 87... 86,920,000 77,670,000 36,700,000 26,820,000 254 to 258-.- 258 to 260.-. to 68--- Liberty Canyon through Woodland Hills Tunnels Capacity 4,599 cfs, Woodland Hills Tunnels 1.6 miles, Siphon 2 . miles — 4 staues (Si 1 150 cfs 24.850,000 57,050,000 Woodland Hills Tunnels to Bell Canyon Reservoir Capacity 2,844 cfs. Siphon 2.8 miles — 4 stages (Sj 711 cfs. Bell Canyon Reservoir $39,555,000. Pumping Plant C-9 $3,616,000 — t units @ 150 cfs $1,330,350,000 $32,190,000 103 to 113--- INLAND AQUEDUCT Avenal Gap to Pumping Plant In-III Capacity 5,275 cfs. Canal 67.0 miles 113 to 125... 123 to 137--- Nipomo to Santa Maria Valley Capacity 4.648 cfs. Canal 10.0 miles. Siphon 1.5 miles— 4 stages @ 1,162 cfs .- Santa Maria Valley to Pumping Plant C-7 Capacity 4.537 cfs. Canal 9.7 miles. Siphon 2.4 miles — 4 stages © 1,1.34 cfs. Pumping Plant C-6 $11,136,000—16 units @ 283 cfs. Penstocks $704,000—8 16,880,000 32,780,000 29,760,000 71,750,000 90,910,000 85,090,000 68 to 95-.- 95 to 110-.- 110 to 172--- Pumping Plant In-III to Pumping Plant In-IV Capacity 2,336 cfs. Canal 26.3 miles. Pumping Plant In-III $6,010,090 — 8 units (5) 294 cfs. Penstocks $448,000 — 4 stages @ 590 cfs. Steam Plant $21 ,600,000, Transmission Lines $1 760.000 41,940,000 13,630,000 63,250.000 Pumping Plant In-IV to Pumping Plant In-VI Capacity 683 cfs. Canal 11.6 miles. Pumping Plant In-IV $2.144,000 — 4 units (a 171 cfs. Pumping Plant In-V $3.360.- 000 — 4 units @ 171 cfs. Penstocks $2,250,000—2 stages (Si 342 cfs .- Pumping Plant In-VI to Little Rock Creek Capacity 441 cfs. Tehachapi Tunnels 6.3 miles. Canal 47.6 miles. Siphon 5.9 miles — 1 staire (3) 441 cfs, Pumping Plant In-VI $6,560,000—2 units (31 220 cfs, Cottonwood Power Plant $1,360,000 — 2 units @ 220 cfs. Penstocks $4,928,000—2 stages @ 220 cfs - 137 to 143... Pumping Plant C-7 to Cuaslui Creek Capacity 4,524 cfs. Canal 6.3 miles. Pumping Plant C-7 $15,232,000—16 units @ 283 cfs. Penstocks $1,408,000— 143 to 107... 167 to 181... Cuaslui Creek to Cachuma Dam Capacity 4.496 cfs. Canal 15.9 miles. Siphon 7.5 miles — 4 stages ® 1.124 cfs -. Cachuma Dam through San Marcos Pass Capacity 4,476 cfs, Canal 4.2 miles, San Marcos Pass Tunnel 5.4 miles. Siphon $151,010,000 1,961,060,000 500,370,000 San Marcos Pass through Santa Barbara Tunnels Capacity 4,408 cfs, Santa Barbara Tun- nels 13.7 miles 181 to 195-.- Total Capital Cost i>$2,461 ,430,000 " Cost of facilities from Pelt a to Avenal Gap ba.sed on continuous operation of Tumping Plants I and II using electric motor drive with energy supplied by steam-electric gen^ eration. Summarized costs of anueduct features from the Delta to Avenal Gap are presented in Tabic 14. I" Capital costs include estimated Federal investment of about $100,000,000 in facilities for the San Luis service area. INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 101 The estimated portion of these capital costs required through the east branch to Perris to avoid eonstrue- for the described initial construction sequence is about tion of another major east-west feeder. Furthermore, $1,390,000,000, of which about $90,000,000 represents it was found that it would be possible to increase the the estimated Federal expenditures in facilities for deliveries through the west branch to Balboa to as the San Luis service area. This sum represents all ex- much as 1.8 million acre-feet per year, with the bal- penditures on the system through year 1971 and auce of 1.4 million acre-feet to Perris Reservoir, with- would permit construction of the inland aqueduct to out necessity of constructing a major west to east Little Rock Creek in Antelope Valley and the first feeder across the entire coastal plain area, stage of construction of the coastal aqueduct to San Based upon the foregoing considerations, an analy- Peruando Valley. sis was made of dividing the flow in the inland aque- Equivalent annual costs of capital recovery and in- duct between east and west branches under two plans terest at 3^ per cent, operation and maintenance, re- operated by the "steam-drive and feedback" scheme, placement and general expense, and energy for pump- which are summarized as follows : ing over the economic life of the aqueduct system Water delivery to South would be about $88,000,000. Coastal Area*, in year 2020, in millions of acre-feet Aqueduct System "B" it'es* East brunch branch Total This sj^stem would comprise a large inland aqueduct plan 1 traversing the San Joaquin Valley and delivering Existing Colorado River Aque- water to Kern County en route and, after crossing the LANT In-SZL NOTES: 1. DOES NOT INCLUDE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF DIFFERENCES IN WATER QUALITY. 2. VALUES REFLECT WATER DELIVERIES TO DESERT AREAS I _L 2.0 2.5 3.0 BRANCH IN MILLIONS OFACRE-FEET 3.5 IF AND WATER DELIVERIES THROUGH B OF THE INLAND AQUEDUCT FIGURE 9 1,600 3.5 WATER 3.0 DELIVERIES THROUGH 25 EAST 2.0 BRANCH 1.5 IN Ml LLI ON S 1.0 OF ACRE- FEET 0.5 1,400 1,200 Q: 1,000 < O Q 800 - 600 400 200 \ 1 ^ // .^ < -1 1 C\J z' < 1 _i . Q- ' ^.^<; /Capital cost of main ^--^ \ j aqueduct and distribution ^ ^facilities south of and INCLUDING PUMPING PLANT In-m \^ ^*'*** , 1 / - ^^ PRESENT WORTH OF ALL CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS OF ^ —
Capital costs include estimated Federal investment of about $100,000,000 in facilities for the San Luis service area. INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 105 and would permit construction of the inland aqueduct to Balboa Terminus in San Fernando Valley and to Little Rock Creek in Antelope Valley, as well as con- struction of the coastal aqueduct to the Santa Maria Valley. More detailed information on the sequence of construction, timing of water deliveries and annual requirements for outlay of construction funds for Aqueduct System "B" is presented hereafter in Chapter VIII. Equivalent annual costs of capital recovery and interest at 3| per cent, operation and maintenance, replacement and general expense, and energy for pumping, over the economic life of the aqueduct sys- tem, would be about $78,000,000. The estimated capital costs of this aqueduct system for the "off-peak electric and feedback" operational scheme contemplated purchases of off-peak power only supplemented with on-peak recovered power are pre- TABIE 19 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS OF FEATURES OF AQUEDUCT SYSTEM "B" FOR THE "OFF-PEAK ELECTRIC AND FEEDBACK" OPERATIONAL SCHEME (Base d on prices preva ling in the fal of 1958) Stations in miles Items Cost Stations in miles Items Cost DELTA TO AVENAL GAP •$479,700,000 19,620,000 9,950,000 20,550,000 43,250,000 120 to 153 153 to 170 120 to 172 172 to 225 225 to 232 232 to 262 INLAND AQUEDUCT— Continued West Branch South Portal Tehachapi Tunnels to Castaio Reser\'oir Capacity 3,636 cfs. Canal U.O miles. Ridge Basin Tunnels 8.9 miles. Siphon 5.0 miles — 2 stages ® 1,818 cfs, Castaio Power Plant No. 1 $18,240,000-6 units (a 606 cfs, Castaic Power Plant No. 2 $21,456,000—6 units @ 606 cfs, Penstocks $11,040.000 — 6 stages @ 606 cfs. Trans- mission Lines $3,840,000, Quail Lake Afterbay $4,161,000, Beartrap Reservoir $14,786,000, Castaic Reservoir $20,494,000 Castaic Reservoir to Balboa Terminus to 13 COASTAL AQUEDUCT Avenal Gap to Pumping Plant C-4 Capacity 3,122 cfs. Canal 12.4 miles. Pumping Plant C-3 $7,168,000—8 units @ 390 cfs. Penstocks $1,024,000—4 13 to 18 Pumping Plant C 4 to Pumping Plant C-5 Capacity 1,490 cts, Canal 5.0 miles. Siphon 0.4 mile — 2 stages @ 745 cfs, Pumping Plant C-4 $4,256,000 — 4 imits @ 373 cfs. Penstocks $416,000 — 2 stages @ 746 cfs $181,400,000 18 to 39 Pumping Plant C-5 to Shandon Capacity 294 cfs. Canal 7.8 miles, Polonio Pass Tunnel 5.1 miles. Pumping Plant C-5 $1,504,000—4 units @ 74 cfs. Pen- stocks $352.000 — 2 stages @ 148 cfs Shandon to Santa Maria Valley 60,400,000 Subtotal (West Branch) $241,800,000 39 to 131 East Branch ■South Portal of Tehacluipi Tunnels to Little Rock Creek Capacity 4,088 cfs, Canal 47.6 miles, Siphon 4.9 miles — 3 stages @ 1.051 cfs. Cottonwood Power Plant $8.384.000 — 4 units @ 1,022 cfs. Penstocks $2,818,000 — 4 stages @ 1,022 cfs, Cottonwood Af terbav $4 944 000 Subtotal.- - - - - $92,350,000 $42,410,000 39,710,000 66,880.000 210,710,000 INLAND AQUEDUCT Avenal Gap to South Portal of Tehachapi Tunnels Avenal Gap to Pumping Plant In-III (Same as shown in Table 18) 82,900,000 to 68 Little Rock Creek to Cedar Springs Reser- voir 69,790,000 08 to 95 Pumping Plant In-III to Pumping Plant In-IV Capacity 8,232 cfs, Canal 26.3 miles. Pumping Plant In-III $17,024,000—16 units @ 513 cfs. Penstocks $1,536,000 — 8 stages @ 1 ,026 cfs Cedar Springs Reservoir to Devil Canyon Power Plant No. 2 Capacity 6,678 cfs, San Bernardino Tun- . nel 3.9 miles. Power Plant No. 1 $44,976,- 000 — 6 units (a 1,113 cfs. Power Plant No. 2 $25,584,000—6 units @ 1,113 cfs, Penstocks $27,504,000—6 stages @ 1,113 cfs, Transmission Lines $17,280,000, Cedar Spiings Reservoir $25,328,000, Devil Canyon Afterbay $67,688,000 Devil Canyon Power Plant No. 2 to Perris Reservoir 95 to 110 Pumping Plant In-IV to Pumping Plant In-VI Capacity 6,192 cfs. Canal 11.6 miles. Pumping Plant In-IV $13,824,000—16 units @ 386 cfs. Pumping Plant In-V $24,832,000—16 units @ 386 cfs. Pen- stocks $14,656,000—8 stages @ 772 cfs... Pumping Plant In-VI to South Portal Te- hachapi Tunnels Capacity 6,138 cfs, Tehachapi Tunnels 6.3 miles. Siphon 1.0 mile — 4 stages @ 1,535 cfs, Pumping Plant In-VI 883,072,- 000—16 units @ 383 cfs. Penstocks $.54.656,000 — 8 stages @ 766 cfs $253,930,000 117,770,000 Subtotal (East Branch) 110 to 120 $524,390,000 1,125,900,000 1,697,950.000 Engineering and contingencies Total Caoital Cost 434,590,000 Subtotal $359,710,000 >>$2, 132, 540,000 * CoKt of faciliitics from Delta to Avenal Gap based on continuous operation of Pumping Plants I and II using electric motor drive with energy supplied by steam-electric gen- eration. Summarized costs of aqueduct features from the Delta to Avenal Gap arc presented in Table 14. ••Capital costs include estimated Federal investment of about $100,000,000 in facilities for the San Luis service area. lU(i FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS sented by aqueduct reaches in Table 19 and summa- rized following: Aqueduct reach Capital cost * Delta to San Luis Reservoir $314,000,000 San Luis Reservoir 112,000,000 San Luis Reservoir to Avenal Gap 184,000,000 Coastal Aqueduct Avenal Gap to San Fernando Valley 115,000,000 Inland Aqueduct Avenal Gap to Little Rock Creelv„_ 1,407,000,000 Total $2,132,000,000 • Inclutles estimated Federal Investment of about $100,000,000 in fa- cilities for San Luis service area. Equivalent annual costs of capital recovery and in- terest at 3-^ per cent, operation and maintenance, re- placement and general expense, and energy for pump- ing over the economic life of the aqueduct system would be about $86,000,000. Aqueduct System "C" This system would comprise both coastal and inland aqueducts of major proportions. The coastal aque- duct was designed to transport water to the Upper Antelope Plain in the San Joaquin Valley, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties and to deliver 1,184,000 acre-feet, by the year 2020, to Ventura County and the southern California coastal plain. The inland aqueduct was designed to convey the water demands of the Kern County Service Area, excluding the Upper Antelope Plain, and of the Antelope-Mojave and Whitewater-Coaehella Service Areas, as well as to convey eastward to Perris Reser- voir the balance of the estimated 2020 water demands of the Southern California Coastal Plain and Coastal San Diego County Service Area amounting to about 2,000,000 acre-feet per year. Water quantities con- veyed via the coastal and inland aqueducts for the South Coastal Area were based upon the division worked out for the east and west branches of Aque- duct System "B". The general features of Aqueduct System "C" are shown on Plate 7. The lengths of various types of con- veyance works, pumping lifts, power drops, and reg- ulatory storage reservoirs for the "steam-drive and feedback" operational scheme in the inland aqueduct TABLE 20 SCHEDULE OF WATER DELIVERIES FROM AQUEDUCT SYSTEM "C" First water delivery Water deliveries in thousands of acre-feet Service area First year 1965 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Kern County (San Joaquin Valley) Upper Antelope Plain 1971 1965 1966 1967 1971 1991 1971 1971 1971 1971 1991 1971 1975 1975 19S2 1982 1971 9 10 11 7 1 1 17 1 1 1 13 3 42 12 18 95 "io "78 42 15 95 461 213 37 301 696 342 56 370 751 416 60 370 755 508 62 370 759 593 63 Pumping Plant In-III to Pumping Plant In-IV Pumping Plant In-IV to Pumping Plant In- VI Subtotals 10 135 806 3 2 1,395 10 9 1,597 11 7 10 1,695 14 13 11 1,785 15 29 11 San Luis Obiapo Nipomo Mesa Subtotals . .... .... 5 35 9 12 19 46 22 20 28 58 24 32 38 69 27 48 55 90 35 61 Santa Barbara Santa Maria Valley South Coastal Area Subtotals 56 41 88 55 114 6 109 144 10 158 186 11 225 Ventura County Ventura River Area _. Subtotals .... .... 41 5 70 55 14 87 41 115 20 90 65 168 26 88 81 236 33 86 89 Antelope-Mojave San Bernardino County .... .... 75 864 142 35 1,513 175 55 2,160 195 90 2,635 208 100 2,955 Southern California Coastal Plain and Coastal San Totals. ... 10 135 1,847 3,247 4,244 4,905 5,525 INVESTIGATION OF ALTEENATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 107 TABLE 21 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS OF FEATURES OF AQUEDUCT SYSTEM "C" FOR THE "STEAM-DRIVE AND FEEDBACK" AND "STEAM-ELECTRIC AND FEEDBACK" OPERATIONAL SCHEMES" (Based on prices prevai ing in the fall of 1958) Stations Stations in miles Items Cost in miles Items Cost DELTA TO AVENAL GAP.. ''$479,700,000 195 to 207... COASTAL AQUEDUCT— Continued Santa Barbara Tunnels to Casitas Reservoir Capacity 1,637 cfs, Casitas Pass Tunnels COASTAL AQUEDUCT 1.9 miles. Siphon 10.2 miles — 2 stages @ 818 cfs $29,550,000 Oto 13... Avenal Gap to Pumping Plant C-4 Capacity 3,392 cfs, Canal 12.4 miles, Steam Plant No. 1 «28,S00,000, Pumping 207 to 239... Casitas Reservoir to Conejo Reservoir Capacity 1,622 cfs, Ventura Tunnels 1.0 mile. Siphon 30.8 miles — 2 stages ©811 Plant C-3 $11,152,000—12 units @ 283 cfs, Conejo Reservoir $23,969,000 102,840,000 cfs. Penstocks $1,545,000—6 stages @ 665 cfs 48,790,000 239 to 241... Conejo Reservoir through Pumping Plant C-8 Capacity 1,912 cfs. Siphon 1.4 miles— 2 13 to 18_.. Pumping Plant C-4 to Pumping Plant C-5 Capacity 2,495 cfs. Canal 5.0 miles. stages @ 956 cfs. Pumping Plant C-8 Pumping Plant C-4 $7,360,000—10 units $7,658,000—8 units @ 239 cfs. Booster @ 250 cfs. Penstocks $974,100—5 stages Pump $1,310,000 — 4 units @ 130 cfs. @ 499 cfs-_ 13,000,000 Penstocks $1,526,000 — 4 stages @ 478 cfs. Steam Plant No. 2 $12,864,000 29,060,000 18 to 38--. Pumping Plant C-5 to Shandon Capacity 1,969 cfs. Canal 10.9 miles. 241 to 250... Pumping Plant C-8 to Ventura-Los Angeles Polonio Pass Tunnel 5.0 miles, Siphon County Line 3 . 8 miles — 2 stages @ 984 cfs. Pumping Capacity 1,800 cfs. Siphon 8.9 miles — 2 Plant C-5 $5,840,000 — 8 units @ 244 cfs. stages © 900 cfs 23,830,000 Penstocks $1,382,000 — 4 stages @ 492 cfs. 47,560,000 250 to 254... Ventura-Los Angeles County Line to 38 to 56.-- Shandon to Huerhuero Creek Capacity 1,962 cfs. Canal 14.9 miles, Liberty Canyon Capacity 1,785 cfs. Siphon 4.3 miles— 2 Siphon 2.7 miles — 2 stages @ 981 cfs 16,500,000 stages @ 892 cfs 9,830,000 56 to 79... Huerhuero Creek to Santa Margarita Capacity 1,953 cfs, Canal 9.1 miles. 254 to 258... Liberty Canyon through Woodland Hills Tunnels Siphon 14.0 miles— 2 stages @ 977 cfs-._ 40,760,000 Capacity 1,624 cfs. Woodland Hills Tun- nels 1 . 6 miles, Siphon 2 . miles — 2 79 to 87... Santa Margarita to San Luis Obispo stages @ 812 cfs 11,570,000 Capacity 1,949 cfs, Cuesta Pass Tunnel 2.2 miles. Siphon 5.6 miles — 2 stages @ 258 to 260... Woodland Hills Tunnels to Bell Canyon 975 cfs, San Luis Obispo Power Plant Reservoir $6,218,000—4 units @ 488 cfs. Penstocks Capacity 920 cfs. Siphon 2.8 miles— 2 $1,078,000 — 4 stages @ 488 cfs, Trans- stages @ 460 cfs. Bell Canyon Reservoir mission Lines $9,152,000 42,800,000 $11,314,000, Pumping Plant C-9 $696,000 — 4 units @ 50 cfs 17,460,000 87 to 103... San Luis Obispo to Arroyo Grande Capacity 1,929 cfs. Canal 12.0 miles. Subtotal $650,390,000 Siphon 4.2 miles — 2 stages @ 965 cfs 18,820,000 INLAND AQUEDUCT 103 to 113... Arroyo Grande to Nipomo Oto 68... Avenal Gap to Pumping Plant In-III Capacity 1,909 cfs. Canal 5.5 miles. Capacity 8,031 cfs, Canal 67.0 miles $38,600,000 Siphon 4.4 miles — 2 stages @ 955 cfs 13,050,000 68 to 95... Pumping Plant In-III to Pumping Plant 113 to 125... Nipomo to Santa Maria Valley Capacity 1,893 cfs. Canal 10.0 miles, In-lV Capacity 5,112 cfs. Canal 26.3 miles. Siphon 1.5 miles — 2 stages @ 946 cfs 10,260,000 Pumping Plant In-III $12,576,000—16 units © 319 cfs. Penstocks $928,000—8 125 to 137... Santa Maria Valley to Pumping Plant C-7 stages @ 638 cfs. Steam Plant $20,400,- Capacity 1,782 cfs. Canal 9.7 miles. 000, Transmission Lines $2,400,000 51,580,000 Siphon 2.4 miles — 2 stages ©891 cfs, Pumping Plant C-6 $4,412.000 — 8 units 95 to 110... Pumping Plant In-IV to Pumping Plant @ 223 cfs. Penstocks $323,600—4 stages In-VI @ 445 cfs 15,820,000 Capacity 3,439 cfs, Canal 11.6 miles, Pumping Plant In-IV $9,433,000—12 137 to 143... Pumping Plant C-7 to Cuaslui Creek Capacity 1,769 cfs. Canal 6.3 miles, units @ 287 cfs. Pumping Plant In-V $16,424,000—12 units @ 287 cfs. Pen- Pumping Plant C-7 $6,080,000 — 8 units stocks $9,183,000—6 stages @ 574 cfs 45,490,000 @ 221 cfs. Penstocks $611,000—4 stages @ 442 cfs 17,820,000 110 to 120... Pumping Plant In-VI to South Portal Te- hachapi Tunnels 143 to 167... Cuaslui Creek to Cachuma Dam Capacity 1,741 cfs. Canal 15.9 miles. Capacity 3,197 cfs, Tehachapi Tunnels 6.3 miles. Siphon 1.0 mile— 3 stages © Siphon 7.5 mUes- 2 stages @ 870 cfs 42,280,000 1,066 cfs. Pumping Plant In-VI $93,106,- 000—12 units © 267 cfs. Penstocks 167 to 181... Cachuma Dam through San Marcos Pass $32,560,000 — 6 stages @ 533 cfs 172,730,000 Capacity 1,721 cfs. Canal 4.2 miles, San Marcos Pass Tunnel 5.4 miles. 120 to 172... South Portal of Tehachapi Tunnels to Little Siphon 5.3 miles — 2 stages @ 860 cfs 47,140,000 Rock Creek Capacity 3,197 cfs. Canal 47.6 miles, 181 to 195... San Marcos Pass through Santa Barbara Tunnels Capacity 1,653 cfs, Santa Barbara Tun- Siphon 4.9 miles— 3 stages @ 1,051 cfs, Cottonwood Power Plant $6,705,000—3 units © 1,066 cfs. Penstocks $2,055,000— nels 13.7 miles 51,650,000 3 stages © 1,066 cfs... 74,660,000 108 FEATPIER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS TABLE 21— Continued SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS OF FEATURES OF AQUEDUCT SYSTEM "C" FOR THE "STEAM-DRIVE AND FEEDBACK" AND "STEAM-ELECTRIC AND FEEDBACK" OPERATIONAL SCHEMES (Based on prices prevailing in the fall of 1958] Stations in miles 172 to 225., 225 to 232. Items INLAND AQUEDUCT— Continued Little Rock Creek to Cedar Springs Reservoir Capacity 3,033 cfs, Canal 45.2 miles, Siphon 6.4 niiles — 3 stages @ 1,011 cfs, Pumping Plant In-VII $14,285,000—12 units @ 253 cfs. Penstocks $5,635,000— 6 stages @ 506 cfs Cedar Springs Reservoir to Devil Canyon Power Plant No. 2 Capacity 3,005 cfs, San Bernardino Tun- nel 3 .9 miles, Power Plant No. 1 $18,932,- 000 — 3 units @ 1,001 cfs, Power Plant No. 2 $11,530,000—3 units @ 1,001 cfa, Penstocks $13,623,000—3 stages @ 1,001 cfs. Transmission Lines $4,800,000, Cedar Springs Reservoir $23,418,000 Cost 69,790,000 101,720,000 Stations in miles Iten INLAND AQUEDUCT— Continued Devil Canyon Power Plant No. 2 to Perris Reservoir Capacity 2,074 cfs, Siphon 29.2 miles — 2 stages @ 1,037 cfs, Perris Reservoir $28,642,000 , Subtotal. Subtotal, construction costs Engineering and contingencies Total Capital Cost Cost $117,770,000 $672,340,000 1.802,430,000 460,710,000 °$2,263, 140,000 « "Steam-drive and feedback" operational scheme on the Inland Aqueduct and "steam-electric and feedback" operational scheme on the Coastal Aqueduct. ''Cost of facilities from Delta to .^venal Gap based on contmuuus operation of Pumping Plants I and II using electric motor drive with energy supplied by steam-electric gen- eration. Summarized costs of aqueduct features from the Delta to Avenal Gap are presented m Table 14. " Capital costs include estimated Federal investment of about $100,000,000 in facilities for the San Luis service area. and "steam-electric and feedback" scheme iu the coastal aqueduct are summarized following: AQUEDUCT Length in miles Canal and flume Tunnel Delta to Avenal Gap 192 Coastal Aqueduct 116 31 Inland Aqueduct — 19S 10 Siphon and penstock 2 113 48 Miscel- laneous Total 1 195 260 6 262 Totals 506 41 163 PUMPING PLANTS Numher of plants Delta to Avenal Gap 2 Coastal Aqueduct 7 Inland Aqueduct 5 POWER RECOVERY PLANTS Niimher of plants Delta to Avenal Gap Coastal Aqueduct 1 Inland Aqueduct 3 717 Net operating head, in feet 395 to 571 1,864 to 2,221 3,695 Net operating head, in feet 503 1,988 REGULATORY RESERVOIRS Oross storage Height of dam capacity, in aiove streamhed, Reservoir acre-feet in feet San Luis 2,100,000 310 Conejo 170,000 365 Bell Canyon 35,000 275 Cedar Springs 216,000 290 Perris 148,000 140 The initial sequence of aqueduct construction would comprise an immediate start on the coastal aqueduct with completion of the first stage to San Fernando Valley by 1971 to initiate water deliveries to Sau Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Service Areas and the South Coastal Area by that date. The inland aqueduct in the San Joaquin Valley would also be constructed to commence water deliveries to Kern County by 1965 It was assumed that Pumping Plant In-VI, and aque- duct facilities to the south, would be constructed so as to commence water deliveries to Perris Reservoir and the Mojave River area and the Whitewater- Coachella Service Area by 1982. This would result in commencing water deliveries in the Antelope Val ley by about 1975. For reasons similar to those pre viously stated under Aqueduct System "A", it would be possible to delay completion of construction of Bell Canyon Reservoir until about 1982. "Water deliveries over time to the various service areas from Aqueduct System "C" are presented in Table 20 and are illustrated on Plate 10, "Schematic Diagram of Water Deliveries from Aqueduct Sys- tem 'C ". The estimated capital costs of this system, with the "steam-drive and feedback" and "steam-electric and feedback" operational schemes, are presented in Table 21, and are summarized following : Aqueduct reach Capital cost * Delta to San Luis Reservoir $314,000,000 San Lui.s Reservoir 112,000,000 San Luis Reservoir to Avenal Gap ___ 184,000,000 Coastal Aqueduct Avenal Gap to San Fernando Valley 813,000,000 Inland Aqueduct Avenal Gap to Perris Reservoir 840,000,000 Total $2,263,000,000 * Capital costs include estimated Federal investment of about $100,000,- 000 in facilities for the San Luis service area. Construction costs for the described initial sequence of construction through the year 1971 were estimated to be about $1,140,000,000 of which about $90,000,000 is the estimated Federal investment in facilities for INVESTIGATION OP ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 109 TABLE 22 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS OF FEATURES OF AQUEDUCT SYSTEM "C" FOR THE "OFF-PEAK ELECTRIC AND FEEDBACK" OPERATIONAL SCHEME (Based on prices prevailing in the fall of 1958) Stations in miles Items Cost Stations in miles Items Cost 18 to 38 38 to 207 207 to 239 239 to 246 216 to 250 250 to 260 to 68 DELTA TO AVENAL GAP ._. COASTAL AQUEDUCT Avenal Gap to Pumping Plant C-4 Capacity 6.167 cfs. Canal 12.4 miles, Pumpini Plant C-3 $14,720,000—16 units (a) 386 cfs. Penstocks $2,176,000 — Sstages @ 772 cfs Pumping Plant C-4 to Pumping Plant C-5 Capacity 4,536 cfs. Canal 5.0 miles. Siphon 0.4 mile — 4 stages @ 1,134 cfs. Pumping Plant C-4 $13,568,000—16 units @ 284 cfs. Penstocks $1,408.000 — 8 stages @ 568 cfs Pumping Plant C-5 to Shandon Capacity 3,580 cfs. Canal 8.2 miles, Po- lonio Pass Tunnel 5.0 miles. Siphon 3.8 miles — 4 stages (g> 895 cfs. Pumping Plant C-5 $12.480.000 — 12 units @ 298 cfs. Penstocks 82.112.000- 6 stages @ 596 cfs Shandon to Casitas Reservoir (Same as shown in Table 21) Casitas Reservoir to Conejo Reservoir Capacity 1.622 cfs, Ventura Tunnels 1.0 mile, Siphon 31.0 miles — 2 stages @ 811 cfs, Conejo Reservoir $23,057,000 Conejo Reservoir through Upper Lake Sherwood Reservoir Capacity 3,476 cfs. Siphon 6.2 miles — 4 stages @ 869 cfs. Pumping Plant C-8A $18,336,000—12 units @ 290 cfs. Pump- ing Plant C-8B $12.288.000 — 12 units ® 290 cfs, Penstocks $4,080,000-6 stages @ 580 cfs. Upper Lake Sherwood Reser- voir $6,361,000 Upper Lake Sherwood Reservoir to Ventura- Los Angeles County Line Capacity 1,912 cfs. Siphon 3.9 miles — 2 stages @ 956 cfs — Ventura-Los Angeles County Line to Bell Canyon Reservoir (Same as shown in Table 21) Subtotal INLAND AQUEDUCT Avenal Gap to South Portal of Tehachapi Tunnels Avenal Gap to Pumping Plant In-Ill (Same as shown in Table 21) $479,700,000 31.580,000 22,570,000 70,670,000 346,450,000 102,290,000 ,140,000 38,860,000 688,220,000 $38,600,000 68 to 95 95 to 110 no to 120 120 to 172 INLAND AQUEDUCT— Continued Pumping Plant In-HI to Pumping Plant In-IV Capacity 6,682 cfs, Canal 26.3 miles. Pumping Plant In-Ill $13,824,000 — 16 units @ 418 cfs, Penstocks $1,408,000 — 8 stages @ 835 cfs Pumping Plant In-IV to Pumping Plant In-VI Capacity 4,506 cfs. Canal 11.6 miles, Pumping Plant In-IV $10,080,000 — 12 units @ 375 cfs. Pumping Plant In-V $18,048,000—12 units ® 375 cfs. Pen- stocks $10,512,000—6 stages @ 750 cfs-. Pumping Plant In-VI to South Portal Te- hachapi Tunnels Capacity 4,450 cfs, Tehachapi Tunnels 6.3 miles. Siphon 1.0 mile — 4 stages @ 1,113 cfs. Pumping Plant In-VI $60,288,- 000 — 12 units @ 371 cfs. Penstocks $39,840,000-6 stages @ 742 cfs- South Portal of Tehachapi Tunnels to Little Rock Creek Capacity 4,450 cfs, Canal 47,6 miles. Siphon 4.9 miles — 3 stages @ 1,051 cfs, Cottonwood Power Plant $9,152,000 — 4 units @ 1,113 cfs. Penstocks $3,488,000 — 4 stages @ 1,113 cfs, Cottonwood Afterbay $5,688,000 Little Rock Creek to Cedar Springs Reser- voir (Same as shown in Table 21) Cedar Springs Reservoir to Devil Canyon Power Plant No. 2 Capacity 6,677 cfs, San Bernardino Tun- nel 3.9 miles. Power Plant No. 1 $44,- 976,000—6 units @ 1,113 cfs. Power Plant No. 2 $25,584,000—6 units @ 1,113 cfs, Penstocks $27,504,000 — 6 stages @ 1,113 cfs, Transmission Lines $17,280,000, Cedar Springs Reservoir $25,328,000, Devil Canyon Afterbay $67,672,000 Devil Canyon Power Plant No. 2 to Perns Reservoir (Same as shown in Table 21) Subtotal Subtotal, construction costs Engineering and contingencies Total Capital Cost $33,670,000 158,870,000 85,350,000 69,790,000 253,910,000 117,770,000 $809,160,000 1,977.070,000 504,370,000 '■$2,481,440,000 • Cost of facilities from Delta to Avenal Gap based on continuous operation of Pumping Plants I and II using electric motor drive with energy supplied by steam-electric gen- eration. Summarized costs of aqueduct features from the Delta to Avenal Gap are presented in Table 14. 'Capital costs include estimated Federal investment of about $100,000,000 in facilities for the San Luis service area. the San Luis service area and $53,000,000 represents expenditures on the coastal aqueduct. As stated, the first sequence of construction would include comple- tion of the first of the staged units of the coastal aqueduct to San Fernando Valley and extension of the inland aqueduct to the base of the Tehachapi Mountains in the San Joaquin Valley. Equivalent annual costs of capital recovery and interest at 3^ per cent, operation and maintenance, replacement and general expense, and energy for pumping, over the economic life of the aqueduct sys- tem would be about $88,000,000. The estimated capital costs of Aqueduct System " C " for the " off-peak electric and feedback ' ' opera- tional scheme, contemplating purchases of off-peak power only supplemented with on-peak recovered power are presented by aqueduct reaches in Table 22 and summarized following: 110 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS Aqueduct reach Capital cost * Equivalent annual costs of capital recovery and Delta to San Luis Reservoir $314,000,000 interest at 3| per cent, operation and maintenance, III Lul: R:::r™ir to A^enardap-::: IsSS replacement and general expense and energy for Coastal Aqueduct pumping over the economic life of the aqueduct sys- Avenal Gap to San Fernando Valley 860,000,000 ^^^ would be about $93,000,000. Inland Aqueduct Avenal Gap to Little Rock Creek ^_- 1,011,000,000 Total $2,481,000,000 • Includes estimated Federal investment of about $100,000,000 in fa- cilities for San Luis service area. CHAPTER V PUMPING AND POWER RECOVERY Conveyance of surplus northern California water to southern California, because of the nature of the ter- rain encountered and the economic and engineering aspects of aqueduct location, will require substantial pumping regardless of route. It is therefore important that the aqueduct system selected for construction be such that it is possible to employ an operational scheme which minimizes pumping costs and net ex- penditures of energy, consistent with over-all system economy and operational reliability. It was the purpose of this phase of the investigation to develop, for each alternative aqueduct system, the operational scheme or schemes that would meet the tests of economy and reliability, and to determine the influence that choice of operational scheme would ex- ert on aqueduct system selection. In doing this, the comparative results obtained for the several opera- tional schemes studied were not intended to form the basis for a conclusion as to the scheme that finally should be employed. Such a conclusion will depend upon the answers to several major unresolved ques- tions which will be the object of special study early in the design phase of the project. The operational schemes found physically feasible of adaptation differed for each of the three considered aqueduct systems because of inherently different com- binations of physical conditions peculiar to each sys- tem. Further, there exist alternative possibilities with respect to the procurement of power for pumping and the disposition of power in those instances where its recovery is feasible. These alternatives are: (1) the purchase of power from existing Titilities, public or private, and the possible sale of recovered power thereto; and (2) development of power for pumping independent of utility connection, and the use of re- covered power internally for pumping purposes. Op- erational schemes employing each of these alternatives as well as combinations and variations thereof have been considered in this investigation. AQUEDUCT OPERATIONAL SCHEMES Chapter IV describes the required pumping lifts and the potential power drops for the three alterna- tive aqueduct systems. Pumping Plants I and II are located between the Delta and Avenal Gap. South of this point an inland aqnediict would require a maxi- mum of five pumping lifts, varying from 190 feet to 2.200 feet. Consideration was given to a maximum of five power drops. Coastal aqueducts in the systems south of Avenal Gap would require a maximum of seven lifts and one power drop. At the present time it is considered necessary that Pumping Plant I be operated on a continuous flow basis, while Pumping Plant II may be operated on an off-peak basis if the cost of ofi;-peak power is found to result in lowest over-all pumping costs. It is also possible to operate Pumping Plant II on a continuous basis using steam-electric power for pumping. For purposes of this report, it was assumed that both Pumping Plants I and II would be operated continu- ously using steam-electric generation as the source of energy. In any event, since facilities north of Avenal Gap would be identical for all aqueduct systems, the assumption of a particular scheme of operation for these facilities will have no bearing on aqueduct sys- tem selection. The facilities studied south of Avenal Gap were found to be adaptable to several alternative opera- tional schemes. It was therefore necessary to evaluate on a preliminary basis the various alternative possi- bilities in order to ascertain the effect, if any, of oper- ational scheme upon selection of the most economical aqueduct system. Based upon this evaluation, the selection of aqueduct system was verified for opera- tional schemes employing both of the cited possibilities for power procurement and disposal. Schemes Requiring Purchase and/or Sale of Eleciric Power For facilities south of Avenal Gap, the operational schemes which would involve purchase from a utility or utilities of pumping power and/or sale thereto of recovered power are summarized as follows: (1) Off-Peak Electric and Sale of Power — Pump only during off-peak hours and generate at power recovery plants during peak hours, with sale of recovered power. This scheme would require eventual sizing of the pumping facil- ities at approximately twice the capacity re- quired for continuous pumping, and the con- struction of forebay and afterbay regulatory storage to provide for continuous aqueduct flow into, and away from, a pumping plant or series of pumping plants. Power recovery plants and appurtenant penstocks would be sized with sufficient capacity to permit peaking operation, and forebays and afterbays would be constructed \ipstream and downstream of the power drops to regulate for the intermit- tent power plant discharge. (Ill) 112 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS (2) Off-Peak Electric and Feedback — Pump con- tinuoiisl}-, using electric motor drive. Use pur- cliased power duriug off-peak hours and feed- back power from recovery plants during peak hours. This scheme would also require purchase of some continuous power or provision of par- tial oversizing of conveyance facilities and stor- age since, on the applicable systems, insufficient feedback power would be generated to run all of the pumping units during peak hours. Also, oversizing of power recovery plants and con- struction of afterbays and forebays for the power drops as described in (1) would be re- quired. (3) Steam-Drive and Sale of Power — Pump con- tinuously, using steam turbines to drive high- head pumps, and using power either from steam-electric generators or from steam tur- bines and reduction gears to drive low-head pumps. Generate at recovery hydro plants dur- ing peak hours, selling the recovered power. This would require oversizing of power plants and construction of afterbays and forebays for the power drops as described in (1). Oversizing of pumping plants and related conveyance would not be necessary. (4) Pumped Storage — Pump only during off-peak hours; provide reversible pump-turbine units and the necessary forebay and afterbay storage at the power recovery plants to firm up the peaking capability of these plants. By install- ing such reversible units also in the pumping plants, these facilities could be utilized, when not required for the delivery of water, to gen- erate additional peaking power. All such peak- ing power would be sold to the utility systems. Forebays and afterbays would be required at the pumping plants. These plants would, of necessity, have greater installed capacities than those in either (1) or (2). The relative merits of the foregoing operational schemes can be determined finally only after full evaluation of economic, design and operational aspects of each, for which evaluation firm data on cost of purchased power and value of recovered power are essential. Preliminary analyses of these schemes were based upon estimates of cost and value of power fur- nished by the power companies early in the investiga- tion and adjusted subsequently to reflect a postulated future increase in the price of fuel oil, as discussed later in this chapter. Aqueduct operational schemes (1) and (3) involve consideration of the future feasibility of selling re- covered power generated at power drops on the sea- ward slopes of the Transverse Ranges. It is probable that during seasons of heavy precipitation and runoff in southern California a variation in aqueduct system water deliveries will occur as discussed in Chapter II. Such occurrences would tend to depreciate the de- pendability of recovered power supplies, thereby re- ducing the return under a power sale contract. A possible solution to this problem involving inte- gration of aqueduct pumping and power recovery operations with pumping on the Colorado River Aque- duct was given preliminary consideration. The general procedure would be to reduce water conveyance and pumping on the Colorado River Aqueduct during the previously mentioned wet seasons, resulting in the fol- lowing : (1) Northern California water deliveries through aqueduct power recovery plants could continue unimpaired or with but a slight reduction, mak- ing possible complete or near complete fulfill- ment of power sale commitments. (2) The portion of Metropolitan Water District generating capacity at Hoover Dam unloaded bj^ cutback of Colorado River Aqueduct pump- ing could be utilized to assist the power recovery plants on the San Joaquin Valley- Southern California Aqueduct System in meet- ing contractual power sale commitments. This type of integrated operation would have other advantages regardless of the operational scheme selected and will be given further consideration in final design of aqueduct facilities. Another possibility for assuring dependability of recovered power would be the incorporation of pumped storage facilities into the power recovery plants making possible reversal of their operation at times when water demands in southern California might be low. Pumped storage might also be applied at the several pumping plants on the alternative aque- duct systems. The principle of pumped storage has been applied at operating installations in both Europe and the United States. Basicallj^ pumped storage power generation con- sists of pumping water from a lower storage reservoir to a higher storage reservoir utilizing off-peak power from generating capacity otherwise temporarilj- idle and releasing the stored water back to the lower reser- voir through power generating facilities during short time periods of peak power load. In its application to the aqueduct systems, the aqueduct pumping plants would be equipped to reverse the flow of water and generate power. During each pumping cycle, the total water lifted at each plant would exceed the quantity of water to be conveyed southward. The excess pumped water would be stored and released back through the plant during the generating cycle. Power for pumping would be purchased on an off-peak basis, and low capacity factor power would be sold to electric utility agencies. INVESTIGATION OP ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 113 Reconnaissance studies were conducted of the appli- cation of pumped storage to the alternative aqueduct systems. Based upon these studies, it was found that pumping and power plant sites and adjacent storage sites could be developed for the pumped storage appli- cation in the inland route area. The coastal route area was found to be lacking in suitable storage sites to the extent that pumped storage application on this route was considered impracticable. As described in a later section of this chapter, pre- liminary information was developed regarding cost and value, respectively, of off-peak pumping power and recovered peaking power. It was found, however, that extension of these data for the pumped storage application necessitated assumptions regarding avail- ability of large quantities of off-peak pumping power and marketability of large quantities of peaking power at capacity factors considerably lower than have been emplo.yed in power sale contracts to date. It therefore became evident that even a preliminary evaluation of the pumped storage application would require more information regarding procurement and disposal of power. It is intended to obtain such information and make more detailed evaluation of the possibilities of a pumped storage application during the design phase of the project, in cooperation with the Power Ad- visory Committee. It is believed that power utility participation in both pumping and power recovery aspects of the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley-Southern California Aqueduct System would offer certain definite advantages, among which would be the im- proved power dependability which would result from interconnection with large systems and the possibility of power wheeling arrangements for joint use of existing and future transmission facilities of the major utility agencies. Recognizing these advantages, but also taking account of the fact that firm data were lacking on the conditions under which recovered power would be salable, it was concluded that scheme (2), "off-peak electric and feedback" would best represent "utility participation" for purposes of aqueduct system selection, since a minimum of eco- nomic and financial uncertainty would be involved. Schemes Not Requiring Purchase or Sale of Electric Power The operational schemes for facilities south of Avenal Gap which would not require purchase of electric power or sale of recovered power are sum- marized as follows: (1) Steam-Drive and Feedback — Pump continu- ously, using steam turbines direct-connected to the high-head pumps and continuous feedback of power from power recovery plants to the electrically-driven low-head pumps. Conven- tional oil or gas fired boilers would provide necessary steam to the turbines. This scheme would require minimum capacities in convey- ance and pumping facilities and in regulatory reservoirs. (2) Steam-Electric and Feedback — Pump continu- ously with electrically-driven pumps; utilize feedback power generated continuously at power recovery plants; provide one or more steam-electric generating plants and necessary transmission facilities to supply the balance of electric power requirements. This scheme also would require minimum capacities in convej'- ance and pumping facilities and in regulatory storage. Scheme (1), "steam-drive and feedback", would apply mainly around Pumping Plants In-III, IV, V, and VI, all in the southern portion of the San Joa- quin Valley, and Plant In-VII in the Antelope Valley. The steam-drive application, unique to the high lift at Pumping Plant In-VI, was worked out with ad- vice of electrical and mechanical consultants and manufacturers of heavy rotating equipment. Power recovered on the seaward slopes of the Transverse Ranges would be transmitted back to Plants In-III, IV, V and VII. For the inland aqueduct, scheme (2) would differ from scheme (1) only in the substitution of steam- electric generating facilities to supply the electric motor-driven pumping units at Pumping Plant In-VI. On the coastal aqueduct the low pumping lifts would not be adaptable to the direct steam-drive application, therefore, both schemes would employ steam-electric generating capacity to supply all pumping power re- quirements in excess of available amounts of feedback power. It would be possible to integrate the power generation and feedback operations for either scheme on the coastal and inland aqueducts by transmission interconnection. Application of nuclear energy could be made by substitution of nuclear reactor and heat exchanger for the conventional steam boilers should this source of energy become economically competitive in the future. Based upon preliminary economic comparisons, the direct steam-drive application at Pumping Plant In- VI was found to be superior to the steam-electric application from standpoints of both capital invest- ment and annual operating costs. Therefore, scheme (1), "steam-drive and feedback", modified where necessary, was selected as the scheme best represent- ing those requiring no purchase or sale of power and was utilized, where applicable, for the aqueduct sys- tems anah^ses. AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS The applications of the "off-peak electric and feed- back" and the "steam-drive and feedback" or "steam-electric and feedback" schemes to the aque- duct systems are described in the following sections. lU FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS It will be noted that the physical characteristics of individual aqueduct systems are such that variations in the application of operational schemes are neces- sitated. Estimates of costs of the alternative aque- duct systems employing both the "off-peak electric and feedback" and "steam-drive and feedback" schemes are presented in Chapter IV. Aqueduct System "A" It Avas found that employment of the "off-peak electric and feedback" scheme would be imprac- ticable on this system owing to the lack of economical forebay and afterbay sites of the capacit.v required. TABLE 23 ENERGY BALANCE FOR MAIN AQUEDUCT PUMPING AND POWER RECOVERY SCHEMES APPLIED TO ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS FOR YEAR 2000 Energy in millions of kilowatt hours Aqueduct System "A" Aqueduct System "B" Aqueduct System "C" Steam- electric and feedback Off-peak electric and feedback Steam- drive and feedback Off-peak electric and feedback Steam- drive and feedback Pumping Plants In-III - --. 161 75 193 613 669 1.052 935 301 986 1.301 5 6,291 695 646 1,680 6,600 832 119 102 50 10,724 678 646 1,680 832 116 102 49 4,103 6,600 447 377 986 3,800 832 419 548 506 143 468 984 6 9,516 436 In-IV- -- 377 In-V 986 In-VI In-VII 832 C-3 376 C-4 548 C-5 --- 463 C-6 --- 143 C-7 468 C-8 - - - 605 C-9 -- 6 Subtotals Equivalent energy input to steam-drive - at In-VI -- 5,240 3,800 Tot^ Energy Required Power Plants 6,291 64 1,018 10,724 401 721 910 1,088 594 41 10.703 401 740 910 1,092 595 41 9,516 395 1,087 593 600 9,040 401 Castaic No. 1 Castaic No. 2._ Devil Canyon No. 1 _ . Devil Canyon No . 2 . _ San Luis Obispo 1.092 595 500 Total Recovered Energy' Steam-Drive Input Steam Generation Energy Purchase 1,082 5,209 3,755 6,969 3,779 6,600 324 2,575 6,941 2.588 3,800 2,652 Total Energy Supplied NET ENERGY INPUTS.. __ 6,291 5,209 10,724 6,969 10,703 6,924 9,516 6,941 9,040 6,452 » Gross generation minus 3 per cent transmission loss. ^ "Total Energy Required" minus "Total Becoiered Energy." Accordingly, the analyses of this system were made using the "steam-electric and feedback" scheme, with electric motor driven pumping units at all plants on both inland and coastal aqueducts. All plants would be electrically interconnected by transmission lines following the general coastal and inland route areas, tying into San Luis Obispo Power Plant on the coastal line and Cottonwood Power Plant at the south end of the Tehachapi Mountains crossing. Power from these plants would be fed into the line, thereby re- ducing required steam-electric generating capacity. The balance of the pumping power would be supplied by steam-electric generating plants located at Pump- ing Plant C-3 near Avenal Gap, near Pumping Plant C-8 at Conejo dam site, and at Pumping Plant In-III near Buena Vista Lake. The energy balance for these pumping and power generation facilities, considering main aqueduct pumping only, is presented in Table 23 for conditions estimated in the year 2000, illus- trating a typical year of operation during the build- up period of water demand. Aqueduct System "B" Analyses were made of Aqueduct System " B " em- ploying both the "steam-drive and feedback" and the "off-peak electric and feedback" schemes of operation. Steam-Drive and Feedback. The application of the "steam-drive and feedback" operational scheme to Aqueduct System "B" embodies the use of direct steam-drive at Pumping Plant In-VI and the use of electric motor-drive at all other plants on both inland and coastal aqueducts. The electric motors for pumps at inland aqueduct plants would be supplied by hydro- electric power fed back from the Castaic, Cottonwood, and Devil Canyon Power Developments, supplemented during the early years of operation and when starting up after shutdown by a relatively small amount of steam-electric power. The electric motors for pumps at coastal aqueduct plants would, in the absence of a transmission tie with the inland .system, be supplied by steam-electric power in combination with hydro- electric power fed back from San Luis Obispo Power Plant. However, as planned, the inland and coastal aque- ducts would be joined by a transmission tie and would operate as an integrated system with only a small pro- portion of total power supplied by steam-electric gen- eration. The operation would therefore be essentially the "steam-drive and feedback" scheme, and is re- ferred to as such herein. Later study may indicate the desirability of con- solidating the steam-electric generating plants for coastal and inland aqueducts. Further, it might be possible to completely eliminate the need for steam- electric plant construction through some type of power exchange agreement with one or more electric utility agencies. An interconnection of the coastal and inland transmission system with electric utility systems could INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 115 be made wherein: (1) generating reserves of the elec- tric utility system could be utilized on au iuterruptible basis to perform the service described previously for the steam-electric plants, and (2) generating capacity on the aqueduct system, particularly at the Devil Can- yon Power Plants where Cedar Springs Reservoir would assure dependable output, could be made avail- able to the utilities for emergency use as "spinning reserve capacity" defined subsequently herein. The build-up of requirements, through year 2020, for generating capacity and energy for pumping, re- flecting water deliveries presented in Chapter IV, to- gether with the combination of hydroelectric, steam- electric, and steam-drive capacity and energy which would be provided to meet those requirements, is shown for Aqueduct System "B" under the "steam- drive and feedback" scheme in Figure 10. As a fur- ther illustration of energy requirements and transfers, an energy balance for estimated conditions in year 2000 is shown schematically on Plate 11 and iu Table 23. ' OflF-Peak Electric and Feedback. Application of the "off-peak electric and feedback" scheme to Aque- duct System "B" would embody electric motor drive at all pumping plants. Castaic and Devil Canyon power recovery plants would be sized to pass the re- quired daily flow during peak energy hours and there- fore would generate only at times of the day when off-peak energy could not be purchased. This peaking power would be transmitted to Pumping Plants In- III, In-IV, In-V, In- VI, and In-VII. Off-peak power would be purchased to supplement this peaking feed- back power. Because of the limited quantity of feed- back power, the combination of recovered peaking power and purchased off-peak power would not be enough to accomplish continuous flow pumping at ail inland aqueduct pumping plants. Therefore, each pumping plant, with the exception of Pumping Plant lu-VII near Pearblossom, would be oversized by about 25 per cent and the oversized portion of the facility would be operated on an off-peak basis to make iip the balance of water conveyance. In this operation, a forebay of about 10,000 acre- feet capacity would be constructed upstream from the Castaic Power Development to regulate flow from the aqueduct to the intermittent power releases. Castaic Reservoir would serve as an afterbay. The Devil Can- yon Power Development would employ Cedar Springs as a forebay and would require an afterbay at the mouth of the canyon to regulate the power releases to uniform flow. Also, a forebay at the west edge of Bucna Vista Lake and an afterbay at the south end of the Tehachapi Tunnels would be required to pei-mit the partial off-peak operation of Plants In-III, In-IV, In-V, and In-VI. On the coastal aqueduct, suitable afterbay and fore- bay sites for the San Luis Obispo power recovery de- velopment could not be found, so continuous flow gen- eration was assumed at this plant. The developed power would be fed back to Pumping Plants C-3, C-4, and C-5, and some of the units at each of these plants would be operated continuously. The remaining units would be operated only during off-peak hours using purchased off-peak energy. This type of operation would necessitate construction of regulatory storage capacity at Las Perillas Reservoir and a similar stor- age facility near the entrance to the Polonio Pass Tun- nel to provide for uniform flow in the aqueduct lead- ing up to and away from the pumping lifts. The build-up of requirements, through year 2020, for generating capacity and energy for pumping, re- flecting water deliveries presented in Chapter IV, to- gether with the combination of hydroelectric and purchased off-peak capacity and energy which would be provided to meet these requirements, is shown for Aqueduct System "B" under the "off-peak electric and feedback" scheme in Figure 11. As a further illu.stration of energy requirements and transfers, an energy balance for estimated conditions in year 2000 is shown schematically on Plate 12 and in Table 23. Aqueduct System "C" The application of the "steam-drive and feedback" scheme to Aqueduct System "C" assumes all pump- ing plants on the coastal aqueduct equipped with electric motor drive and interconnected by a transmis- sion line from Avenal Gap to the San Fernando Val- ley, including connection to the San Luis Obispo Power Development. The inland aqueduct would have pumping arrangements similar to those for Aqueduct System " B " but with smaller sizes and with the elimi- nation of west branch features. Transmission lines would interconnect the Devil Canyon power recovery plants. Pumping Plants In-VII, In-V, In-IV, In-III, and the Cottonwood power recovery plant. Pumping Plant In-VI would be equipped with direct steam- drive pumping facilities as in System "B". It would be necessary to construct steam-electric generating plants on the coastal aqueduct at Pumping Plant C-3 near Avenal Gap and near Pumping Plant C-8 (Conejo dam site) and on the inland aqueduct near Pumping Plant In-III (Buena Vista Lake). The possi- bilities for interconnection with utility s.ystems de- scribed for System "B" would also be applicable to System "C". Facilities for the "off-peak electric and feedback" scheme applied to Aqueduct System "C" would be similar to but of smaller capacity than pumping fa- cilities described for Systems "A" and "B". The energy balance for pumping and power recov- ery operations of Aqueduct System "C" estimated for the year 2000 is set forth in Table 23 for each of the two schemes. I 116 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS PUMPING AND POWER PLANT FACILITIES Estimates of costs and studies of operational aspects of pumping and power recovery installations were based upon preliminary designs and layouts of the equipment carried to sufficient degree of detail to es- tablish engineering feasibility and provide reliable cost estimates, as described geueralty in Chapter IV. The general design features of the pumping and power generation eqiiipment are described in the fol- lowing sections. Pumping Plants Under the "off-peak electric and feedback" and the "steam-electric and feedback" schemes of operation, electric motor drive would be employed at all the pumping installations. Under the "steam-drive and feedback" scheme, direct steam-drive as developed in this investigation would be applied to the high head lift at Pumping Plant In-VI, and electric motor drive would be used for all other pumping installations. In either ease, it should be pointed out that Pumping Plant In-VI embodies an unprecedented combination of high head and large flow rate. No prototype exists of pumps of the type and size contemplated. There- fore, in the design and selection of prime mover and pumping equipment for this plant, it will be neces- sary, regardless of type of drive selected, to perform considerable developmental work, including model testing. Electric Motor Drive. For all low-head pumping units, of which those at Pumping Plants C-3 and In- III are typical, synchronous electric motors would be employed to drive vertical single-stage single-suction centrifugal pumps. Units pumping against a mod- erately high head, as at Pumping Plants C-8 and In-V, would consist of two single-stage pumps in series, the first of vertical single-suction tj^pe, and the second of horizontal single or double-suction type, both driven bj^ synchronous electric motors. For the very high head encountered only at Pumping Plant In-VI, each uuit Avould consist of three single-stage pumps in series, the first of vertical single-suction type, and the other two of horizontal single or double- suctiou type, each driven by an individual synchro- nous electric motor. Direct Steam Drive. For the high head applica- tion at Pumping Plant In-VI, each pumping unit would consist of three pumps in series, the final-stage pump being driven by a horizontal direct-connected 1800 RPM steam turbine. The first pump in the series would be of low head driven by a vertical synchronous electric motor, as in the all-electric drive arrangement previously described. The intermediate pump would develop sufficient head to prevent cavitation in the suction of the final-stage high-head pump and could be driven either by an electric motor or, through re- duction gears, by a steam turbine. This scheme would employ a conventional reheat steam cycle of high efficiency with turbines in a cross-compound arrange- ment, the high pressure turbine driving either the intermediate pump through reduction gears or an electric generator, and the low pressure turbine driv- ing the final-stage pump. Cooling water would be sup- plied by routing a portion of the flow of the aqueduct through the condenser before its entry into the suc- tion of the intermediate pump. The boiler, turbine, condenser, and all auxiliary equipment would be of conventional central station type, although simpler in that some of the control features normally used in electric utility service would not be required. The boiler would normally be fired with heavy fuel oil, but provision would be made for conversion to gas or coal firing at any time this might become desirable. Unit type of construction would be employed so that future additions might be modified to take advantage of tech- nological improvements or changing conditions. Steam-Electric Generating Plants The steam-electric generating plants for either the "steam-electric and feedback" or the "steam-drive and feedback" operational schemes would follow con- ventional designs used in the electric utility industry for base load units operated continuously for long periods at near full load. Cooling water would be provided by routing a portion of the aqueduct flow directly through the condensers. Unit-type construc- tion would be employed so that designs for successive units could be modified, if desired, to take advantage of improved technology or changing conditions of fuel supply. For the initial units, and probably for most of the subsequent units, heavy fuel oil would be used. Provision would be made, however, for the boilers to be converted to gas-firing or coal-firing should it be foiTud advantageous to do so. Later, it might become desirable to install units which would employ nuclear fuels for steam-raising, and the layout of plants could provide for this possibility. Hydroelectric Generating Plants The hydroelectric generating plants used for the re- covery of power on the downward slopes of the Trans- verse Ranges, would, under the "steam-drive and feedback" or the "steam-electric and feedback" oper- ational schemes be designed for continuous operation. For "off-peak and feedback" operation, the plants would be designed for peaking operation and would accordingly be sized to discharge the required water quantities operating during on -peak hours only. At Devil Canyon Power Plant No. 1, where an operating head of approximately 1,100 feet is available, the in- stallation for either continuous or peaking operation woiild consist of from three to six turbine units of the six-jet vertical impulse turbine type coiTpled to the generators. At each of the other hydroelectric plants, where operating heads cover the approximate FIGURE 10 STEM "B" RESERVE STEAM- ELECTRIC CAPACITY REQUIRED STEAM -ELECTRIC CAPACITY HYDROELECTRIC FEEDBACK CAPACITY EQUIVALENT STEAM-DRIVE CAPACITY STEAM-ELECTRIC ENERGY HYDROELECTRIC FEEDBACK ENERGY EQUIVALENT STEAM-DRIVE ENERGY :iTY AND ENERGY FOR FACILITIES : AND FEEDBACK OPERATIONAL SCHEME - 1 lUOU 1 1 1600 ~ 1400 1 — ' 1 200 - fzi^ 1 1 - 1 - . 1 r ,...H 600 r r — 1 400 1 ^r^ r^ 1— 1 r^ ■^00 1 Il _. 1 RESERVE STEAM- ELECTRIC CiPaCITY REQUIRED STE4M-ELECTRIC CAPACITY HYDROELECTRIC FEEDBACK CAPACITY EQUIVALENT STEAM-DRIVE CAPACITY - TOTAL USE OF ENERGY ^ .^ -^-<^ - / ^ ______ - ^ ^ - ^ STEAM-ELECTRIC ENERGY HYDROELECTRIC FEEDBACK ENERGY EQUIVALENT STEAM-DRIVE ENERGY AQUEDUCT SYSTEM B BUILD-UP IN USE OF GENERATING CAPACITY AND ENERGY FOR FACILITIES SOUTH OF AVENAL GAP UNDER STEAM-DRIVE AND FEEDBACK OPERATIONAL SCHEME DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1959 FIGURE II EQUIVALENT GENERaTING CAPACITY FOR PUMPING UNITS IDLE DURING ON- PEAK HOURS ON-PEAK HYDROELECTRIC FEEDBACK CAPACITY CONTINUOUS HYDROELECTRIC FEEDBACK CAPACITY ;iTY \ , V r V 1- < < 5 u o o UJ en < I u tr 1 2000 2010 2020 Y FO R PUMPING— ^^ OFF-PEAK PURCHASED ENERGY ON-PEAK HYDROELECTRIC FEEDBACK ENERGY CONTINUOUS HYDROELECTRIC FEEDBACK ENERGY y • ^^ 2000 2010 20 20 STEM "B" ;ITY AND ENERGY FOR FACILITIES RIC AND FEEDBACK OPERATIONAL SCHEME TOTAL ENERGY FOR PUMPING - YEAR 2800 2600 - - - 1 TOTiL GENERiTIN G CAPACITY REQUIREMENT- \ 2200 . CO [2200C ■d |l800 O ^- r - \ 1 r 2 - , ' - 1 j_ 1400 1 o < 1200 . r ^ r 5 o < *-*iooo |_J < - r 1 o Vi X o 2 ^600 1 ■100 1 - ^ ' L 200 r— ' ^ 1 'Js 60 19 '0 i3 <^ 1590 „^,„ 2000 2010 2o; EQUIVALENT GENERATING CAPACITY FOR PUMPING UNITS IDLE DURING ON- PEAK HOURS ON-PEAK HYDROELECTRIC FEEDBACK CAPACITY CONTINUOUS HYDROELECTRIC FEEDBACK CAPACITY OFF-PEAK PURCHASED ENERGY ON-PEAK HYDROELECTRIC FEEDBACK ENERGY CONTINUOUS HYDROELECTRIC FEEDBACK ENERGY 2020 AQUEDUCT SYSTEM "B" BUILD-UP IN USE OF GENERATING CAPACITY AND ENERGY FOR FACILITIES SOUTH OF AVENAL GAP UNDER OFF-PEAK ELECTRIC AND FEEDBACK OPERATIONAL SCHEME DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1959 INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 117 range of 300 to 1,000 feet, the installation would con- sist of from two to six units of the vertical Francis turbine type coupled to the generators. POWER AND ENERGY RESOURCES AND COSTS The cost analj'ses of the schemes involving purchase and/or sale of power required estimates of the future availability aud cost of off-peak power for pumping. Also, analyses of the schemes involving no purchase or sale of power necessitated estimates of the avail- ability and cost of fuels. It was possible, based upon data previously ob- tained from individual utility agencies, and with the advice of a committee composed of representatives of these agencies, to develop preliminary information for use in evaluating the operational schemes involving utility participation. Based upon contacts with major oil companies and research organizations, estimates of future availability and cost of fuels were developed for use in evaluating schemes which do not involve utility participation. The results of these studies are described in this section. The Power Advisory Committee, on which Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edi- son Company, and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power are represented, was formed during May, 1958, for the purpose of advising the Department of Water Resources on power aspects of the Feather River and Delta Diversion Projects, particularly with respect to the availability and cost of pumping power purchased from utility systems, and the marketability and value of recovered power, both under the various operational schemes outlined previously. The commit- tee held several meetings during 1958 and 1959, and in connection therewith, working representatives of the utilities have familiarized themselves with the planning for the project, aud have given assistance to Department personnel on certain phases of its work. It is expected that the committee will continue its efforts during the design phase of work on aqueduct facilities to southern California. California Power Load Projections were made of the California power load, with particular emphasis on soiithern California, in order to provide a basis for estimates of future avail- ability of power for pumping purposes and probable market for recovered power. Results of these projec- tions were employed in advance of the more definite results which are expected to result from efforts of the previously mentioned committee of power utility representatives. As stated earlier, assistance in the studies described herein was provided by working representatives of the agencies participating on the committee. The first step in the procedure employed was the application of estimates of per capita consumption of electric energy, comparable to estimates prepared by the Federal Power Commission, to median population projections presented in Chapter II. In this manner a projection of total energy consumption over time to the year 1990 was obtained. There are wide variations in the rate of utilization of electric power in any load system from month to month, day to day, and throughout each day. Experi- ence has shown that the variations in rate of energy utilization follow a characteristic pattern over each year. The peak rate of utilization of electric energy, or maximum power demand, of a power load system is the best measure of the need for more power gener- ating capacity. The relationship of the average utilization of en- ergy, through a given year, to the maximum demand for power during the year is expressed as a ratio designated ' ' load factor ' '. After consultation with op- erating electric utility agencies, estimates of future load factor conditions were developed and the fore- going projection of total energy consumption was converted to a projection of peak power demand. The future power demands so projected are shown in Fig- ure 12, entitled "Historical and Projected Annual Maximum Power Demand in California", and also in Table 24, for "northern" and "southern" California, as defined in publications of the California Public Utilities Commission. TABLE 24 HISTORICAL AND ESTIAAATED FUTURE ANNUAL MAXIMUM POWER DEMAND IN CALIFORNIA (Quantities In millions of kilowatts) Northern Southern Total for Year California California State 1920^. -. 0.4 1.0 1.3 0.3 0.8 1.2 0.7 1930 - - 1.8 1940 2.5 1945.. 1.7 1.9 3.6 1950 2.5 2.8 5.3 1955 3.7 4.4 8.1 1956 4.0 4.8 8.8 1960 5.1 6.4 11.5 1970 9.3 16.7 28.2 11.4 19.0 28.8 20.7 1980- . - --- 35.7 1990 57.0 The estimated growth of power demand in southern California shown in Table 24 indicates that generating resources therein must be increased by as much as 5,000,000 kilowatts between 1960 and 1970 and by at least three times this much between 1970 and 1990. During these periods, the maximum generating poten- tial of the power recovery plants on the aqueduct sys- tems investigated was estimated to represent less than 10 per cent of this increased demand. It may there- fore be assumed that there would be a market for the estimated quantities of recovered power for peaking purposes, if it should be found financiallj' advanta- geous to sell it rather than utilize it within the system 118 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS for pumping: purposes; however, the value or selling price for such power cannot be forecast with any de- gree of certainty at this time. It has been suggested previously, and analyses pre- sented in the cited 1955 report were based upon the assumption, that power to supply aqueduct pumping plants would be purchased from the power utilities only during the "off-peak" period. The characteris- tic variation of electric power load requirements throughout each day, previously referred to, generally comprises high demand through the daylight and early evening hours of each weekday and low demand through the remaining night time hours and during the week-end. The hours of low power demand are commonly referred to as "off-peak" time on a power generation-load system. During these off-peak hours, a certain portion of a power utility's generating ca- pacity is idle. The steam-electric portion of this idle generating capacity could be kept operating during off-peak hours to supply project pumping power, at an additional cost approximately equal to the cost of the fuel consumed. The growth of power demand in California shown in Table 24 indicates a need for total generating re- sources therein of more than 20,000,000 kilowatts in 1970 and several times this amount by 1990. Since a major part of the hydroelectric potential of the State has already been developed, it appears that this in- crease of generating capacity must be largely from steam-electric or similar equipment. It was estimated that between the years 1970 and 1990, steam-electric capacity in peaking service and therefore idle during off-peak hours will increase from about 6,000,000 kilo- watts to 20,000,000 kilowatts. The estimated off-peak pumping requirements of the aqueduct systems for the same period would represent less than 10 per cent of the possible off-peak output of this estimated peak- ing steam capacity. Therefore, it appears reasonable to assume that there would be sufficient off-peak power for aqueduct system pumping should its cost be such as to justify its purchase rather than employment of other sources or kinds of power. A power utility as a matter of necessity must main- tain installed generating capacity somewhat in excess of its load commitments. Generally, this reserve is maintained at between 10 and 15 per cent of the total demand on the system. It is common utility practice to maintain a portion of this reserve capacity as "spinning reserve" readj' to pick up load in event of forced outage of other generating units, generally accomplished by operating several units at less than full load ready to pick up load should an emergency shutdown occiir. The possibility of purchase of the output of this reserve capacity on an iuterruptible basis was studied. After consultation with the power utility agencies it was concluded that this could not be considered a significant source of power for pumping. Fuel Requirements One of the most frequently discussed questions with regard to the study of aqueduct routes to southern California is that of relative pumping requirements for the various routes, particularly the lift over the Tehachapi Mountains, and the net effect thereof upon energy-producing fuel oil reserves of the State and of the nation. Net energy requirements of Aqueduct Systems "A", "B", and "C", for the "steam-electric and feedback" or "steam-drive and feedback" schemes, were converted to equivalent barrels of fuel oil using estimated heat rates of 620 kilowatt hours per barrel of oil for steam-electric generation and 600 kilowatt hours per barrel for the direct steam-drive application. The comparison of net annual equivalent fuel oil con- sumption for the systems south of Avenal Gap, includ- ing that of the main conveyance and distribution sys- tems within service areas, and reflecting estimated build-up of water demands to year 2020, is presented graphically in Figure 13 for the "steam-electric and feedback", or "steam-drive and feedback" schemes. It will be noted that the maximum difference in fuel oil consumption between Aqueduct System "A", pri- marily a coastal system, and Aqueduct System "B", primarily an inland system, including the effect of required local pumping, is only about 14 per cent. Fuel Resources The production of crude oil in California during the year 1957 was 340 million barrels. Residual oils obtained from this total, that is oils remaining after removal of the lighter and more valuable constituents of crude oil, probably approximated 100 million bar- rels. The heavy residual oil is the general type of fuel utilized by oil burning steam-electric plants. The esti- mated average annual fuel oil consumption of Aque- duct System "B" over the period from 1970 through 2020 under the "steam-drive and feedback" opera- tion would represent less than one-tenth of present California production of this commodity. Several major oil companies, operating in the southern California area, were contacted in regard to the matter of long-term availability of fuel oil re- sources. The consensus of these companies was that crude oil production in the San Joaquin Valley could continue unabated and probably grow at least until 1980. Some estimates indicated sustained production for the next 50 years. It was further indicated that foreign imports of oil refined in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area represent a large and con- tinuing source of heavy residual fuel oils for steam plant use. These fuel oil supplies could be conveyed to Pumping Plant In-VI or other sites in the southern San Joaquin Valley by pipe line. Natural gas is also utilized in firing steam-electric plants in California. However, competition for this commodity will be high from residential and indus- FIGURE 12 A RS yo PROJECTED DEMAND IN CALI FORNIA FIGURE 12 < O _l Ll. o CO o 60 50 40 30 20 1920 y r >Do 1 c"P T c n 1 / y - y / ^ 0>> <^ y^ > / y / / / / / / / / / >/ / / / -f / / .// .o>^ / ,r / / / / ^ / // / / / / ^/ / 1930 1940 1950 I960 YEARS 1970 1980 1990 HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED ANNUAL MAXIMUM POWER DEMAND IN CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1959 FIGURE I 3 FUEL OIL CONSUMPTION FOR FACILITIES SOUTH OF AVENAL GAP ONLY. AQUEDUCT SYSTEM "A" 'B "C" FACILITY COASTAL INLAND DISTRIBUTION TOTAL COASTAL INLAND DISTRIBUTION TOTAL COASTAL INLAND DISTRIBUTION TOTAL AVERAGE CONSUMPTION OF FUEL OIL 1970 TO 2020 MILLIONS OF BARRELS PER YEAR 5.68 1.34 1.0 I 8.0 3 .28 8.99 .08 9.35 3.15 5.47 .05 8.67 BARRELS PER ACRE-FOOT 2.33 2.71 2.51 90 YEAR 2000 2020 CONSUMPTION ON ALTERNATIVE ID MAIN CONVEYANCE DN FACILITIES FIGURE I 3 16 14 _ 12 UJ 3 10 (O _i 7 UJ a: O a: 1- < CD Ol u. 8 s o -l « z If) o z -I o -J o < 3 / / // / 7 NOTE: FUEL OIL CONSUMPTION FOR FACILITIES SOUTH OF AVENAL GAP ONLY. AQUEDUCT SYSTEM FACILITY AVERAGE CONSUMPTION OF FUEL OIL 1970 TO 2020 MILLIONS OF BARRELS PER YEAR BARRELS PER ACRE-FOOT "A" COASTAL INLAND DISTRIBUTION TOTAL 5.68 1.34 / — 2.33 8.03 "B" COASTAL INLAND DISTRIBUTION TOTAL .28 8.99 .06 9.35 2.71 / "c" COASTAL INLAND DISTRIBUTION TOTAL 3.15 5.47 .05 2.51 8.67 1965 70 80 90 YEAR 2000 10 2020 ESTIMATED ANNUAL FUEL OIL CONSUMPTION ON ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS AND MAIN CONVEYANCE AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1959 INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 119 trial heating customers and also from utility agencies operating in metropolitan areas. Therefore, it can only be considered a supplementary source of energy that might be utilized on a "when-available" basis. Additional considerations with regard to fuel re- sources are the recent advances in the field of nuclear energy utilization. The Stanford Research Institute, under contract with the Department of Water Re- sources, was requested to research the que.stion of the applicability of nuclear energy production to aque- duct pumping. Based upon this study, it is considered that nuclear energy as a source of heat could be em- ployed in the .steam-raising operations for the direct steam-drive application at Pumping Plant In-VI or for steam-electric plants referred to previously for the various aqueduct systems applications. The extent of resources of fuels for the nuclear process is not well defined at this time, but various estimates have been made which indicate almost unlimited resources. The nuclear application would include nuclear reactor and heat exchanger equipment replacing the conventional steam boilers and heat exchanger equip- ment presently contemplated at the foregoing loca- tions, and the steam turbines, which would drive either pumpiug units or generators, could be readily adapted to pressures and temperatures selected for the nuclear operation. Despite advances of the science, nuclear power generation is at present more costly than conventional steam-electric generating methods, and a firm prediction cannot be made as to Avhen it may become competitive. However, should competitive nuclear equipment be developed, such equipment could be installed wlien additional pumping plant units were required or whenever it would become necessary to replace worn out units. Cost of Fuel The cost of fuel oil utilized by steam-electrie gen- erating plants has experienced historical fluctuations generally reflecting economic conditions. Also over the years, temporary shortages or surpluses of fuel oil supplies have affected costs thereof. However, the over-all trend has been a steady rise. Informed sources in the oil industry were con- sulted for advice on the projection of long-term fuel oil co.sts. The consensus was that the many factors affecting such costs make it difficult to support a long- term projection. It was generally agreed that the cost trend will be gradually upward but that there are certain factors which will tend to suppress the upward rise. One of these factors which can be evaluated to some extent is the assured availability for many years of competitive fuels such as coal and shale oil. It is con- sidered that costs of these fuels will be relatively stable because large reserves are known to exist and because continuing improvements of mining and ex- tractive techniques can be expected. Based upon pub- li.shed literature dealing with mining and processing of such fuel resources, it was estimated that Utah coal or residual oil from Colorado shales could be imported to the southern California area at a cost equivalent to a fuel oil price of from $3.00 to $3.50 per barrel. Current posted prices of fuel oil in the southern California area are near the $2.00 per barrel level, and actual costs to quantity consumers are Imown to be substantially lower than $2.00 per barrel. In pro- jecting the price of fuel oil into the future, it was considered reasonable to assume a figure near the average of the ciirrent price and the estimated ceiling imposed by competitive fuels. Accordingly, a price of $2.50 per barrel was adopted as an average figure for use in aqueduct systems analyses. In order to evaluate the effect of variation of fuel oil cost from the assumed price on aqueduct system selection, water costs for the alternative systems were determined for a range of fuel costs from $2.00 per barrel to $4.00 per barrel. Curves showing the varia- tion of cost of water with cost of fuel oil for the al- ternative aqueduct systems are presented in Chapter VII. Cost and Value of Electric Power Estimates of rates that might apply to off-peak power for pumping were contained in a letter from Pacific Gas and Electric Company to the State Engi- neer, dated August 17, 1954. With regard to these estimated rates, the letter states that "These figures are not to be taken as a firm proposal but as the best estimates we (Pacific Gas and Electric Company) can make at this time." Estimates of the return that might be realized from the sale of recovered power to the operating utilities were contained in a letter from Southern California Edison Company, dated November 4, 1955. Qualification of the estimate of value of power, similar to that made by Pacific Gas and Electric Company, was included in this latter communication. Analyses of the "off-peak electric and feedback" scheme were made utilizing costs of purchased power estimated by Pacific Gas and Electric Company ad- justed to the postulated average price of fuel oil of $2.50 per barrel. An additional adjustment was made in the previously estimated costs to reflect increases in construction cost index for power transmission lines. Costs of off-peak power estimated in the Company's letter of August 17, 1954 and the adjusted values of those rates are presented following: Demand charge Energy charge per kiloivatt-year per kilotcatt-hour P.G. & E. Adjusted P.G. Total Regulatory Emergency "^ Total Regulatory Emergency ^ Total 100,000 .57,600 115,700 81,900 15,000 59,400 32,300 68,800 22,000 205,000 117,000 '148,000 150,700 22,000 27,000 "b 107,600 54,000 137,700 118,900 13,000 56,000 42,400 ■1162,000 10,300 63,100 '40,000 56,000 150,000 216,000 148,000 182,000 134,600 54,000 137,700 118,900 35,400 35,000 ■1162,000 10,300 63,100 170,000 Bell Canyon 35,000 Castaic _ 216,000 148,000 Lake Mathews" (Existing) Morris " fFvistinp;) 182,000 Totals-- 445.200 197,500 642,700 445,200 346,800 792,000 445,200 305,800 751,000 • Includes terminal storage requirement for exiting Colorado River Aqueduct System. '• Includes 11,000, 62,000, and 18,000 acre-feet provided for dcid storage and siltation for Systems "A", "B", and "C", respectively. ■^ Tliese resiTvoirs would be operated as part of local distribution facilities in some systems. <' Includes 100.000 acre-feet, which could he utilized for dependability of power generation or for additional emergency storage. * Not all of available capacity of these reservoirs used in ail systems. INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 123 KERN COUNTY SERVICE AREA The San Joaquin Valley portion of Kern County was subdivided, for analytical purposes, into four sub- areas, as shown on Plate 2. About 80 per cent of the 1,785,000 acre-feet of water projected for delivery in these areas in year 2020 would be for agricultural purposes and the remainder for municipal and indus- trial uses, mainly in the Bakersfield metropolitan area. The main aqueduct, which would be in canal section in this area, would be sized south of the pro- posed San Luis Reservoir to convey the average flow requirement during the month of maximum demand. For the Kern County Service Area, this provision is equal to 253 per cent of the continuous flow equivalent of the annual demand. Further, as stated, a 10 per cent additional capacity allowance for irrigation serv- ice was assumed in the canal for flexibility of opera- tion. The location and capacity of water service facilities in Kern County Service Area would be identical for all systems. However, the buildup of water demand would be different for each system because of varia- tions in the cost of water. The total capital cost of major local conveyance fa- cilities including that of the secondary distribution facilities required to deliver irrigation water to the farmers' headgates, which cost would be the same for Systems "A", "B", and "C", was estimated to be about 118 million dollars. The breakdown of this cost for each subdivision of the Kern County Service Area is shown in Table 27. Upper Antelope Plain This area is in the northwesterly portion of Kern County and lies generally above the inland aqueduct route, between elevations 450 feet and 1,200 feet. There are now no surface distribution facilities of any consequence in this area. It was found that this portion of the Kern County Service Area could be more economically served from a coastal aqueduct utilizing Pumping Plants C-3 and C-4 than from a main inland aqueduct. The area would be served by two canals extending south, gen- erally parallel to but at a higher elevation than the main inland aqueduct. One canal would turn out from the coastal aqueduct after Pumping Plant C-3 and would serve lands between elevations 450 feet and 750 feet. A turnout for the second canal would be placed after Pumping Plant C-4 and would serve lands be- tween elevations 750 feet and 1,200 feet. Water service in this area would commence in all systems in 1971. A maximum of 370,000 acre-feet of agricultural water per annum would be served. Avenal Gap /o Pumping Plant In-Ill Lands considered for service in this area lie largely below the main inland aqueduct route. The recently formed Semitropic Water Storage District is to the east and below the elevation of the main aqueduct. A maximum of 759,000 acre-feet of water per annum would be served in this area, with service commenc- ing in 1965-66. It was considered that the entire sup- ply would be for irrigation. Six turnouts would be provided on the main aque- duct. One at the Kings-Kern County line would serve lands above the aqueduct in the Antelope Plain area. Two turnouts in the vicinity of Lost Hills would serve the northerly portion of the Semitropic area and the southerly portion of the Antelope Plain. Two turnouts near Tupman would serve the southerly portion of the Semitropic area and the Kern River Delta area. A turnout near Pumping Plant In-III would serve agri- cultural lands in the vicinity of Taft. Water service for the Bakersfield metropolitan area would originate in the next reach of aqueduct beyond Pumping Plant In-III and thus was considered as being a part of the Pumping Plant In-III to Pumping Plant In-IV Serv- ice Area. Pumping Plant In-Ill to Pumping Plant In-IV Included in this area is a large portion of the pro- posed Maricopa- Wheeler Ridge Water Storage Dis- trict. A maximum of 593,000 acre-feet of water per annum would be delivered to this area with service commencing in 1966. Approximately 20 turnouts would be provided to serve lands both above and below the aqueduct and to serve agricultural and urban lands near Taft. Water would be delivered into local distribution systems, consisting largely of canal. Immediately before Pumping Plant In-IV, a turnout would be provided at about the 500-foot ele- vation to convey urban water in a gravity canal which would extend northeasterly and thence northerly to the City of Bakersfield. There would be an eventual delivery of 340,000 acre-feet of water for municipal and industrial purposes through this lateral. Pumping Plant In-IV to Pumping Plant In-VI This area includes the remainder of the proposed Maricopa- Wheeler Ridge Water Storage District to- gether with other lands which might be served from an inland aqueduct. A maximvim of 63,000 acre-feet of water per annum would be served to this area, with service commencing in 1967. No turnouts would be provided between Pumping Plants In-IV and In-V. Between Pumping Plants In-V and In-VI nine turn- outs would be provided serving lands, both above and below the main aqueduct, through local distribution systems. SAN LUIS OBISPO SERVICE AREA Water supplies in San Luis Obispo County are presently obtained primarily from ground water. Other than municipal facilities, of which the principal ones serve the City of San Luis Obispo, there are no 124 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS major water conveyance or distribution systems in the County. The location of local conveyance and distribution facilities to serve imported water to areas of projected need within San Luis Obispo Service Area would be essentially the same for Aqueduct Systems "A", "B", and"C". Maximum deliveries of water to San Luis Obispo Service Area from the three main aqueduct systems would be 55,000, 52,000, and 55,000 acre-feet per an- num, respectively. Of the contemplated delivery, about 25 per cent would be for agricultural purposes. Water deliveries would commence in the Upper Sa- linas Valley and Nipomo Mesa area iu 1971, and in the remainder of the County in 1991. Local regulation would be provided by reservoirs on Huerhuero Creek near Paso Robles, on Little Morro Creek, and at Corbett Canj^on near the City of Arroyo Grande. A pipe line about seven miles in length, designated the "Paso Robles Lateral", would convey water to the vicinity of the City of Paso Robles. Beginning at the tailrace of the San Luis Obispo Power Plant, the "Morro Bay Lateral", a lateral pipe line would extend westerly thirteen miles to the vicinity of Morro Bay. The "Pismo Beach Lateral", about nine miles in length, would serve Arroyo Grande, Pismo Beach, and Shell Beach. The "Nipomo Me.sa Lateral", seven miles in length, would serve Nipomo Mesa. As shown on Table 27 the estimated capital cost for local conveyance facilities required by Aqueduct Sys- tems "A" and "C" would be about 10.9 million dollars. The comparable cost for Aqueduct System "B" would be about 10.5 million dollars. Construc- tion expenditures for these facilities until year 1991 would be about 4.3 million dollars under Systems "A" and "C" and about 3.9 million dollars under System "B". SANTA BARBARA SERVICE AREA Water supplies in Santa Barbara Service Area are presently obtained from ground water sources and from surface storage developments on the Santa Ynez River, as well as from the recently completed Twitch- ell Reservoir on the Cuyama River which will be operated in conjunction with ground water storage in the Santa Maria Valley. Water deliveries to Santa Barbara Service Area would commence under all sj^stems in 1971. Maximum water deliveries from S.ystems "A", "B", and "C" would be 186,000, 159,000, and 186,000 acre-feet per annum, respectively, the major portion of which would be for urban purposes. The manner of serving imported water in the County would be different under Aqueduct System "B", with a termination of the coastal aqueduct in the Santa Maria Valley area, than under Systems "A" and "C" where a major coastal aqueduct would extend through the County to the south. Systems "A" and "C" ' Under these systems, imported water would be served directly into local conveyance and distribution facili- ties by gravity from the main aqueducts. In northern Santa Barbara Countj% water would be discharged from the main aqueduct into the Santa Maria River for ground water replenishment and laterals from the main aqueduct would convey water to other areas of need, with local regulation being provided by reser- voirs near the communities of Orcutt, Los Alamos, and Santa Ynez. A pipe line designated the "Orcutt Lateral", ex- tending from the main aqueduct east of the City of Santa Maria would convey water to the vicinity of Orcutt, a distance of about 10 miles. Los Alamos Valley, Santa Rita Valley, and Vandenberg Air Force Base would be served bj^ a " Vandenberg Lateral ' ' ex- tending westerly from a turnout on the main aqueduct east of the community of Los Alamos, a total distance of 25 miles. The Santa Ynez Valley would be served by means of a pipe line designated the "Santa Ynez Lateral", 11 miles in length extending from a turnout on the main aqueduct near Santa Ynez to the com- munity of Buellton. Water supplies for the south coastal portion of Santa Barbara County would be regulated in the existing Cachuma Reservoir and served from turn- outs from the main aqueduct between the south portal of San Marcos Pass Tunnel and Carpinteria, and by a short lateral extending westerly from the existing Teeolote Tunnel to Eagle Canyon near Ellwood. As shown in Table 27, the capital cost of the local conveyance facilities required by Systems "A" and "C" would be about 18.5 million dollars. System "B" \ As in Systems " A " and " C ", water would be dis- charged from the main aqueduct into the Santa Maria River for ground water replenishment. A local main conveyance facility, designated the "Santa Maria- Santa Barbara Conduit", following an alignment westerly of the main coastal aqueduct route of Sys- tems "A" and "C" would extend from the Santa Maria terminus of the main aqueduct south for about 20 miles through Los Alamos and Santa Rita Valleys, then easterly along the Santa Ynez River to discharge into Cachuma Reservoir. At a point about 3 miles south of the Santa Maria River, a pumping plant would lift the water to an elevation of 1,120 feet. This alignment provides more economical service to all por- tions of the County than the "main aqueduct route" of Systems "A" and "C". Water would be regulated in local reservoirs near Orcutt, Sisquoc, in Los Alamos and Santa Rita Valleys, and near Solvang. Service to the Orcutt area would be identical to that described INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 125 for Systems "A" and "C". The Sisquoc Eiver Valley would be served by the "Sisquoc Lateral", a gravity pipe line 9 miles in length extending easterly from the Santa Maria-Santa Barbara Conduit to a reservoir near the confluence of Tepusquet Creek and the Sis- quoc River. Service to Vandenberg Air Force Base would be by means of the "Vandenberg Lateral", a 7-mile long pipe line extending from a turnout on the Santa Maria-Santa Barbara Conduit near the cross- ing of San Antonio Creek. Water for the south coastal portion of Santa Bar- bara County would be discharged from the Santa Maria-Santa Barbara Conduit into Cachuma Reser- voir on a continuous flow basis. Water stored in the reservoir would be withdrawn through the existing Teeolote Tunnel, which would be altered to permit pressure flow and the conveyance of the maximum month water demand of the area. Regulation of the continuous flow of the conduit to the peak demands of the area would require about 10,000 acre-feet of storage in this existing facility in the j'ear 2020, which it is estimated would reduce the safe yield thereof by a relatively small amount. Service would be provided from east and west laterals constructed from the south portal of the tunnel to several existing water districts and adjacent lands. An alternative method of serving the south coastal portion of the County under Aqueduct System "B" would be by construction of a lateral from the Balboa Terminus of the inland aqueduct, a portion of which could be jointly used with Ventura County. It was found that service in this manner would be more costly than from the coastal aqueduct. As shown in Table 27, the estimated capital cost of local conveyance facilities required by Aqueduct System "B" would be 41.2 million dollars. Of this amount, 29.8 million dollars represents the first stage of construction of the Santa Maria-Santa Barbara Conduit to Cachuma Reservoir, plus remaining local facilities required to meet water demands until year 1995. VENTURA COUNTY SERVICE AREA Ventura County now obtains its water supplies I largely from groimd water sources. Some surface water is obtained from storage developments in the Ventura River watershed. Santa Felicia Reservoir in the Santa Clara River watershed is operated to aug- ment ground water supplies. Distribution facilities are under construction in the Ventura River watershed and have been constructed to serve a limited area on the Oxnard Plain. There are three major water districts in the County; the Calleguas Municipal Water District; the United Water Conservation District ; and the Ventura River Municipal Water District. Water deliveries under all systems would commence in 1971 in the Calleguas Municipal Water District and United Water Conservation District areas, and in 1991 in the Ventura River Municipal Water District. A maximum delivery of water for all systems of 236,000 acre-feet was projected for the County, all oi which would be for urban and suburban uses in year 2020. As in Santa Barbara County, local conveyance and distribution of imported water would require substantially different facilities from System "B" than from Systems "A" and "C". Systems "A" and "C" For most portions of the County where an economic demand for imported water was projected, deliveries would be made directly from the main aqueduct. The Simi Valley and adjacent areas would be served by the "Simi Valley Lateral", a gravity pipe line ex- tending from a turnout of the main aqueduct after Pumping Plant C-8, a distance of about 12 miles. The cost of this facility was estimated to be about 2.6 million dollars. Sysiem "B" Ventura County and the areas of western Los Angeles County adjacent thereto would be served under this system by means of a main gravity feeder line, designated the "Ventura County Feeder", which would extend westerly about 26 miles from the Balboa Terminus of the inland aqueduct. This feeder would pass through northerly San Fernando Vallej% tunnel through the Santa Susana Mountains, and eventually discharge into a reservoir at the Conejo site, with a storage capacity of 40.000 acre-feet. It would be oper- ated on a continuous flow basis and regulation would be provided by the reservoir. Turnouts would be pro- vided on the feeder to serve Simi and Conejo Valleys. A " Saticoy-Ventura Lateral", extending westerly from Conejo Reservoir, would convey water to exist- ing spreading grounds and distribution faciliites near Satieoy and continue to the City of Ventura, a total distance of 21 miles. The estimated capital cost of the local conveyance facilities required by Aqueduct System "B" woiild be 41.4 million dollars. Of this amount, 30.2 million dollars represents the first stage of construction of the Ventura County Feeder from Balboa Terminus to Conejo Reservoir plus remaining local facilities re- quired to meet water demands until year 1991. There are alternative possibilities of serving either part or all of the water for Ventura County from Aqueduct System "B" which might prove advan- tageous. Imported water for the Oxnard Plain area could be discharged into the Santa Clara River sys- tem directly from Castaic Reservoir, or a pipe line might be constructed for all or part of the distance from this reservoir to areas of need in the United Water Conservation District area. It would also be possible to terminate this pipe line at Conejo Reser- voir and serve both the United Water Conservation 126 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS District and Calleguas areas by laterals extending easterly and westerly from this facility. Another alternative method of service would be to construct a "peaking line" from Balboa Terminus to a relatively small terminal reservoir in Ventura County in lieu of the construction of Conejo Dam and Reservoir. Tierra Rejada Reservoir in the Calleguas Creek watershed, currently proposed under a plan for diversion of water from Sespe Creek, might also be considered as an alternative terminal storage site for imported water. Other possible alternatives include diverting to Pirn Creek all or part of the water for Ventura County from the west branch of the inland aqueduct at points above Castaie Reservoir. One possibility would be to divert a short distance below Beartrap Reservoir at about elevation 2,500 feet, with recovery of power at a site on Piru Creek. The possibility of diverting water for Ventura County from the west branch of the main aqueduct at about elevation 3,400 feet above the Castaie Power Development into Piru Creek was investigated. It was found that this plan, even with consideration of power recovery along Piru Creek, would result in a greater unit cost of water in the service area than the plan described. ANTELOPE-MOJAVE SERVICE AREA The Antelope-Mo jave Service Area includes por- tions of Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Coun- ties. The present water needs of the area are met almost entirely from ground water. Service to this area could readily be provided from the east branch of the inland main aqueduct. For all systems, a maxi- mum delivery to this area of 208,000 acre-feet of wa- ter per annum was projected. Service of agricultural water in this area was not contemplated. Under System "A", service to the Antelope Valley area in Kern and Los Angeles Counties would com- mence in 1972, and service to the Mojave River area in San Bernardino County in 1982. Under System "B", service to the Antelope Valley area would start in 1971 and to the Mojave River area in 1982. Sys- tem "C" would provide service to the Antelope Val- ley area in 1975, and, as in the other two systems, to the Mojave River area in 1982. It is probable that a portion of the imported water contemplated for service to this area could be dis- charged to and regulated in the underground. How- ever, since there is a lack of definite knowledge of geologic conditions in the underground basins in the area, such a method of operation was not postulated and surface distribution facilities were assumed. System "A" Under this system, the inland aqueduct would terminate at Little Rock Creek. Tiirnouts would be provided for service in Kern and Los Angeles Coun- ties between the south portal of the Tehachapi Tun- nels and the terminus of the aqueduct. The Kern County area would be served by the ' ' Soledad Moun- tain Lateral", a gravity pipe line extending from the main aqueduct near the Los Angeles-Kern County line to a terminal reservoir near the town of Mojave. This facility would be about 33 miles in length and would traverse the northwesterly edge of the Antelope i Valley at an elevation of about 3,000 feet. The Los Angeles County area would be served by the "An- telope Buttes Lateral" and the "Love joy Buttes Lat- eral", two gravity pipe lines extending northerly from the main aqueduct near Fairmont Reservoir and near Little Rock Creek to regulatory reservoirs lo- cated near Antelope Buttes and Love joy Buttes. These laterals would be three miles and eight miles in length, respectively. Gravity service to the Mojave River area in San Bernardino County would be provided from a ' ' Whitewater-Coachella Lateral ' ', a canal at about the 3,000-foot elevation extending easterly from Little Rock Creek for a distance of 48 miles to the Mojave River. This lateral was considered for joint use by both the Mojave River area and "Whitewater-Coachella Service Area. Two sublaterals extending northerly from this canal to regulatory reservoirs would serve the Mojave River area. The area westerly of the Mojave River would be served by the "Gray Moun- tain Lateral ' ', a gravity pipe line eight miles in length extending northerly from a point on the lateral canal near the Los Angeles-San Bernardino County line to a reservoir near Mirage Lake. The area easterly of the Mojave River would be served from a gravity pipe line, designated the "Granite Mountain Lateral", four miles in length extending northerly from the lateral canal to a reservoir near Apple Valley. As shown in Table 27, the proportionate share of the estimated capital cost of these facilities for service of water within the Antelope-Mo jave Service Area : would be about 37.6 million dollars. System "B" Service in the Antelope Valley area between the south portal of the Tehachapi Tunnels and Little Rock Creek from the first sequence of main aque- duct construction would be as in System "A". Be- tween Pumping Plant In-VII and Cedar Springs Reservoir, two turnouts would be provided for service in the Mojave River area. One near the Los Angeles- San Bernardino County line would serve a gravity pipe line extending to the Mirage Lake area and the second near Hesperia would serve a gravity pipe line extending toward the Apple Valley area. Regulatory reservoirs, as described under System "A", would regulate the supply for the Mojave River area. The proportionate share of the estimated cost of local con- veyance facilities for this area under System "B" would be about 32.4 million dollars. INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 127 Sysfem "C" Local water service facilities for System " C " would be identical to those of System "B" differing in oper- ation onlj' with respect to the dates when first water deliveries would be made in the Antelope Valley. Cost of these facilities would be the same as for Svstem "B". WHITEWATER-COACHELLA SERVICE AREA The "Whitewater-Coaehella Service Area consists of the Coachella Valley and adjacent areas, including a portion of the San Gorgonio Pass area. Colorado River water is imported principally for irrigation use within Improvement District No. 1 of the Coachella Valley County Water District through the Coachella Branch of the All- American Canal. Improvement Dis- trict No. 1 is located immediatelj^ northwest of the Saltou Sea. The remainder of this service area, includ- ing the Palm Springs and Banning areas, is depend- ent on limited ground water supplies. A maximum of 100,000 acre-feet of water per annum for urban and suburban uses would be delivered to this area by all systems, with initial service commencing in 1982. System "A" In System "A", service to the area would be from the "Whitewater-Coaehella Lateral", largely in canal section, extending from Little Rock Creek at about elevation 3,000 feet through Lucerne, Yucca, and Mo- rongo Valleys. Pump lifts of 133 feet and 316 feet would be required at the Mojave River and at Yucca Valley, respectively. The maximum hydraulic grade line elevation on this lateral would be 3,345 feet. It was assumed that power would be developed at two sites on Little Morongo Creek above Desert Hot Springs before distribution at about elevation 1,500 feet. The total head available at these power develop- ment sites is 1,575 feet. As shown in Table 27, the proportionate share of the estimated capital cost of these facilities for service to the Whitewater-Coaehella Service Area under this system would be about 42.9 million dollars. Of this amount, 36.3 million dollars represents the first stage of construction which would provide service until 1995. Systems "B" and "C" Service under Systems "B" and "C" would be from a lateral largely in canal section, originating at the east branch of the main aqueduct near Hesperia at elevation 3,465 feet. This facility, designated the "Whitewater-Coaehella Lateral", would extend through Lucerne, Yucca, and Morongo Valleys. No additional pumping lifts would be required on this aqueduct; however, power could be recovered as in System "A". The alignment under these systems would be identical to that of System "A" beyond Yucca Valley. The proportionate share of the esti- mated capital cost of these facilities for this area would be 34.1 million dollars. First stage costs were estimated to be 27.2 million dollars. Consideration was given to serving the Whitewater- Coaehella Service Area from a lateral extending southeasterly from the tailrace of the Devil Canyon Power Development through Yueaipa and the San Gorgonio Pass. Water service was found to be more expensive under this plan largely because of a net increase in pumping requirements. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL PLAIN AND COASTAL SAN DIEGO COUNTY SERVICE AREA Included in this service area are more than a thou- sand organizations presently engaged in the develop- ment and distribution of water, the largest of which are The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles, an original member agency of the District. The District serves Colorado River water to member agencies in Orange County and the coastal portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside and San Diego Counties. Included within the boundaries of the Metropolitan Water District is an area of 3,200 square miles. The Colorado River Aqueduct of the Metropolitan Water District terminates at Lake Mathews in western Riverside County and serves portions of San Bernar- dino, Riverside, Orange, and Los Angeles Counties through a network of feeder lines extending westerly toward the coast. The Colorado River supply to San Diego County is delivered through the San Diego Aqueduct to the San Diego County Water Authority. A second San Diego Aqueduct is now under construc- tion. Principal existing conveyance and distribution facilities in the area are shown on Plate 15. Two large highly developed portions of this service area, San Gabriel Valley in Los Angeles County, and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District in San Bernardino County, are not in the Metropoli- tan Water District. Also, portions of San Diego County, southwestern Riverside County, and westerly Los Angeles County, as well as a portion of Orange County, are not included within the District and do not receive Colorado River water. The service of surplus northern California water to this large area with its complicated pattern of existing distribution facilities was given special consideration in this investigation. The local conveyance and dis- tribution facilities that would be requred to serve northern California water from Systems "A", "B", and " C " are substantially different. The costs of these essentially different local conveyance and distribution systems have a significant bearing on aqueduct system selection. 128 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS I The magnitude of water deliveries to the area under each system would be identical, amounting to nearly three million acre-feet per annum in year 2020, with initial deliveries commencing in 1970-71. The alterna- tive points of delivery for this supply and postulated timing of deliveries for the three systems have previ- ously been discussed and are shown schematically on Plates 16, 17, and 18. For each main aqueduct sy.stem, a series of analyses was made to ascertain the most economical plan of conveyance and distribution within the area, with the objective of providing maxinmm utilization of, and integration with, existing and planned water supply facilities of local agencies. A basic consideration in selection of the location and capacity of additional conveyance and distribu- tion facilities within the area was the relative rate of growth in demand for imported water in the various portions of the area, and the relationship of the loca- tion and elevation of these demands to location and capacity of and supply available from existing import facilities. It was found that there will be an insufficient sup- ply of Colorado River water to serve fully the pro- jected demands for imported water in the Upper Santa Ana Valley and southwestern Riverside and coastal San Diego Counties, aud that surplus northern California water must physically be made available therein by about 1990 or before. In order to avoid unnecessary construction of overlapping and uneco- nomical local conveyance facilities, it was found nec- essary under certain of the systems to schedule the first deliveries of northern California water to these areas in 1982. Further, as has been discussed in Chap- ter III, the delivery of northern California water to these areas no later than 1982 and possibly earlier is also required by water quality considerations. In plan- ning all local conveyance and distribution sj'stems, consideration was given to staging of facilities in ac- cordance with projected demands and to the proper economic balance between capital investment and con- tinued costs of pumping. Evaluation of this latter factor required correlating the elevation of lands throughout the area with the location and elevation of principal points of delivery from the main aqueducts. Set forth in Table 26 are the estimated demands for imported water for year 2020, including both Colorado River water as well as northern California water, in various portions of the area by elevation zones. In addition to the foregoing elevations, an allow- ance of about 200 feet of additional head must be provided for municipal and industrial users. Since the principal points of delivery from the main aque- duct systems would generally be a substantial distance from points of use, provision for a considerable head loss in local conveyance facilities must also be made. TABLE 26 ESTIMATED DEMAND FOR IMPORTED WATER IN YEAR 2020 BY ELEVATION ZONES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL PLAIN AND COASTAL SAN DIEGO COUNTY SERVICE AREA {In thousands of acre-feet) Coastal Elevation Coastal San Coastal Coastal zones, in Los Bernar- River- San feet above Angeles Orange dino side Diego sea level County County County County County Total 0-500 962 433 604 2,009 500-1,000 370 179 42 18 137 282 212 208 142 61 903 1,000-1,500 748 1,500-2,000 77 4 61 147 33 322 2,000-2,500 _. 12 2 20 38 6 78 Over 2,500 2 2 19 18 4 45 Totals 1,602 511 519 623 850 4,105 System "A" Aqueduct Syistem "A" would deliver the entire quantity of imported water from northern California to this service area via a coastal aqueduct route ter- minating in the west end of the San Fernando Valley at about elevation 1,000 feet. Regulatory and emer- gency storage would be provided in Conejo, Bell Can- yon, and Perris reservoirs. The plan of local convey- ance and distribution of water from System "A" found to be most economical is shown on Plate 16. The terminal elevation of the main coastal aqueduct of 1,000 feet and the necessity, under this system, of transporting large quantities of water to higher ele- vations over a distance of about 100 miles results in a substantial amount of pumping within the local distribution system. It will be noted on Plate 16 that service of surplus northern California water to the Upper Santa Ana Valley would not be accomplished until 1990, at which time a connection would also be made to the second San Diego Aqueduct thereby permitting deliveries of this water to San Diego County. This plan assumes the availability of Colorado River water throughout the Upper Santa Ana Valley and does not give con- sideration to the need, from a water quality stand- point, of delivery of the better quality northern Cali- fornia water to the area, which is required no later than 1982, as stated in Chapter III. Were the date of construction of a lateral to Upper Santa Ana Valley advanced to 1982, there would be a resulting greater cost of water because of this earlier investment. The first stage of construction from the terminus of the coastal aqueduct would be a "Foothill Feeder"' extending to Eagle Rock and a "Coastal Plain Feeder" to 92nd and Figueroa Streets, which facil- ities would be put in service in 1971. The extreme westerly part of Los Angeles County would be served INVESTIGATION OP ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 129 by a " Malibu Lateral ' ' extending southerly from the main aqueduct in Liberty Canyon to Stokes Canyon in the Santa Monica Mountains above Malibu. As the demand for imported water in the eastern areas in- creased and the extent of the area capable of being served from the Colorado River supply is thereby decreased, the area served with northern California water would correspondingly expand toward the east. By the year 1980, water from the coastal aqueduct would be conveyed to the easterly boundary of the City of Pasadena through the Upper Feeder, to the City of West Covina through the Middle Feeder, and the San Gabriel River through the Middle-Cross and I Lower Feeders. This is the limit of the area which could be served from a westerly direction without i duplication of existing facilities across the coastal I plain and is designated as "Area Served by First I Stage in Conjunction with Existing Systems" on : Plate 16. Beginning in 1980 with the second stage of j construction, a necessary duplication of existing local I conveyance facilities would occur. : The second stage of construction would include an extension of the Coastal Plain Feeder from 92nd and Figueroa Streets to the Orange County line, and an < extension of the Foothill Feeder from Eaton Wash 1 easterly to La Verne. The Foothill Feeder would util- 1 ize a portion of the existing Upper Feeder between Eagle Rock and Eaton Wash. From 1980 until 1990, i units of the second stage of construction would serve a progressively larger area toward the east, as shown on Plate 16. The third stage of construction, which would pro- vide service beginning in 1990, would consist of an "Upper Foothill Feeder", 106 miles in length, ex- ■ tending easterly from the terminus of the coastal j aqueduct at Bell Canyon across the San Fernando I Valley, the foothill area, and Upper Santa Ana Val- lley to Perris Reservoir with a capacity of 148,000 acre-feet. Pumping plants would be required at Bell , Canyon and near the City of Riverside, with a total lift of 1,200 feet. Of this lift, about 600 feet repre- sents friction loss in the conveyance facilities. A con- nection from Perris Reservoir to the intersection of the existing Colorado River and Second San Diego I Aqueducts near San Jacinto would integrate the east- ! ern portion of the Colorado River Aqueduct with the new system. After this connection is made, the area easterly of the limit of service by the second stage of construction could be served with either Colorado River water or northern California water, or a mix- ture of the two supplies. The San Bernardino Valley ! Municipal Water District was assumed, to participate I in construction of the third stage of construction. It will be noted on Plate 16 that additional stages of con- struction of the Second San Diego Aqueduct south of Auld Valley would be completed as required to convey this supply and the Colorado River supply. 5—99465 By year 2000 a fourth and last stage of construction would be required. This unit would have the same alignment as the third stage of construction. As shown in Table 27, the estimated capital cost of these facilities would be about 874 million dollars. Alternative Plan of Local Conveyance and Distribution for System "A" An alternative method of serving the southern Cali- fornia coastal plain, but one which would not accom- plish the same results particularly with respect to the water quality considerations, was studied as an at- tempt to avoid the substantial pumping required in the plan previously described. The system would deliver water from the San Fer- nando Valley terminus of the main coastal aqueduct to San Diego County through a main gravity feeder line across the coastal plain of Los Angeles and Orange Counties and thence to San Diego County, at a relatively low elevation, to tie in with the existing Second San Diego Aqueduct near San Marcos. A res- ervoir with a capacity of 140,000 acre-feet would be constructed on Cristianitos Creek north of San Cle- mente in lieu of Perris Reservoir. Under this plan, Colorado River water only would be served in the Upper Santa Ana Valley, southwestern Riverside County, and the northerly portion of San Diego County. Satisfaction of forecast water demands under this plan would necessitate use of Colorado River water in areas not presently within the Metropolitan Water District. A study of this alternative showed that, although pumping requirements would be less than in the other plan, the greater required initial capital expenditures would result in a somewhat greater unit cost of water. Further, the economic value of providing northern California water to Upper Santa Ana Valley and to the principal agricultural areas of southwestern Riverside and coastal San Diego Counties, as in the former plan, would definitely render this alternative undesirable. System "B" Aqueduct System "B" would deliver a maximum of 948,000 acre-feet per annum to the service area through the west branch of the inland aqueduct and 2,007,000 acre-feet per annum through the east branch. Deliveries to the San Fernando Valley would commence in 1971 and to Perris Reservoir in 1982. As shown on Plate 17, the first stage of construction of local distribution facilities from the Balboa Ter- minus of the west branch would be a "West Foothill Feeder" extending to Eagle Rock and a "West Coastal Plain Feeder" to 92nd and Figueroa Streets. The extreme westerly part of Los Angeles County would be served by a "Malibu Lateral" extending southerly from the Ventura County Feeder at the east portal of Santa Susana Pass Tunnel, to Stokes Canyon i 130 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS in the Santa Monica Mountains above Malibu. The first stage of construction in conjunction with the existing Colorado River supply could serve the area until 1982, at which time water would be conveyed as far east as the Central Basin and the San Gabriel Valley through existing facilities. By 1982, demands in the easterly portion of the area would have increased so that additional facilities would have to be constructed to the east boundaries of the San Gabriel Valley and Central Basin areas or additional water would have to be introduced into the Metropolitan Water District facilities conveying water from east to west. As stated in Chapter IV, it was found to be more economical to complete construc- tion of the east branch to Perris Reservoir at this time, so that additional water would be available at the upper or easterly end of the Metropolitan Water District distribution system. Facilities for local distribution of water from the east branch of the inland aqueduct would include an "East Foothill Feeder" extending from the tailrace of the Devil Canyon Power Development to the Metro- politan Water District's softening and filtration plant at La Verne, a connection from Perris Reservoir to the Colorado River Aqueduct, an "East Coastal Plain Feeder" extending from Lake Mathews to Santiago Control Structure in northeastern Orange County, and a "Redlands-Yucaipa Feeder" extending from the tailrace of the Devil Canyon Power Development in a southeasterly direction to Mentone and the Yu- caipa Valley. The east branch of the inland aqueduct would be connected to the Second San Diego Aqueduct through a 15-mile-long facility from Perris Reservoir, consisting of 5 miles of canal and 10 miles of siphon. The total capital cost of this connection with a ca- pacity in the order of 1,000 second-feet would be about 15 million dollars. The connections to the main Colo- rado River Aqueduct at the west portal of the Bernas- coni Tunnel and to the Second San Diego Aqueduct would permit mixing of the two sources of water sup- ply. All of the foregoing facilities would have gravity flow, with the exception of a portion of the Redlands- Yucaipa Feeder. As shown in Table 27, the estimated capital cost of these facilities would be about 352 million dollars. System "C" Aqueduct System "C" would deliver a maximum of 948,000 acre-feet of water annually to the San Fer- nando Valley via a coastal aqueduct and, as in System " B ", the remainder of the forecast demand for year 2020 by an inland aqueduct to Perris Reservoir. Bdl Canyon Reservoir would provide 35,000 acre-feet of emergency storage above the elevation of the coastal aqueduct. Water service from the coastal aqueduct would commence in year 1971 and from the inland aqueduct in 1982 as in System "B". TABLE 27 ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND EQUIVALENT ANNUAL COSTS OF CONVEYANCE AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS WITHIN SERVICE AREAS (In millions of dollars) Service area Delta to Avenal Gap . Kern County Upper Antelope Plain Avenal Gap to Pumping Plant In-III Pumping Plant In-llI to Pump- ing Plant In-IV. Pumping Plant In-IV to Pump- ing Plant In-VI San Luis Obispo • Santa Barbara* Ventura County Antelope-Mojave Whitewater-Coachella - - Southern California Coastal Plain and Coastal San Diego County * Totals. Aqueduct system Total capital costs (116.0 39.0 37.5 36.0 5.2 10.9 18.5 2.6 37.6 42.9 874.2 11,220.3 Equivalent annual costs millions of dollars S4.90 2.16 1.71 3.22 0.25 0.32 1.08 0.50 1.47 1.23 28.62 $45.46 In dollars per acre-foot tlO 13 8 21 16 7 17 43 26 "jn Total capital costs S116.0 39.0 37.5 36.0 5.2 10.5 41.2 41.4 32.4 34.1 S745.4 Equivalent annual costs In millions of dollars S4.90 2.16 1.72 3.24 0.25 0.31 1.72 1.42 1.36 0.81 17.08 S34.96 In dollars per acre-foot $10 13 7 22 32 21 15 28 15 >>I13 Total capital costs S116.0 39.0 37.5 36.0 5.2 10.9 18.5 2.6 32.4 34.1 371.0 J703.2 Equivalent annual costs In millions of dollars •4.90 2.16 1.72 3.24 0.25 0.32 1.07 0.50 1.31 0.81 17.75 $34.02 In doUan per acre-foot $10 18 7 21 1< 7 IS 28 18 >418 ■ rapltal costs In these areas do not Include costs of secondary distribution faclllttes required to dellrer Irrigation vrater from the major conveyance facilities to fhe famien headgates. These costs are included in the equivalent annual costs. •^ Weighted average. INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 131 As shown on Plate 18, local conveyance and dis- tribution facilities for this system would be similar to those described for System "B", with the excep- tion that a pump lift of 165 feet would be required on the West Foothill Feeder from the terminus of the coastal aqueduct. This lift was not required from Bal- boa Terminus on the west branch of the inland aque- duct since this terminus would be approximately 200 feet higher than the coastal aqueduct terminus. As shown in Table 27, the estimated capital cost of these facilities would be 371 million dollars. SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES The estimated capital costs of the additional local facilities needed for conveyance and distribution of imported water after the introduction of surplus northern California water in the various service areas are set forth in Table 27. Also shown in Table 27 are the equivalent annual costs of these facilities and the cost of local conveyance facilities north of Avenal Gap. These costs were utilized in Chapter VII for derivinu; the total unit costs of northern California water in the various service areas. I CHAPTER VII FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSES Financial and economic analyses were employed to develop the relative accomplishments and costs of the three alternative aqueduct systems and to de- termine the financial feasibility and the economic justification thereof. Comparison of these factors re- sulted in the selection of the optimum system. The criteria employed are those heretofore adopted by the Department of Water Resources for project evalu- ation, and are presented in this chapter. With respect to the objectives of this investig:ation, limited changes in these criteria would not affect the .selection of sys- tem location; but, as stated in Chapter II, modifica- tions of the criteria employed herein could result in a variance in required aqueduct capacity. FINANCIAL ANALYSES Financial analyses, which in effect are cost recovery schedules, were prepared for each alternative main aqueduct system for the purpose of ascertaining (a) the financial feasibility, apart from considerations as to sources of capital investment funds, of constructing each .system, (b) the portion of the total capital in- vestment in each system attributable to delivering wa- ter to each service area, and (c) the annual revenue per acre-foot of water delivered required for meeting annual expenses of operation and for servicing the capital investment, referred to herein as "unit cost of water". It is emphasized that the unit cost information pre- sented herein is not to be considered as a suggested pricing schedule for sale of water to agencies which will contract with the State for a water supply. It is possible that actual pricing schedules might reflect the State's bond amortization requirements, with re- payment of capital required independent of amounts of water actually used. In this eventuality, because of the build-up period in water use postulated for all service areas, the actual unit cost of water to the service areas during the early years of project oper- ation would be higher than the values derived herein ; however, in subsequent years actual unit costs to the service areas would be lower. Thus, the resultant av- erage costs over the long-term period would be equiva- lent to the values presented in this report. The costs utilized in the financial analyses represent all those that would be incurred in construction of the main aqueduct facilities south of the Delta, in- eluding interest on capital investment and annual costs of operation and maintenance, including energy for pumping, replacement, and general expense. It was assumed that all such costs, including interest, would be reimbursable. The capital costs of storage facilities supplying the Delta, such as Oroville Dam and Reservoir and pro- posed Delta improvement works were not included in the cost allocation. However, an estimated unit cost of water in the Delta at the intake to the aqueduct system of $1.00 was a.ssumed in the analyses for study purposes. The possible variations or any future in- crease in cost of water in the Delta because of neces- sary augmentation in supply thereto to meet the continuing demands of the aqueduct system were not reflected in the analyses. As to possible future con- struction above the Delta to meet increased demands, is is estimated that a substantial period of time would elapse before augmentation would be required, and that the maximum effect on cost of water in the Delta would neither be substantial nor adversely affect the conclusions reached herein. For purposes of this report, it is considered that financial feasibility of a project is demonstrated if the costs which would be incurred therefor would be recovered within an established repayment period. Each of the three aqueduct systems was sized in ac- cordance with the forecast economic demand for water therefrom, with this forecast, as explained in Chapter II, reflecting the ability of the water user to repay all costs. Each system was then subjected to financial analysis to determine its financial feasibility under the assumptions made for cost allocation and cost recovery periods. The elements of the financial analyses are set forth following and are briefly discussed in the ensuing paragraphs. 1. Financing of Project Facilities 2. Allocation of Costs 3. Recovery of Costs Financing of Project Facilifies Although it is not within the scope of this investi- gation and report to develop or propose a method of financing construction of the aqueduct system, certain assumptions as to financing were required to develop relative costs of water for aqueduct system compari- sons. For purposes of the analyses, the year by year capital requirements for aqueduct construction were employed without regard to the source of these funds. It was assumed that regardless of source, these funds would bear interest at a rate of 3^ per cent per annum. It was further assumed that capital recovery would ( 13.3 ) i:u FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS be c'oiisuniniated within oO years after tlie expense was incurred. However, for the first 10 years after the capital outlay only interest would be paid on the investment. Payment of interest or other annual ex- penses were assumed to be met by an increase in capi- tal outlay during the initial construction period when project revenues would not be available, and at such times thereafter when the revenues might be insuf- ficient to meet expenses. Allocation of Costs The costs of each aqueduct system were allocated to those service areas tabulated in Chapter I and shown on Plate 2, for the purpose of determining the unit cost of water, delivered at the main aqueduct system, to each area. As stated in Chapter I, these areas were chosen for analytical purposes only and do not represent proposed agencies for contracting of water from the San Joaquin Valley-Southern Cali- fornia Aqueduct. For the purposes of this study, costs were allocated among the cited areas by the "Proportionate Use of Facilities" method. By this method, the ratio of the cost allocated to a given service area to the total cost of the sj'stem is the same as the ratio of the capacity provided in the system for that service area to the total eapacitj\ The utilization of this method of cost allocation herein is not intended to suggest that it will be that which is ultimately selected as the basis for tlie establishment of charges for water. Allocation of costs for staged units of the systems did not reflect differences in rates of growth in demand for water among the areas served by a par- ticular staged unit. Thus, the derived unit costs of water would tend to be somewhat higher for areas with forecast lower rates of build-up in demand than if this factor were considered. Conversely, for areas with the faster build-up rates, derived unit costs of water at the aqueduct actually would be somewhat lower than shown. The magnitude of these differences, however, would be relatively minor. For pumping plants, costs were allocated among the various service areas in the same proportion that the peak capacity requirements for each area bore to the summation of peak requirements of all service areas. As the power recovery plants were assumed to be employed on the aqueduct systems for the sole purpose of supplying a portion of the power require- ments of the pumping plants, the costs of the power recovery plants were added directly to the cost of the pumping plants which they would serve, and costs were allocated as described for the pumping installa- tions. Energy costs were allocated directly to each area as the net cost thereof for pumping the service area's water from the Delta to the point of delivery. For areas which would receive water pumped in part by recovered power and which would not contribute fall- ing water to the power plants, a cost for energj' was inii>uted for tlie portion thereof provided b.y recovered power. This cost was equal to the value of the addi- tional energy which would have to be obtained for pumping this increment of water supply. Recovery of Allocated Costs The financial analyses were carried out with re- covery from each individual service area of its allo- cated portion of the capital investment in each stage of construction aceompli.shed by a series of uniform payments at an interest rate of 3i per cent per annum over a total repayment period of 50 j-ears. Repayment would commence on the date of first water delivery to the areas. The interest components on the allocated portion of capital requirements for project construc- tion and on allocated operating expenses deferred for the period prior to commencement of water deliveries were included iji the repayment obligation of the service areas. As staged construction was assumed for certain units of all systems, the foregoing procedure was re- peated for each stage thereof. Although the cost of each unit was assumed to be recovered in 50 years, full recovery of the cost of the entire system would not be accomplished until 50 years after completion of the last of the staged units. It must be recognized that certain service areas have limited development at the present time or are unorganized and have limited financial capacity. The build-up in water demand may be slow. For such areas, a modification of the foregoing assumption might be to delay capital recovery during the early years of project water service. However, if any unpaid interest accruing during this period together with deferred principal payments were subsequently re- covered, with interest thereon, during the cited 50- year period, the derived equivalent annual costs of water presented in this report would not be changed. Unit Costs of Water The unit cost of water derived by the outlined pro- cedure represents the value which, if assigned to water served to each area under the forecast delivery sched- ule, would recover all capital costs with interest over the cited cost recovery period, together with the cost of annual operation, maintenance, replacement, and other current expenses. This value is termed "equiva- lent annual cost" of water. It is again emphasized that the unit costs stated do not reflect any suggestions as to ultimate charges or prices for water ; nor does this report essay to indicate the methods or results of cost allocation which will be utilized for establishing charges for water. To the extent that it was required, allocations of cost made herein for study purposes were on an area basis. Obviously, allocation of costs on a functional or other I INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDTTCT SYSTEMS 135 I basis would affect the ultimate charges which will be ( made for water service. Resuhs of Financial Analyses There are set forth in Tables 28, 29, and 30 the I financial analyses of Aqueduct Systems "A", "B" i and "C", respectively. These analyses show for each system, from the Delta south, the capital requirements ' necessary for construction, annual expenses for all purposes, a summary of projected revenues from the service areas under the cited cost recovery criteria, and the application of these revenues to repay all project costs. In the analyses, during those years when annual revenues received would be in excess of annual expenses, excess revenues were assumed to be applied first to repayment with interest of capital outlay for prior deficits in annual revenues. With completion of repayment of this deficit, it was assumed that annual revenues in excess of annual expenses would be in- vested at an interest rate of 3^ per cent per annum to be used to make up any deficits in annual revenues occurring during later years of project operation. It may be noted that each system, although having differing capital requirements and annual expenses, would be fully repaid from the assumed revenue re- ceived from the service areas, fifty years after the last stage of construction and, therefore, by definition, each system can be considered to exhibit financial feasibility. Presented in Table 31 is a summary of the results of the financial analyses of the alternative aqueduct systems showing the portion of the total construction cost of each system allocated to each service area and the derived equivalent annual costs to the service areas, expressed in dollars and in dollars per acre- foot of water delivered. Variations in the derived equivalent annual costs of water result, not only from differences in magnitude of allocated costs, but also from postulated differences in rates of water delivery to the various service areas. Should actual delivery rates be greater than estimated in this Bulletin, the resulting equivalent annual costs of water would be lower than shown herein. The values shown in Table 31 reflect the costs of the sj'stems operated with either the "steam-electric" or "steam-drive and feedback" schemes. For purposes of evaluating the future of an opera- tional scheme involving the "utility participation" concept, analyses were made using the "off-peak elec- tric and feedback ' ' scheme. These analyses were made for the purpose of deriving the average unit cost of water for the portions of Aqueduct Systems " B " and "C" south of Avenal Gap. The physical conditions inherent in Aqueduct System " A " as stated in Chap- ter V do not economically lend themselves to "off- peak" operation. Set forth in Table 32 are the results of these analyses. It may be noted in Table 32, which also sets forth comparable values for the ' ' steam-electric ' ' and "steam-drive and feedback" schemes, that the capital costs and equivalent annual costs, at the main aque- duct, for Aqueduct System "B" are less than those for Aqueduct System "C" under either method of operation. ECONOMIC ANALYSES Economic analyses were made of the three alterna- tive aqueduct systems for the purpose of testing the economic justification of these systems and units thereof, and to provide a basis for comparing the rela- tive costs and accomplishments of the systems. Under the concept of public project evaluation, a project may be deemed economically justified if the value of benefits expected to be produced thereby ex- ceed all costs associated in producing the benefits. The aqueduct system chosen for construction must not only meet the test of financial feasibility to insure recovery of costs incurred by the State, but it must also be demonstrated that the investment is worth- while in that the value of benefits to be derived ex- ceeds the cost. Further, the system chosen should be such that its location and capacity are, from an eco- nomic standpoint, the optimum among possible alter- natives for comparable service. In determining this, consideration must be given not only to the costs of the main aqueduct system but also to the costs of local facilities required to convey and to distribute water within each service area. The procedure employed in the economic analyses was to estimate and compare benefits and costs on a common time basis. A period of analysis of 105 years extending from 1960 to 2065 was employed, together with a discount rate of 3^ per cent. The year 2065 is approximately the end of the payout period of the last stage of construction of certain of the systems. Al- though it is recognized that benefits estimated to occur 100 years hence are extremely conjectural, it is to be noted that such benefits have little discounted value at the present time. The use of such a lengthy period produces results nearly equivalent to capitalizing re- curring annual costs in perpetuity. Economic Relaiionships Generally the optimum project is that which ex- hibits a maximization of benefits with a minimization of costs. Various economic relationships may be de- veloped which are of assistance in the evaluation and comparison of alternative projects and in the selection among alternatives. The Benefit-Cost Ratio. This relationship, if in excess of unity, is an indication of economic justifica- tion. However, in choosing among alternatives it can- not be employed without consideration of other fac- tors since the ratio does not reflect increases in bene- fits with increase in project size. 136 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS TABLE 28-FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF AQUEDUCT SYSTEM "A" * (values in thousands) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) Capital reuuirements j Debt status Annual expense Construction For deficit in annual revenue | Debt service Yaw Conatfuction cost Interest during construction Annual Cumulative Required for year Interest Annual Cumulative Construction Deficit in annual revenue Total Interest Principal lOSO 1961 - 14.078 17.571 72,991 120,803 202,003 193,705 147,721 139.930 146.417 110.716 78,850 63,684 7,404 13,490 11,873 10,798 7.003 57,022 114,880 62,73li 12,658 9,273 11.071 15.582 13.994 13.440 16.472 12,950 03,028 117,389 05,580 9,640 12,329 29,890 32,540 13,789 5,591 5,520 10,211 8,907 4.080 01.755 112.357 57.038 4.239 11.571 13.310 14.988 5.927 1164 615 2,555 4,228 7,093 0,782 5,170 4,898 5,125 3,875 2.760 2.229 259 472 416 378 245 1.996 4.021 2,190 443 325 387 545 490 470 577 453 2,227 4,109 2,295 337 432 1,040 1,139 483 196 193 357 314 104 2,162 3,932 2.017 148 405 400 525 207 »4.842 18.180 75.540 125,031 209.750 200.547 152.891 144,828 151,542 114.591 81.610 05.913 7.603 13.908 12,289 11.176 7.248 59.018 118,907 64,932 13,101 9,598 11,458 16,127 14,484 13,910 17.049 13.409 05.855 121.498 07.875 9.977 12.701 30.930 33.079 14.272 5.787 5.713 10.568 9.281 4.850 03.917 110,289 59,655 4,387 11,970 13,770 15,513 0,134 S4,842 23,028 98,573 223,604 433,301 033,907 780,799 931,020 1,083,108 1,197,759 1,279,309 1,345,282 1,352.945 1.360.913 1,379.202 1,390.378 1.397.626 1.456.643 1.575.550 1 ,040,482 1,053,583 1,603,181 1,674,639 1,690,767 1,705,^250 1,719,101 1,730,209 1,749.019 1.815.474 1.936.971 2,004.847 2.014.824 2.027.585 2.058.521 2.092.200 2.100.471 2.112.258 2.117.971 2.128.540 2.137.820 2,142.070 2.200,588 2,322,877 2,382,532 2,380,920 2,398,896 2,412,672 2,428,184 2,434,319 2,434,319 2,434,319 2,434,319 2,436,554 2,441.034 2.443,269 S4,S42 23,028 98,573 223,604 433,361 033,907 780,799 931,626 1,083,168 1,197,759 1,279,309 1.345,224 1,352,613 1,305,404 1,374,995 1,380,898 1,380,317 1,429,424 1,536,359 1,587,108 1,584,175 1,576,212 1,568,716 1,565,134 1,559,054 1,551,535 1,540,272 1,530,504 1,577,672 1,672,212 1,711,418 1,691,508 1,673,344 1,072,075 1,672,231 1,051,035 1,021,170 1,589,160 1,500,527 1 ,528,455 1,489,008 1,500,417 1,574,370 1,583,846 1,535,932 1,493,378 1,450,540 1,407,402 1,352,758 1,289,728 1,224,382 1,156,918 1 ,089,424 1,023,890 958,823 898,928 846,187 798,597 755,939 718,812 685,752 655,355 026,982 597,948 508,499 538,508 508,113 470,931 447,422 422,448 399,640 376,048 353,300 329,672 305,972 ■282.120 258,080 234,008 209,716 187,657 170,515 155,952 141,347 126,828 1 13,249 100,772 88,527 70,124 03,554 51,040 38,522 25,793 15,013 10,522 8,040 5,688 3,809 2,509 1,890 1,537 1.171 793 401 101 $4,842 23.197 99,554 228,095 446,255 603,541 837,523 1,008,307 1,188,334 1,338,223 1,460,258 1,567,150 1,568,954 1,572,568 1,574,040 1,573,937 1,569,445 1,616,259 1,722,084 1.772,577 1,770.240 1,763,700 1,757,950 1,752,985 1,745,517 1,736,596 1,729,908 1,718,020 1.758,812 1,853,244 1,892,179 1,871,685 1,852,833 1,850,952 1,850,428 1,829,042 1,797,852 1,705,213 1,736,043 1,704,115 1,606,243 1,085,924 1,755,922 1,766,780 1,720,206 1,679,404 1,638,464 1,597,240 1 ,544,533 1,483,586 1 ,420,505 1,355,210 1,289,878 1,224,402 1,154,200 1,079,209 1,004,109 932,123 859,184 784,005 707,990 055,355 0'26,982 597,948 568,499 538,568 508,113 476,931 447,422 422,448 399.040 370,048 353,300 329,072 305,972 282,120 258,080 234,008 209,710 187,657 170.515 155.952 141.347 120,828 113,249 100,772 88,527 70,124 03,554 51,040 38,522 25.793 15,013 10.522 8.040 5.688 .1.809 2.509 1.890 1.537 1.171 793 401 101 $169 806 3.450 7.826 15.168 22.187 27,538 32.607 37.911 41.922 44.778 47.083 47.341 47.789 48.125 48,331 48.311 50.030 53.773 55.549 55.446 55.167 54.905 54.780 54.567 54.304 .54.120 53.778 55.219 58.527 59.900 59.205 58.507 58.523 58.528 57.807 50.741 55.621 54.018 53.496 52.117 52.725 55,103 55,435 53,758 52,268 50,709 49,259 47,347 45,140 42,853 40,492 38,130 35,830 33,559 31,402 29,017 27,951 26,458 25,158 24,001 22,937 21,944 20,928 19,897 18,850 17,784 16,693 15.660 14.780 13.987 13.183 12,300 11,539 10,709 9,874 9,033 8,190 7,340 0,508 5,908 5.458 4,947 4,439 3,904 3,527 3,098 2.664 ■2.224 1.780 1.348 903 540 308 281 199 133 88 00 .53 41 27 14 4 S109 800 3.470 8.240 10,289 22,053 ■22,112 25,801 31,617 35,509 34,706 S169 812 3.510 8.403 16.740 23.090 23.957 28.485 35.298 40.425 41.037 II69 981 4,491 12,894 29,034 52,724 76,681 105,166 140,464 180,889 221,926 221,920 221,920 221,920 221,920 221,926 ■221,926 221,926 221,926 222,522 224,011 225,691 225,691 225,691 225,091 225,691 225,691 225,091 225,691 225,691 225,691 225,691 225,691 225,091 225,691 225,691 225,091 225,091 225,835 227,350 229,082 ■231,727 233,109 234,449 ■230.201 238.093 240.013 241.950 244.033 240.298 248.473 250.629 250,681 $109 981 4,491 12,894 29,634 52,724 70,681 105,100 140,404 180,889 221,926 216,341 207,164 199,045 193,039 189,128 186,835 185,725 185,469 186,065 187,554 189,234 187,851 180,403 185,001 183,636 182,116 181,140 181,032 180,761 180,117 179,489 178,877 178,197 177,407 170.682 176.053 175.516 175.000 177.175 179.507 181.552 182,934 184,274 180,020 187,918 189,838 191,775 193,858 190,123 198,298 200,454 200,500 195,377 180,281 157.922 133,526 103,245 05,793 22,238 to 34 157 451 1,037 1.845 2.684 3.681 4.910 6.331 1963 1965- 1S67 1970 197K-- 1972 - 1973 1974 1975- 1970 1977 1978- 1979 1980-. 1981 -. 1982- 1983 1984- 1985 1986- 1987 1988 1989- 1990 1991- $ST 274 1.177 2.697 5,273 7.829 9,911 11.971 14,183 16,034 17.561 18.955 19.70l> 20.564 21.429 22,311 23,178 24,687 26,958 28,669 ■29.827 30.985 32.205 33.523 34.867 36.252 37.723 39.202 41,353 44.237 46.588 48.337 50.179 52,301 54.530 56,608 58,657 60,778 03,030 05,346 07,464 69,730 70,008 67,309 59,894 52,741 47,591 42.658 37.127 33.061 30.396 28,373 29,034 29,449 596 1.489 1,680 596 1.489 1.680 1994 1995- 144 1.515 2.332 2.045 1.382 1.340 1,752 1,892 1,920 1,937 2,083 2,205 2,175 2,156 52 144 1.515 2.332 2.045 1.382 1.340 1,752 1,892 1,920 1,937 2,083 2,205 2,175 2,150 52 200"* •'OOS 2005 2006 ''008 ''009 2011 2.160 4.328 2.160 70 151 70 2,236 4,479 2,236 2014 ''015 2017 2018 ■2021 2022 2025 30 455 31,182 2028 24,974 22,808 2030 2031 23.348 2032 23.028 2033 23.700 23.851 ■2035 24.035 2036 24.078 2037 2038 22,059 2039 17,142 2040 14,503 2041 14,606 2C42 14,519 2043 - 13,579 2044 - 12,477 2045 12.245 2046 12,403 2047 - 12,569 2048 2049 12,518 2050 12.729 2051 2052 5.091 2053 2,470 ■2054 2.3.i8 '>055 1,879 2056 1.300 2057 2058 353 2059 - 300 2000 378 2061 392 ■2062 .SCO 2003 101 2004 TOTALS •2.361.000 182.000 $2,443,000 8201,000 «.50.000 $251,000 $2,989,000 $2,443,000 ■ Values reflect "stcain-electric ntid feedback"' operation. INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 137 TABLE 28-FlNANCIAL ANALYSIS OF AQUEDUCT SYSTEM "A" * (values in thousandsj-Continued Annual expense Annual operating ccst Net pumping COBt Oper. main, replacements, gen. expenses Revenue received from service areas For debt service For operating expenses Difference between revenue and annual expense Application of excess revenue toward repayment of deficit To interest To principal Value of invested S28 117 242 327 428 393 1,745 3,275 4,476 5,626 6,800 7,974 9,149 10,322 11,497 12.670 13.623 15.548 16.628 17.751 18.874 19,997 21,130 22,253 23,372 24,501 25,520 26,540 27,429 28,443 29,604 30.620 31.638 32.561 33,440 34,319 34,999 35.310 34.985 36,660 37,335 38,009 38.684 39.359 40.034 40.709 41.173 41.637 42.101 42.565 43,030 43,494 43,959 44,423 44,887 45,351 45,351 45,351 45,351 45.351 45.351 45.351 45.351 45.351 45.351 45.351 45.351 45.351 45.351 45.351 45.851 45,351 45,851 45,351 45,351 45,351 45.351 45.351 45.351 45.351 45.351 45.351 45.351 45,351 45,351 45,351 45,351 45,351 45,351 45,351 45.351 46.351 45.351 45.351 45,351 45,351 45,351 45.351 45.351 45.351 (26 420 1,312 3,489 4,188 4,374 6,576 7,139 7,944 10.170 10.170 10.927 10.956 11.647 11.647 11.647 12.919 12,919 13,569 13,569 14.575 15.567 15.567 15.858 17.427 17.876 17,886 19,300 19,300 19,301 20,475 20,475 21.229 21,853 21,853 21.862 22.411 22.411 22.490 22.623 24.415 24.415 24.415 24,907 25,661 26,360 26,350 26,350 26.350 26.350 26.350 26.540 26.540 26.540 26.540 26.540 26.540 26.540 26,540 26,540 26,540 26,540 26,540 26,540 26,540 26,540 26,540 26,540 26.540 26,540 26.540 26.540 26.540 26.540 26.540 26.540 26.540 26.540 26,540 26,540 26,540 26,540 26,540 26,540 26.540 36.540 26.540 26.540 26,540 26,540 26,540 26,540 26,540 26,540 26,.540 26,540 26. .540 26,540 26,540 26,540 26,540 26,540 S26 420 1.340 3,606 4,430 4,701 7,004 7,532 9,689 13,445 14,646 16,553 17.756 19.621 20.796 21.969 24.416 25.589 27.192 29.117 31.203 33,318 34,441 35^55 38.557 40.129 41.258 43,801 44,820 45,841 47,904 48,918 50.833 52.473 53.491 54.423 55,851 56.730 57.489 57.933 59.400 61.075 61,750 62,916 64,345 65,709 66,384 67,059 67.523 67.987 68.451 69.105 69.570 70.034 70,499 70,963 71,427 71.i 71,i 71,i 71.! 71.8 71.89 71.89 71.89 71.89 71.89 71.89 71.89 71.89 71.89 71,89 71,89 71,89 71,89 71,89 71.89 71.89 71.89 71.89; 71. 71.89 71,89 71,89 71,89 71,89 71,89 71,89 71.89 71.89 71,89 71.89 71,89 71,89 71,89 1169 806 3,450 7,852 15.588 23.526 31.144 37.037 42,612 48.926 52.367 57.046 61.964 65, 133 69.951 73.917 77.844 82.797 89.924 96.000 98.596 101.314 103.731 106.547 109.314 111.056 113.153 117.022 122.306 128455 133,528 135,010 136,613 139,950 142.314 144.892 146.937 148.313 150.395 153,584 155,435 158,551 163,215 167,136 169,363 170,626 172,342 174,382 176,086 176,870 177,376 177,745 176.125 171.596 162,558 153.774 147.241 141.108 134.548 129.646 126,288 123,202 122,869 122.268 121.719 121.196 120,857 118,093 112,525 109,484 108,871 108421 107,885 107,130 106,451 105,800 105.002 104,374 101.290 95.600 92.422 91.955 91,357 89,909 88,332 87.663 87.392 87.125 86.630 86.195 85.968 82,974 77,529 74,735 74.530 73,969 73.324 72.597 72,310 72,310 72,310 72,310 72,205 71,996 71,891 12,191.000 $5,564,000 $10,996,000 $2,514 8,257 9,823 10,736 11,312 11,452 61,262 65,819 66,409 66,925 67,397 67,705 70,219 75.284 78,050 78,606 79,006 82,619 83,306 83,923 84,517 85.245 85.815 88.624 93.804 96.697 97.122 97,666 98,986 100,422 101,029 101,27^ 101,520 101,969 102,365 102,573 105.298 110.254 112.798 112.985 113.495 114.083 114.744 115,006 115,006 11.5,006 115,006 115,101 115.292 115,387 112,873 107,131 105.564 104.651 104.076 103.935 54.126 49.568 48.97.8 48.463 47.991 47.684 45,169 40,104 37,338 36.782 36.382 32,769 32,082 31,464 30,871 30,145 29,573 26,765 21,585 18,692 18,266 17,722 16,403 14,967 14,359 14.112 13.869 13,418 13.022 12.816 10.091 5,133 2,589 2,402 1,892 1,304 643 382 382 382 382 286 95 $5,769,000 $219 1,226 1,599 1,684 2,562 2,633 8,366 12,892 14.093 15,999 17,201 19.052 20,226 21,400 23,843 25,017 26,616 29,117 31,203 33,318 34,441 35,855 38,557 40,129 41,258 43,801 44.820 45.841 47.904 48918 50.833 52.473 53.491 54.423 55.851 56.730 57,489 57,933 59,400 61,075 61,750 62.916 64.345 65.709 66.384 67,059 67,-523 67,987 68,451 69,105 69,570 70,034 70,499 70,963 71,427 71.89 71,89 71.89 71,89 71,89 71,89 71.89 71.89 71.89 71.89 71.89 71.89 71.89 71.89 71.89 71,89 71,89 71,89 71,89 71.89 71.89 71.89 71.89 71,89 71,89 71,89 71,89 71.89 71,89 71.89 71.89: 71,89 71,89 71.89 71,89 71,89 71,89 71,89 71 89 71,89 71.89 71.89 71.89 71.89 71.89 82,733 9,483 11,422 12,420 13,874 14,085 69,628 78.711 80.502 82.923 84,597 86,756 90,444 96,683 101,892 103,622 105,621 111,736 114,509 117,241 118.958 121.100 124,372 128753 135,062 140,498 141,942 143,507 146,890 149,340 151,862 153,749 155,011 156,392 158.216 159.303 162.787 168.187 172.198 174.060 175.245 176,999 179,089 180,715 181,390 182.065 182.529 183.088 183.743 184.492 182.443 177.165 176.063 175,614 175,503 175,826 126,017 121,459 120,869 120,354 119,882 119,575 117,060 111.995 109,229 108.673 108.273 104,660 103.973 103.355 102.762 102,036 101,464 98,656 93,476 90.583 90.157 89.613 88.294 86.858 86.250 86.003 85.760 85.309 84.913 84.707 81.982 77.024 74.480 74.293 73.783 73.195 72.534 72 273 72,273 72,273 72,273 72,177 71,986 71,891 $—169 —806 —3,450 —7,852 —15.588 —20.793 —21.661 —25.615 —30,192 —35,052 —38.282 12.582 16.747 15.369 12.972 10,680 8,912 7,647 6,759 5,892 5,026 4,307 8.005 7,962 7,927 7,902 7.947 7.350 6,447 6,607 6,970 6,932 6,894 6,940 7,026 6.934 6.812 6,698 5,992 4,632 4,237 4.972 5.062 4.697 4.619 4.657 4.707 4.629 4.520 4.784 4.963 12.147 21.934 28.669 29.924 34.955 41.066 45.857 49.538 2.815 —1.410 —1.399 — 1,365 — 1,314 — 1,282 —1,033 —530 —255 —198 —148 —3.225 —3.157 —3.096 —3.038 —2.966 —2.910 —2.634 —2.124 —1.839 —1,798 — 1,744 — 1,615 — 1,474 — 1,413 -1,389 —1,365 —1,321 —1,282 — 1,261 —992 —505 —255 —237 —186 — 129 —63 —37 —37 —37 —37 —28 —10 $7,767 7,571 7.250 6.966 6.756 6.619 6.539 6.500 5.895 5.023 4.884 6.623 6.574 6,526 6,477 6,427 6,374 6,339 6,336 6,326 6,304 6,282 6,260 6.236 6.209 6,183 6.161 5.999 4.633 3.868 4.237 4.972 5.062 4.697 4,619 4,657 4,707 4,629 4,520 4,784 6,963 7,018 6,838 6,310 5,527 4,674 3,614 2.302 778 $5,585 9,177 8.119 6.006 3.911 2.293 1.110 256 1.383 1,388 1,402 1.425 1,520 976 108 271 644 628 612 680 790 725 629 537 5,129 15.096 22.359 24.397 30.281 37,452 43,555 22,238 $13,352 16.748 15,369 12,972 10,667 8,912 7,649 6,756 5.895 5.023 4.884 8.005 7.962 7,927 7,902 7,947 7,350 6,447 6,607 6,970 6,932 6,894 6,940 7,026 6,934 6,812 6,698 5.999 4.633 3.868 4.237 4.972 5.062 4.697 4,619 4,657 4,707 4.629 4.520 4,784 6,963 12,147 21,934 28,669 29,924 34,955 41.066 45.857 23,017 $26,521 30,264 29,914 29,562 29,231 28,940 28,671 28,642 29,114 29.878 30,726 31,653 29.536 27.413 25.276 23.123 20,966 18,790 16,814 15,278 13.974 12,665 11,364 10,147 9,028 7,931 6,820 ,5,693 4,571 3,449 2,309 1,398 942 720 508 340 223 168 136 104 71 36 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 138 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS TABLE 29-FINANCIAl ANALYSIS OF AQUEDUCT SYSTEM "B" * (values in thousands) (1) (2) (3) (41 (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) Capital requirements Debt status Annual expense Constructioa | For deficit in annual revenue Debt service Y«M CoDStructioD coat Int«reat during conatruction Annual Cumulative Required (or year Interest Annual Cumulative Conatruction Deficit in annual revenue Total Interest Principal $3,796 16.410 62.691 93.314 110.834 87.825 74.797 119,196 131,055 116,073 72,081 58,349 25,575 22,325 19,669 10.049 2,675 18,075 49,107 56,069 69,459 74,461 38.991 18.109 16.725 16,014 18,664 12,720 10,419 35,201 66,749 39,999 13,920 12,379 14,649 16.248 12.463 9,943 7,679 7,168 20,698 41,566 20,502 7,249 8,269 7,248 3,119 9,912 13,683 7,040 120 $133 674 1,844 3,266 3,879 3,074 2,618 4,172 4,587 4,063 2,523 2,042 896 781 685 352 94 633 1,719 1.962 2,431 2,606 1,365 634 585 660 663 446 365 1,232 2,336 1,400 487 433 513 534 436 348 269 251 724 1,465 718 254 289 254 109 347 479 246 4 $3,929 16,984 54,535 86,580 114,713 90,899 77,416 123,367 135,642 120,136 74,604 60,391 26,470 23,106 20,254 10.401 2,769 18,708 60,826 58,031 71.890 77.067 40,366 18,743 17.310 16,574 19,317 13,166 10,784 36,433 69,085 41,399 14,407 12,812 15,162 16,782 12,889 10,291 7,948 7,419 21,422 43,020 21,220 7,603 8,568 7,602 3,228 10,269 14,162 7,286 124 $3,929 20.913 75.448 172,028 286,741 377,640 466.056 578.422 714.064 834,200 908,803 969,195 995,665 1,018,771 1,039,025 1.049.426 1,052,194 1,070,902 1,121,728 1,179,769 1.261.649 1.328.716 1,369,072 1,387.815 1,406,125 1.421,700 1,441,017 1,454,182 1.464.966 1.501.399 1.570.484 1.611,883 1,626,290 1,639,103 1,654,264 1,670,046 1,682,935 1,693,226 1,701,174 1,708,592 1,730.016 1,773,036 1,794.254 1,801,757 1,810,315 1,817,817 1,821,045 1,831,304 1,845,466 1,852,752 1,862.877 1,852.877 1,857,150 1,865,709 1,868,882 $3,929 20,813 76,448 172,028 286,742 377,640 455,055 578,422 714,064 834,200 908,803 969,148 995,369 1,017,573 1,035,750 1.042,645 1,040,710 1,053,634 1,097,014 1,145,735 1.206,568 1,271,308 1,298,192 1,302,678 1,304,969 1.305,739 1.308.586 1.304.671 1,297,556 1,311,863 1,363,466 1,382,816 1,373,490 1,361,262 1,360,286 1,338,809 1,323,290 1,303,960 1,281,074 1,266,463 1.244,303 1,251.748 1,235,659 1,204,376 1,172,640 1,138,258 1,097,949 1,062,995 1,030,240 988,873 938,554 886,275 836,727 791,882 745,317 697,970 663,134 610,315 571,654 537,823 508,348 481,333 456,200 431,377 406,666 381,988 356.933 331.131 305.302 280,948 258,460 238,552 221,555 205,863 190,479 175,378 160.525 146,056 131,697 117,341 104,188 93,810 85.007 76.571 68.439 60,733 53,496 46,610 39,964 33,458 27.072 21.465 17,676 14,749 12,070 9.699 7.595 5.570 3,953 2,943 2,239 1,516 768 193 $3,929 21.051 76,323 175,601 296,487 398,321 489,325 621,512 775,504 916,683 1,018,617 1,104.796 1.124.208 1,139,733 1,151,118 1,152,266 1.146,351 1,154,019 1,194,334 1,241,189 1,301,103 1,366.250 1.391,461 1,393,839 1,394,069 1,392,833 1,393,590 1,387.397 1 .378.015 1.393,556 1.110,708 1,158,879 1.418,929 1,136,421 1,425,284 1,413.726 1,398,198 1,378,979 1,366,306 1,331,971 1,320.175 1.3-29,256 1,314,712 1,285,036 1,255,059 1,222,610 1,184,433 1,161,811 1,121,515 1,082,678 1,036,011 985.543 938.620 894.155 843.485 786,685 729,961 676,277 621,957 566,674 510,060 181.333 156,200 131,377 106,666 381,988 366,933 331,131 306.302 280.918 258,460 238,552 221.555 205,853 190,479 176,378 160,525 146,056 131.607 117,341 104,188 93,810 85,007 76,571 68,439 60,733 53,490 46,610 39,964 33,458 27,072 21,165 17,676 11,719 12,070 9,699 7.595 5,370 3,953 2.913 2,239 1,616 768 193 $138 732 2,611 6,021 10,036 13,217 15.927 20.246 24.992 29,197 31,808 33,920 34,838 36,615 36.251 36.493 36,425 30,877 38,395 40,101 42,230 44.486 45,437 45,591 15,674 46,701 45,800 45,663 46,114 46,020 17,721 18,399 18,072 17,644 47,260 46,858 46,315 45,638 44,838 43,976 43,551 43,811 13,248 42,153 41,042 39,839 38,428 37,205 36,068 34,611 32,849 31,020 29,285 27,716 26,086 24,429 22,860 21,361 20,008 18.824 17.792 16.847 15.967 15,098 14,233 13,370 12,493 11,590 10,686 9.833 9.046 8,349 7,754 7,206 6,667 6.138 5.618 5,112 4,609 4,107 3,647 3,283 2.975 2.680 2.395 2.126 1,872 1,631 1,399 1,171 918 751 619 516 122 339 266 194 138 103 78 52 26 7 $138 732 2,667 6,047 10,695 12,866 10,621 13,737 18,793 24,548 21,980 $138 737 2,698 6,172 10,936 13,589 11,820 15,350 20,943 27,431 25.833 $138 876 3.673 9.746 20.681 34,270 46,090 61,440 82,383 109,814 135,647 135,647 136,647 135,647 136,647 135,647 135,647 135,647 135,647 135,647 135,647 135,647 135,647 135.647 135,647 135,647 135,647 135,647 135,647 135,647 135,647 135,647 135,647 135,647 135,647 135,647 135,768 135.971 136.248 136,909 138,246 139,791 141,399 143,158 146,091 147,223 149,556 162,014 154,544 157,196 160,007 162,632 163,012 $138 875 3,573 9,745 20.681 34,270 46.090 61.440 82.383 109.814 135,647 128,839 122,160 116,398 109,621 104,641 100,385 97,320 96,464 94,535 93,942 93,269 91,161 89,110 87,094 85,004 82.726 80,489 78,693 77.242 76,063 75,439 75,169 74,999 74,917 74,908 75,029 75,232 75,509 76,170 77.507 79,052 80,660 82,419 84,352 86.484 88.816 91.275 93.806 96.467 99,268 101,893 102,273 9P,108 88,616 76,817 65,962 50,303 28851 1.712 $5 31 125 341 724 1,199 1,613 2,150 2,883 3,843 1984 1885 IMS 1B67 IMS 1M9 1970 1871 $4< 248 803 1873 2,077 3,506 4,701 5,781 7,446 9,310 11,057 12,327 1981! 13,472 14,257 15,029 16,785 16.470 17.080 17.899 1888^ 19.126 20,482 1980 22,019 23,732 26,040 1893 1894 1885 1886 1997 1998- 1899.- 2000 2001 2002 2003 --. 20O4.- 2005 2008 2007 2008- 2009 2010 26,138 27,258 28,408 29,631 121 203 277 661 1,337 1,545 1,608 1,759 1,833 2,132 2,332 2,458 2,630 2,662 2,811 2,626 380 121 203 277 661 1,337 1,545 1.608 1,769 1,933 2,132 2,332 2,469 2,630 2,662 2,811 2.625 380 30,824 32,030 33.582 35.574 37,309 38,785 40,284 41,881 43,637 45,213 46,917 18,653 50,444 52,279 53,822 2012 2013 2014 4.129 8.269 4,129 145 288 146 4,274 8,558 4,274 50,838 47,347 44,836 38.662 33,831 27,015 25,132 24,823 ^oQ 24,711 nno4 * " 24,678 26,055 25,802 25.829 24.353 22.488 19,909 16,997 15,702 15,374 15,101 11,851 2036 11,469 11,359 11,366 13,1.53 2040 10.378 8.803 8,136 2043 8,131 2046 6,887 2047 2050 5,607 2051 2052 O053 2054 2055 2056 2058 2059 2060 723 2002 2068 2064 $1,807,000 $63,000 $1,870,000 $123,000 $40,000 $163,000 $2,287,000 $1,870,000 • Values reflect ^^steam-drive and feedback" operafion. INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 139 TABLE 29-FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF AQUEDUCT SYSTEM "B" * (values in thousandsj-Continued (16) (21) Annual expense Annual operating cost Net pumping cost Oper. maio replacenienta, gen. expenses Revenue received froir service areas For debt service For operating expenaea Difference between revenue and annual expense Application of excess revenue toward repayment of de6cit To interest To principal Value of invested revenue %*2 139 285 393 500 456 2,505 3.M9 5.199 6.557 7.907 9.257 10.609 11.962 13.310 14.661 15.716 18.343 19.680 21,061 22.442 23.824 25,216 26.598 27,980 29,362 30,671 31,981 33,159 34,466 35.770 37.075 38,379 39,592 40,758 41,925 42,828 43,367 44.266 45.162 46.060 46.957 47.855 48,753 49.650 50.548 51,159 51,768 52,379 52,988 53,598 54,208 54,819 55,429 56.038 56.649 .56,649 56,649 56,649 56,649 56,649 56,649 56,649 56,649 56,649 56.649 56.649 56.649 .56,649 56.649 .56,649 56,649 56,649 56,649 56,649 56,649 56,649 ,56,649 56,649 56,649 56,649 56,649 56,649 56.649 56.649 56.649 56,649 56,649 56,649 56,649 56,649 56,649 ,56,649 ,56,649 56.649 .'i6.649 56,649 56.649 56.649 56.649 2,646 2,712 2,740 4,766 7.113 7,550 8.277 9.077 9,316 9,759 9,796 9,840 9,840 10,944 11,064 11,288 12,767 13.755 14.252 14.560 14.681 16.680 16.680 17.233 17.602 18.485 18,485 19,708 19,708 20,862 20,862 21.037 21.087 21.477 21,477 21,477 22,650 23,395 23,395 23,794 23,794 24,548 24,548 25,022 25,032 25.032 25.032 25.032 25.442 25.442 25.442 25.442 25.442 25.442 25.442 25.442 25.442 25,442 25,442 25,442 25.442 25,442 25,442 25.442 25,442 25,442 25.442 25.442 25.442 25.442 25.442 25,442 25.442 25.442 25,442 25,442 25,442 25,442 25,442 25,442 25,442 25,442 25,442 25,442 25,442 25,442 25,442 25.442 25,442 25,442 25,442 25.442 25.442 25,442 25,442 25,442 25,442 25,442 25.442 i26 26 730 2,785 2,997 3,133 5,266 7,569 10,055 12,126 14,276 15.873 17.666 19.053 20.449 21.802 24.254 25.725 27.004 31.110 33.435 35.313 37.002 38.505 41.896 43.278 45.213 46.964 49.156 50.466 52.867 54,174 56,632 57,937 59.416 60.679 62.235 63.402 64.305 66.017 67.661 68.557 69,854 70,751 72,403 73,301 74,672 75,580 76,191 76,800 77,411 78,430 79.040 79,651 80,261 80,871 81,481 82.091 82,091 82,091 82,091 82,091 82.091 82.091 82.091 82.091 82.091 82,091 82,091 82,091 82,091 82,091 82.091 82.091 82.091 82.091 82.091 82.001 82.091 82.091 82.091 82.091 82.091 82.091 82.091 82.091 82.091 82.091 82.091 82.091 82.091 82,091 82,091 82,091 82.091 82,091 82,091 82,091 82,091 82,091 82,091 82,091 tl38 732 2,641 6,047 10,062 13,947 18,712 23,242 28,125 34.463 39.424 44.224 47,867 51,968 55,630 58,862 61,262 64.771 69.508 75.412 80,281 84,972 90,803 94,058 96,781 99,174 101,385 105,458 107,818 111,715 116,734 121,287 123,579 126,6.50 128.692 131.899 133,883 135,878 137,546 139,793 142,527 145,425 148,050 150,109 151,483 153,229 154.392 156.525 158.012 159.727 160.708 161.032 1.59.488 155.965 151.863 148.306 145,329 140,283 134,709 129.779 126,898 124,070 122,881 121,900 121,002 120,515 120,385 119,509 117.129 114,412 111,046 107,437 105,547 104,669 103,859 103,083 102,178 101,561 101,057 99,3.50 96.115 94,177 93,502 92,902 92,192 91,453 90.850 90.368 89.996 89.643 88.645 86,630 85,637 85.285 84,885 84,.533 84,382 83,902 83,239 82,898 82,892 82,892 82.692 82.291 82,091 12,256 7,200 8,430 9.370 9.973 10.110 46.003 47.104 48,907 49.761 50.200 50,316 51,089 53,200 55,640 58,682 61,929 65,065 65.865 66.602 67.309 68.133 68.694 69,154 70,707 73,652 75,417 76,032 76,574 77,224 77.897 78.446 78.885 79.223 79,540 80.4.53 82.288 83.192 83,512 83,877 84,197 84,335 84,772 85,376 85.686 85.692 85.692 85.874 86.239 86.421 84.165 79.221 77,990 77.050 76,447 76,311 40,418 39,319 37,515 36.661 36.222 36.105 35.332 33.222 30.782 27,740 24,493 21,356 20,557 19,822 19.112 18.288 17.727 17,267 15.714 12,769 11,004 10,389 9,843 9,197 8,524 7,974 7,536 7,199 6.881 5.967 4,132 3,229 2,908 2,544 2,223 2,070 1,649 1,045 735 729 729 547 182 • 171 881 1,103 1,211 2,095 2,245 9,810 11,848 14,100 15,696 17,478 18,866 20,260 21.614 24.032 25.503 26,780 31,110 33,435 35,314 37,002 38,505 41.396 43.277 45.214 46.963 49.156 50.466 52,867 54,174 56,633 57,937 59,416 60,678 62,235 63,402 64.305 66.017 67.661 68.557 69.853 70.751 72.403 73,300 74,673 75,580 76,191 76,800 77,410 78.430 79.040 79.651 80.261 80.871 81.431 82.091 32.091 82,091 32,091 82,091 82,091 82.091 82.091 82,091 82,091 82,091 32,091 32,091 32,091 82,091 82,091 82,091 82.091 32.091 82.091 32.091 32.091 82.091 82.091 82.091 82.091 82.091 82.091 82.091 82.091 82.091 32.091 32.091 32,091 82,091 32,091 82,091 82,091 82,091 82,091 82,091 82,091 82,091 82,091 82,091 $2,427 8.081 9.533 10.531 12,063 12.355 55.813 58,952 63,007 65.457 67,678 69,182 71,349 74,814 79,672 84,135 38.709 96.175 99.300 101.916 104,311 106.633 110.590 112,431 115,920 120,615 124,573 126,498 129.441 131,398 134,530 136,383 138,301 139.901 141,775 143,355 146,593 149,209 151,173 152,434 154.050 155.086 157.175 158.676 160.359 161,272 161,883 162,674 163,649 164,351 163,206 158.872 158.251 157.921 157.928 158,402 122,509 121,409 119,606 113,752 118,313 118,196 117.423 115.313 112.373 109.831 106.584 103,446 102,647 101,913 101,203 100,379 99,818 99,358 97.805 94.859 93.094 92.480 91.934 91.238 90.615 90.065 89.627 89.290 88.972 88.053 36,223 85.320 34,999 84,635 34,314 84,161 83,740 83,136 82,826 82,820 82,820 82.633 82.273 82.091 J— 138 —732 —2.641 —6.047 —10,062 — 11,520 — 10,631 —13,709 —17,544 —22.395 —27.069 11.589 11.035 1 1 .039 9.827 8.316 7.920 6,578 5,306 4,260 3,904 3,737 5,372 5,242 5,135 5,138 5,253 5,132 4,613 4,205 3,881 3,286 2,919 2,791 2,706 2.631 2.500 2.423 2.355 1.982 1.328 1.168 1.158 1.064 951 821 694 650 664 632 564 850 3.186 7.685 12.988 14.900 13.543 17.968 23.212 28.149 31.504 —1.561 — 1.472 —2.294 —2,250 —2,202 —2, 189 —2,086 —1,317 —1,539 —1,215 —853 —2.100 —2,022 —1,946 — 1.880 — 1.799 —1.744 — 1.699 —1.546 — 1,256 —1,082 — 1,022 —968 —904 —333 —735 —741 —706 —676 —587 —407 —317 —286 —250 —219 —221 — 162 —103 —72 —72 —72 —54 —18 t4,748 4,509 4,276 4,039 3,837 3.662 3.513 3.406 3.341 3.309 3.288 3,264 3,191 3,119 3,048 2,975 2,895 2,817 2,754 2.702 2,662 2,639 2,631 2,624 2,622 2,500 2,423 2.355 1.932 1.328 1.168 1,158 1,064 951 821 694 650 664 632 564 850 3.186 3,580 3,435 3,102 2,638 2,309 1,760 1,010 60 (6,808 6,679 6,762 5,777 4,980 4.256 3.065 1.866 919 593 673 2.103 2.051 2,016 2,090 2,278 2,237 1,796 1,451 1,179 624 230 160 82 4,105 9,553 11,798 10,355 15,659 21,452 27,139 1.712 111,556 11.188 11,038 9,816 8,817 7,918 6,578 5,272 4,260 3,902 3,961 5,372 5,242 5,135 5,133 5,253 5.132 4,613 4,205 3,881 3,286 2,919 2,791 2.706 2.631 2.500 2,423 2,355 1,982 1.328 1.168 1.158 1,064 951 821 694 650 664 632 564 850 3,186 7,685 12,988 14,900 13,543 17,968 23,212 28,149 1,772 »29,732 29,212 28,762 27.475 26,137 24,901 23,584 22,323 21,287 20,493 19,996 19.842 13437 17.060 15.711 14,381 13,036 11,800 10,514 3,406 7,618 6,863 6,135 5,446 4,799 4.132 3.737 3.008 2,437 1.935 1,596 1,335 1,095 834 499 354 264 201 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 140 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS TABLE 30-FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF AQUEDUCT SYSTEM "C" * (values in thousands) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (ID (12) (13) (14) Capital requirements Debt status Annual expense Construction For deficit in annual revenue Debt service Year Construction coat Interest during construction Annual Cumulative Required for year Interest Annual Cumulative Construction Deficit in annual revenue Total Interest Principal I960 «4,S75 17,521 61,200 113,500 166.162 174.467 116,034 115,612 122,698 79,898 41,990 36,714 40,044 50,575 64,649 79,360 74,274 66,204 46,895 43.598 72.099 81.939 39,650 10,939 21,684 20,630 16,432 9,189 5,380 34,181 70.040 41.531 13.090 12,060 14,910 13,049 8,100 4,030 2,060 7,458 5.366 23.607 37.470 23.061 5.600 7.309 5.919 9.298 9.850 5.350 280 S160 613 2,142 3,973 5,816 6,106 4,061 4,046 4,294 2,796 1,470 1,285 1,402 1,770 2.263 2,778 2,600 2,317 1,641 1,526 2,523 2,868 1,388 383 759 722 575 322 188 1,196 2,451 1.4,54 458 422 522 457 284 141 72 261 188 826 1,311 807 196 256 207 325 345 187 10 »4,735 18,134 63,342 117,473 171,978 180.573 120.095 1 19,658 126,992 82,694 43,460 37,999 41.446 52.345 66.912 82.138 76,874 68.521 48.536 45.124 74.622 84,807 41,038 11,322 22,443 21,3.'i2 17,007 9,511 5,568 35,377 72,491 42,985 13,548 12,482 15,432 13„506 8,384 4,171 2,122 7.719 5,554 24,433 38.711 23.868 5,796 7,565 6,126 9,623 10,195 5,537 290 $4,735 22.869 86,211 203,684 375,662 556.235 676.330 795.988 922.981 1.005.675 1.049,135 1.087.134 1.128.580 1,180,925 1,247,836 1,329,974 1,406,848 1,475,369 1,523,905 1,569,029 1,643.651 1.728.458 1.769.496 1.780.818 1,803.261 1.824.613 1.841.620 1.851.131 1.856.699 1.892.076 1.964.568 2.007,552 2,021,100 2,033,.')82 2,049,014 2,062,520 2,070,904 2,075,075 2,077.196 2.084.915 2.090.469 2.114.902 2.153.684 2.177.552 2.183.348 2.190.913 2.197.039 2.206,662 2,216,857 2,222,394 2,222,684 2,222,684 2.226,534 2,234,235 2,238.064 $4,735 22,869 86,211 203,684 375,662 556.235 676,330 795,988 922,981 1,005,675 1,049,135 1,087,078 1,128,251 1,179,565 1,244,020 1,321,581 1,391,582 1,451,570 1,489,859 1,522,875 1,583,988 1,654,298 1,679,882 1,674,719 1.679.482 1.681,743 1.678,020 1,665,165 1,646,775 1.656,781 1,702,480 1,716,852 1.699,783 1,680,090 1,662.088 1,640,723 1,612.764 1.579,118 1,541,988 1.509,015 1.472,034 1.451,587 1.443.408 1.418.512 1,373,690 1,328,683 1,280,237 1,233,279 1,184,863 1,129,713 1,067.100 1.002,152 939,341 880,554 820,788 762,952 711,457 663,712 619,784 580,146 542,927 506,437 470,449 435.097 400,868 368,529 338,904 311.842 287,041 263.645 241. .544 222.163 206.076 191.346 176.632 162.453 148.778 135.421 122,042 108,455 96,049 86,604 78,841 71,441 64,366 57,766 51,567 45,544 39,506 33,356 27,352 21, .398 16,379 13,001 10,622 8,431 6,518 4,825 3,523 2,653 2,012 1,362 689 173 $4,735 23.035 87.183 207.733 387.563 582,419 723,068 863,621 1,015.304 1,128.407 1.206.099 1.276.332 1.309,803 1,353,227 1.410.625 1.482.408 1.546.576 1.601.443 1.635.391 1.665.075 1,723.405 1,790,810 1,813,041 1,803,333 1,803,925 1,802,490 1,795,749 1,780,551 1,760,472 1,769,262 1,813.967 1 ,827,639 1,810,520 1,791,159 1,773„538 1,7,52,71,1 1,725,466 1,692,692 1,656.545 1.624.639 1.589.122 1.571.006 1.565,561 1,543,3.58 1.501,289 1,459,269 1.414,018 1.370,419 1,325,457 1.273.829 1.214,910 1,153,628 1,094.051 1,036,074 971.868 901.423 830.830 762.861 693.780 623.209 550.7.57 506,437 470,449 435,097 400,868 ,368.529 .338.904 311.842 287.041 263.645 241, .544 222,163 206,076 191.346 176.632 162.453 148,778 135,421 122,042 108,455 96,049 86,604 78,84 1 71,441 64,366 57,7611 51„567 45.544 39.506 33.356 27.352 21.398 16.370 13.001 10.622 8.431 6.518 4.825 3.323 2,653 2,012 1,362 689 173 S166 800 3,017 7,129 13,148 19,468 23,672 27,860 32,304 35,199 36,720 38,048 39.489 41.285 43.541 46.255 48,705 50.805 52,145 53,301 55,440 57,900 58,796 58,615 58,782 58,861 58,731 58,281 57,637 57,987 59,587 60,090 59,492 58,803 .58.173 ,57,425 56,447 ,55,269 53,970 52,816 51.521 50,806 50.519 49.648 48,079 46,504 41,808 43,165 41,470 39,540 37,348 35,075 32,877 30,819 28,728 26,703 24.901 23.230 21.692 20.305 19.002 17.725 16.466 15.228 14.030 12.899 11.862 10.914 10.046 9.228 8.454 7.776 7,213 6.697 0,162 5.686 5.207 4.740 4.271 3.796 3.302 3.031 2.759 2.500 2.253 2,022 1.805 1.594 1.383 1,167 957 748 .573 455 .371 295 228 169 123 93 70 47 24 6 1961 -- $166 800 3.043 7.710 13.866 19.638 19.2.59 22.323 27.178 29,936 26,796 $166 806 3,077 7,852 14,28.3 20,554 20,895 24,690 30,409 34,232 32,290 $166 972 4,049 11,901 26,184 46,738 67,633 92,323 122,732 156,964 189,254 189,254 189,254 189,254 189.254 189,254 189,254 189,254 189.254 189.254 189.254 189.2.54 189.254 189.254 189.254 189.254 189.2.54 189.2.54 189.254 189.254 189.254 189.254 189.585 189.966 190.508 191.218 192.090 193.073 194.140 195.604 197.935 200.669 203.362 206,115 209,102 212,297 215,656 219,110 222,632 220,326 229,992 233,226 234,030 $166 972 4,049 11,901 26,184 46,738 67,633 92,323 122,732 156,964 189,2,54 181,552 173,662 166,605 160,827 154,994 149,873 145,5.32 142,200 139,417 136,512 133.1,59 128.614 124.443 120.747 117.729 115.386 113.697 112.481 111.487 110.787 110.738 111.069 111.450 111.992 112.702 113.574 1 14..557 115.624 117,088 119,419 122,153 124,846 127,599 130,586 133,781 137,140 140,594 144.116 147.810 151.470 154,710 155,520 1,51,080 138,471 119,373 99.149 73,996 43.063 7.830 1962 $6 34 142 417 916 1,636 2,367 3,231 4,296 5,494 196S 1964 1965.. 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970-- 1971 1972 $56 272 1.031 2.4.57 1973 1974- 1975 6.872 8.533 10.247 12.108 13.510 14.497 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 16.485 1983 1984 19.091 20.730 22.365 23.958 1985 1986.. 1987 1988.. 1989 26.793 28.613 .30.617 32.174 33.434 34.870 36.343 37.816 39.252 1990.- 1991 1992 1993 331 381 542 710 872 983 1,067 1,464 2,331 2,734 2,693 2,753 2,987 .3.195 3.359 3,454 3.522 3.694 3,666 3,234 810 331 381 542 710 872 983 1,067 1,464 2,331 2,734 2,693 2,7.53 2,987 3.195 3,359 3.4.54 3,522 3,694 3,666 3,234 810 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999.- 42„53o 44,881 46,960 48.764 50.618 52.572 54.572 56.581 58,611 60,687 2000 --. 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 -- 2011 66,661 66,487 2012 3.720 7,440 3,700 130 260 130 3,850 7,700 3.830 2013 2014 57 837 2015 51.495 47.746 2016 2017 2018 39.638 37.219 2019 -. 2020 - 2021 2022- 35.352 2023 2024 32 334 2025 29,625 2026.. 2027 24 SO) 2028 23 316 2029 2030 19.381 16 088 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 13 357 2037 13.379 13 587 2038 2039 2040 2041 7 763 2042 7.400 2043 2044 6 600 2045 6 198 2046 6 023 2047 6.038 6.150 6004 2048 2049 2050 5 954 2051 . 5.019 3.378 2 379 2052 2053 2054 2055 1.913 1,693 1 302 2056 2057 2058 . . . 870 2039 ... 641 2060 650 2061 673 2062 516 2063 173 2064 Totals $2,162,000 »76,000 J2.238.000 $171,000 $63,000 $234,000 .S2.737.000 Values reflect "steam -electric" and "stenm-iirire and frrrlhack" nperntioii. INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 141 TABLE 30-FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF AQUEDUCT SYSTEM "C " * (values in thousands)-Continued (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (281 Annual expense Revenue received from service areas Difference between revenue and annual expense .\pplication of excess revenue toward repayment of de6cit Value of invested revenue Debt service Ann ual operating cost Total SubUjUil Net puiiiping cost Oper. main, replacements. Ken. expenses Subtotal For debt service For operating expenses Total To interest To principal Total Year S1G6 $100 800 3.017 7.155 13.729 20,30(i 27.100 32.025 30.715 41,823 43.980 47.000 51.720 56.041 02.050 70.122 7I..943 82.507 88.045 91.933 96.938 101.511 107.li09 1 10.982 113.947 117.895 120.909 125.383 127.542 130.894 135.700 140,980 143,232 140.170 148,263 151,507 153,289 155,236 156,570 158,407 100,762 103,011 105,181 108,867 170,133 171.708 172.902 175.027 170.296 177.812 178.565 178.596 170,815 172,457 165.577 157,802 1.52.842 147.943 142.709 139,493 138,052 136.273 134,378 132,018 128.930 125,083 121,484 118.275 110.002 113.889 110.395 106.423 104.502 103.972 102.921 101.921 101.124 100.679 100.418 98.762 95.367 93.354 92.720 92.135 91.413 90,780 90,388 90.192 90.093 89.732 89.471 88,327 80,511 85,394 85,122 84,768 84.481 84,030 83,553 83.294 83,280 83.280 83,100 82.739 82.500 $—100 —800 —3.017 —7.155 —13,729 —17.867 —18.749 —22.178 —25,841 —29,482 —31,383 14.278 14,244 13,139 11,435 11.469 10,573 9,000 8,428 7.779 7,788 7.942 9.204 8.072 8,052 7,244 6,404 5.727 5.195 4.931 4.602 3.927 3.545 3.506 3.359 3.210 3.072 2.992 2.942 2.583 1.767 1.446 1.582 1.616 1.479 1.376 1.323 1.346 1.399 1.350 1.508 2.068 4.605 9.883 17.897 23.944 24.402 28,623 33.523 36.740 38.643 —2.196 —2.419 —2.175 —1.763 —2.781 --2.403 —2.061 —1.830 —1.627 —1.287 —888 —1.965 —1.918 —1.824 —1.734 — 1.062 — 1.023 — 1.599 —1.451 —1,147 —966 —910 —857 —793 —736 —701 —683 —675 —643 —619 —516 —354 —254 —229 —198 —172 —131 —89 —66 —64 —64 —48 —16 800 3.017 7.129 S20 581 804 3.302 3.902 4.047 0.160 6.785 6.861 8.300 8.300 9.397 10.044 11.560 12.177 13,202 13.399 14.085 14.271 15.869 10.881 10.881 17.720 17.840 19.772 19,772 19.967 19.907 21,438 21,438 22,042 22,042 23.874 23.874 24,274 24,274 24.274 24.427 24.427 24.502 26.385 20.385 26.655 26.655 27.513 27.519 27,869 27.888 27.888 27.888 27,888 28.208 28,208 28.208 28.268 28.268 28,268 28.268 28.268 28.268 28.268 28,268 28.268 28.208 28.268 28.208 28.208 28.208 28.268 28.208 28.268 28.208 28.268 28.268 28.268 28.268 28.208 28.208 28,268 28,268 28.208 28.208 28.208 28.208 28.268 28.208 28.208 28.208 28.208 28.208 28.268 28.268 28.208 28.208 28.208 28.208 28.208 28.268 28.268 28.208 28.208 28.208 $26 .581 898 3.428 4.166 4.411 0.625 7.210 8.680 11.206 12.300 14.539 10.994 19.704 21.515 23.792 25.123 27.002 28,158 32,328 34,686 30,075 38,303 39,813 43,144 44,534 40,114 47..509 50.273 51.506 53.932 55.220 57.739 59.020 60.715 01.909 03.057 64.360 65.240 65.898 08.601 69.482 70.632 71.513 73.252 74.138 75,369 76.269 70.860 77.451 78.042 79.013 79.004 80.195 80.786 81.378 81.969 82.500 82.560 82.500 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.500 82.500 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.500 82.500 82.560 82.500 82.500 82.500 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.500 82.560 82.560 13.148 $2,319" 7.412 8.080 a.tioo 10.196 10.320 52.944 55.002 57.178 59.854 Ii4.718 67.940 70.807 72.849 74.759 77.913 81.487 84.485 84.968 85.924 86.83li 87.560 87.966 88.203 89.7 H 92.802 94,034 95,211 95,744 90,402 96.978 97,335 97,513 97.603 97,933 98,169 99,211 100,865 101,882 102,130 102,452 102,712 103,122 103.557 103,793 103,805 103,805 103,969 104,298 104,461 102,142 97,050 95.780 94,854 94,264 94,135 51,517 49,399 47.283 44,607 39,742 36,521 33,654 31,612 29.702 26,548 22.975 19.977 19,494 18,537 17,027 16.902 16.496 16.259 14.751 11.600 9.828 9.250 8.718 8.000 7.484 7.127 0.949 (i.858 0.529 0.292 .-1.251 3.598 2.581 2.333 2.010 1.749 1.339 904 668 656 656 492 163 $i86" 939 1,107 1.268 2.145 2.277 8.334 10.908 12.002 14.237 16.869 19.576 21.360 23.024 24.953 20.813 27.960 32.328 34.680 36.075 38.303 39.813 43.144 44.534 46.114 47.509 .50.273 51.566 53.932 55.220 57,739 59.026 00.715 01.909 03.057 04.360 05.246 65,893 08.601 69.482 70,632 71.513 73.252 74.138 75.369 76.269 76.860 77.451 78,042 79.013 79.604 80.195 80.780 81,378 81,969 82,560 82,560 82.560 82.560 82,560 82,560 82,560 82,560 82,560 82.560 82.560 82,560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82,560 82.560 82.560 82.500 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.500 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.500 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 82.560 $2"499' 8.351 9.847 10.874 12.341 12,603 61.278 65.970 69.180 74.091 81.587 87.516 92.167 96.473 99.712 104.720 109.453 116.813 119.654 121.999 125.139 127.373 131.110 132.737 135.825 140.311 144,907 140,777 149.076 151,622 154,717 150,301 158,228 159,512 100.990 102.529 104.457 100.763 170,483 171.612 173.084 174.225 176.374 177.695 179.162 180.074 180,065 181,420 182,340 183,474 181,746 177,245 176.566 170.232 170,233 170,695 134,077 131,959 129,843 127,167 122.302 119,081 110,214 114,172 112.262 109.108 105.535 102.537 102,054 101,097 100,187 99.462 99,056 98.819 97.311 94.220 92.388 91.810 91.278 90,620 90.044 89,687 89,509 89.418 89.089 88.852 87.811 86.158 85.141 84.893 84.570 84.309 83.899 83.404 83.228 83.210 83.216 83.052 82,723 82,560 1964 19.468 (34 120 204 304 465 425 1.810 2.906 4,000 5.142 0.950 8.144 9.338 10,530 1 1 ,724 12.917 13.887 16.459 17.805 19.194 20.583 21.973 23.372 24.762 26.147 27.542 28.835 30,128 31,290 32,578 33,865 35.152 30.441 37.635 38.783 39.933 40.819 41.336 42.216 43.097 43.977 44,858 45,739 40.019 47,500 48,381 48,972 49,563 50.154 .50,745 51,336 51.927 .12,518 53.110 53.701 54.292 .^i4,292 .54.292 54.292 .54.292 54.292 54.292 54,292 ■54,292 54.292 .54.292 54.292 54.292 54.292 54.292 54.292 54.292 .54.292 54.292 54.292 54.292 .54.292 .54.292 54.292 54.292 54.292 .54.292 .54.292 ■54.292 .54.292 54.292 54.292 54.292 54.292 54.292 54.292 54.292 54.292 34.292 ■54.292 .54.292 .54.292 54.292 54.292 .54.292 23.072 196U 27.800 1967 32.304 35.199 1068 1969 30.770 38.320 $6,624 6.354 6.078 5.831 5.629 5.425 5.246 5.094 4.977 4.880 4.780 4,660 4,501 4.356 4.226 4.121 4.038 3,979 3,937 3.902 3,878 3.545 3.500 3.359 3.210 3.072 2.992 2.942 2.583 1.767 1.446 1.582 1.616 1.479 1.376 1.323 1.340 1.399 1.350 1.508 2.068 4.605 5.443 5.288 4.840 4.178 3.470 2.590 1.507 274 $7,702 7.890 7.057 5.778 5,833 5,121 4.341 3.332 2.783 2.905 3.353 4.545 4.171 3.696 3.018 2.343 1.689 1.216 994 700 49 $14,326 14.244 13.135 11.609 11.462 10.546 9.587 8.426 7.760 7.785 8.133 9.205 8.072 8.052 7.244 6.404 5,727 5.195 4.931 4.002 3.927 3.545 3.500 3.359 3.210 3 072 2.992 2.942 2.583 1.767 1.440 1.582 1.610 1.479 1.376 1.323 1.340 1.399 1.350 1.308 2.068 4.605 9.883 17.897 23.944 24.402 28,623 33,523 30,740 8,104 1071 40.520 1972 43.741 48.117 1974 53.128 1975 57.239 01.052 04.253 1978 06.810 09.930 73,354 1981 7.'i.280 70,290 77,873 1984 79,591 81.090 1985 82.239 83.008 84.780 1987 1988 88.200 1990 90.707 91.667 92,238 93,043 1904 93,768 1995 94.263 94,521 1997 94,662 95.350 1998 96.402 2000 97.765 99.283 2002 100.266 2003 100.051 101.070 2005 101.390 2006 101,776 102.158 2008 102.443 2009 102.297 2010 101.737 99,364 94.415 86.564 4.440 12.609 19.098 20,224 25.153 30.933 35,233 7.830 2013 2014 78,198 72.647 07,157 01.331 2017 2018 57.524 .55,492 53,713 $30,539 29.412 28.022 26.828 26.004 24,133 22,575 21,304 20.219 19.300 18.688 18.455 17.136 15.817 14.547 13.322 12.126 10.928 9.711 8.600 7.754 7.059 0.396 5.763 5.172 4.617 4.078 3.537 2.986 2.448 1.914 1.405 1.163 949 754 582 430 314 236 179 121 61 15 2020 51.818 2022 49,458 2023 46,370 42,523 2025 38,924 20'^6 3.5.715 33.442 2028 31,329 20*^9 27.835 23.803 2031 21.942 2032 20.301 2034 19.301 1035 17.858 1038 16 202 12.807 2040 10.794 1041 10 100 8.853 1044 8 220 7.032 1047 7 ,533 1048 6,911 1050 5.767 2.834 1053 2.502 1054 2.208 1.470 2057 720 1060 720 179 2063 2064 •3.981.000 »2.337.000 $0,318,000 $11,293,000 $5,223,000 86.290.000 $11,519,000 $226,000 $178,000 $234,000 $412,000 142 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS TABLE 31 SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL ANALYSES OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS ■■ b, c j 1 Aqueduct System "A" "B" , Allocated capital coat, in miUiona of dollars Equivalent annual coata*' AUocated capital cost, in millions of dollars Equivalent annual costs <* Allocated capital cost, in millions of dollars Equivalent annual costs •> Service area In millions of dollars In dollars per acre-foot In millions of dollars In dollars per acre-foot In millions of dollars In dollars ' per 1 acre-foot $109.0 52.1 84.2 86.9 20.5 10.4 48.1 114.0 89.8 45.2 1,700.5 $5.5 2.6 4.4 4.4 1.1 0.4 1.9 3.7 5.0 2.2 57.0 $12 16 U 19 35 27 28 55 56 77 51 J109.0 59.2 78.9 74.5 16.9 20.5 78.8 81.6 56.2 29.9 1.201.3 Sfi.5 3.0 4.2 3.7 0.9 0.7 2.7 3.4 3.4 1.5 48.0 $12 19 10 16 24 51 49 50 38 52 44 $109.0 55.2 80.1 77.6 17.6 11.7 57.3 140.3 58.0 30.9 1.524.7 $5.5 2.8 4.3 3.8 0.9 0.5 2.5 6.3 3.3 l.S 58.0 $12 ' 18 11 16 25 34 38 80 38 SO 52 Kern County Upper Antelope Plain Avenal Gap to Pumping Plant In-III.-- Pumping Plant In-llI to Pump- ing Plant In-IV Pumping Plant In-IV to Pump- ing Plant In-VI San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara Ventura County Antelope-Mojave Whitewater-Coachella Southern California Coastal Plain and Coastal San Diego County -_ _ Totals $2,360.7 $88.2 <»33 $1,806.8 $77.9 '$29 $2,162.4 $88.4 •$33 « Values reflect ■Meam-electric" or ■'steam-drive and fcedhack" operatlon. '' Does not include estimated Federal expenditure of about $100,000 In the San Luis Unit. ^ Reflects cost of main aqueduct only: docs not include local conveyance and distribution facllllies. '1 Reflects a nue dollar per acre-foot cost of water in the (»elta. ** WeiKhfed average. TABLE 32 COMPARISON OF AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS "B" AND "C" WITH ALTERNATIVE OPERATIONAL SCHEMES » Off-peak electric and feedback Steam-electric or steam-drive and feedback Capital cost in millions of dollars Equivalent annual costs Capital cost in millions of dollars Equivalent annual costs Aqueduct system in millions of dollars In dollars per acre-foot In millions of dollars In dollars per acre-foot •B ■ SI ,523 1,872 $59 fi6 »27 30 $1,298 1 ma $51 61 $23 28 "C" ■■• Values reflect costs south of .\venal Gap only. Net Benefits. Determination of net benefits or benefits in excess of costs provides a measure of the increase in economic value produced by successive!}' larger projects and is also useful in comparing alter- native locations of project facilities. Net Benefit-Investment Ratio. This relationship expresses a measure of return on the investment and is useful in comparing alternative locations of project facilities of the same size, but like the benefit-cost ratio does not fully evaluate the worth of increasing the size of a given project. Unit Cost of Water. Determination of the unit cost of water, giving consideration to all costs asso- ciated in delivering the supply to the ultimate con- sumer, is useful in comparing alternative locations of project facilities of the same size and providing com- parable water service. However, application of this criterion alone is not feasible if comparable water service is not provided either with respect to system location or capacity. Each of the foregoing relationships was developed as an aid in aqueduct system evaluation and selection. Since each system would provide essentially equiv- alent water service, the relationships reflect the differ- ence in cost of accomplishing this service. In addition, certain other economic relationships were developed for purposes of comparing the alter- native aqueduct systems. INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 143 The question of the high pump lift on the inland aqueduct route has been a subject of controversy for several years. Comparisons were therefore made of the systems with respect to net fuel consumption for pumping, using several assumed costs of fuel oil. Also prepared were comparisons of costs of the alternative .systems on a "perpetual life" basis, i.e., capitalization of all costs including recurring annual costs in per- petuity. Benefits Estimates of the value of benefits that would be derived from service of surplus northern California water in the southern California area were made for both irri<>:ated agriculture and municipal and indus- trial uses. The values so derived are for primary bene- fits although it is recognized that secondary and in- tangible benefits do result from projects of this nature and in some instances could be of a substantial magni- tude. However, in the interest of conservatism, only primarj' benefits were estimated, which results in pos- sible understatement of the project's accomplishments. Irrigated Agriculture. The measure of primary benefits to lands which would be irrigated with sur- plus northern California water was the difl^erenee be- tween net returns from farming operations with and without the availability of this water. The net return from farming operations, as used herein, is defined as the difference between gross income and all farm expenses, except water costs and either land rental or interest on capital invested in the land. Tables 33 and 34 set forth by aqueduct systems for the period of analysis the value of the average pri- mary unit irrigation benefits that would be derived from the availability and use of surplus northern California water in each service area. This summary of benefits indicates that the great- est unit benefit to irrigated agriculture would occur in the Southern California Coastal Plain and Coastal San Diego County Service Area, with the least unit benefit occurring in portions of the Kern County Service Area. This reflects the difference in the value of crops grown in the two areas. It will also be noted that unit benefits in certain service areas would be the greatest for the aqueduct systems delivering the least amounts of water and at the highest unit costs. This results from the elimina- tion of lower value crops from water service. In addition to the foregoing benefits, in those areas where irrigated agriculture is now supported by ground water overdraft with resultant progressive declines in ground water elevations, qualitative con- sideration was also given to the "rescue" effects of northern California water on sustaining the then ex- isting economy and the incomes dependent thereon. The analysis of these rescue effects was limited to such agricultural areas as the Oxnard Plain of Ventura County, the Maricopa-Wheeler Ridge area in Kern County, and the Santa Maria Valley of Santa Bar- bara County. With the introduction of imported water, these areas would be rescued from the loss of economic development because of either recession of the water table to uneconomic pumping depths, or by sea-water intrusion in coastal areas. Although benefits to agriculture in these rescue areas were not asses.sed quantitatively, it is apparent that the actual benefit of importing surplus northern California water thereto would be greater than shown. TABLE 33 ESTIMATED AVERAGE PRIMARY UNIT BENEFITS FOR IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE FOR AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS "A" AND "C" In doll ars per acre-foot) 2020 to Service area 1965 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2065 Delta to Avenal Gap S35 $35 $33 $33 $35 $35 $35 Kern County Upper Antelope Plain.. 50 50 50 50 50 50 30 Avenal Gap to Pump- ing Plant In-III 45 45 45 43 45 45 45 Pumping Plant In-III to Pumping Plant In-IV 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Pumping Plant In-IV to Pumping Plant In-VI 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 San Luis Obispo 58 58 60 59 53 54 Santa Barbara 74 74 77 88 103 104 Ventura County.. _ 104 104 103 104 104 Antelope-Mojave Whitewater-Coachella Southern California Coastal Plain and Coastal San Diego 147 147 150 130 150 144 TABLE 34 ESTIMATED AVERAGE PRIMARY UNIT BENEFITS FOR IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE FOR AQUEDUCT SYSTEM "B" In do! ars per acre-foot) 2020 to Service area 1965 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2065 Delta to Avenal Gap $35 $35 $35 $35 $35 $33 $35 Kern County Upper .\ntelope Plain.. 50 30 50 50 50 50 50 Avenal Gap to Pump- ing Plant In-III 45 45 43 45 45 45 45 Pumping Plant In-III to Pumping Plant In-IV 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Pumping Plant In-IV to Pumping Plant In-VI 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 San Luis Obispo 64 64 62 39 33 54 Santa Barbara 77 77 79 89 111 114 Ventura County 104 104 103 104 104 .\ntelope-Mojave. Whitewater-Coachella Southern California Coastal Plain and Coastal San Diego County 147 147 150 130 1.50 144 144 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS Municipal and Industrial. It is recognized that the benefits derived from delivery of supplemental water to a metropolitan area, which thereby permits future growth of that area or sustains an existing economy, are extremely great and substantially in excess of the benefits that would be obtained from water service to irrigated agriculture. With respect to the southern portion of the State, it is certain that, without the introduction of surplus northern Cali- fornia water, the growth of this area necessarily would be severely inhibited ; and it is probable that economic loss to the existing development would finally be ex- perienced. Even though these conditions are recog- nized, a quantitative determination of municipal and industrial benefits is difficult to make with any degree of exactness. An evaluation of primary benefits to municipal and industrial entities through the introduction of sur- plus northern California water into the southern Cali- fornia area in the manner described for irrigated ag- riculture was deemed impracticable. It would require prognostication, for many years in the future, of economic values resulting from increased income, in- creases in land values, etc., which it will be recog- nized would have little reliability. The measure of municipal and industrial benefits selected was the estimated cost of water from the least costly alternative source. By this method, alter- native sources of water supply which could be con- sidered must (1) be practicable, (2) provide water at a cost within the ability of water users to pay, and (3) be capable of supplying an equivalent amount of water to that available from northern California. In Chapter II, possible alternative sources of water sup- ply to southern California were discussed. It was con- cluded that there is no practical alternative, which is competitive in cost and of comparable magnitude, to surplus northern California water. For purposes of the analyses, a unit value for the primary municipal and industrial benefit of $150 per acre-foot was selected. This represents a cost some- what less than the presently estimated minimum fu- ture cost of demineralizing ocean water. It is be- lieved that could ocean water be converted for benefi- cial use at this cost, it would be within most municipal and industrial users' payment capacity. This value was used for determining the municipal and industrial benefits in the coastal counties of .San Ijuis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura; in the southern California coastal plain and coastal San Diego County; and in the Antelope-Mojave and Whitewater-Coachella Service Areas. For the San Joaquin Valley and in particular the metropolitan area of Bakersfield, inasmuch as no practicable al- ternative exists for municipal and industrial water supply in this area, a primary benefit was assumed that was equal to the maximum irrigated agricultural benefit, or $69 per acre-foot. It was assumed that the benefit would be measured at the point of deliA'ery from the local distribution facilities, as outlined in Chapter VI, for each service area. This difi^ers from the estimates for irrigated agriculture, where the'; benefit at the point of delivery to the ultimate con- sumer was derived. i Costs The costs utilized in the benefit-cost analyses are all costs associated in delivering water to the service ' areas including both those of the main aqueduct fa- ; eilities as well as the primary local conveyance and ! distribution facilities. In the ease of irrigated agri- ' culture, the secondary facilities required to deliver ] water to the farmer's headgate are also included '■ since, as stated, the benefit was measured at this point. \ In addition to the capital costs of the facilities, all ! computed interest charges and costs of operation, maintenance, replacement, and general expense for the main aqueduct system, and for the conveyance and distribution systems within the service areas, as set forth in Chapter VI, were utilized. A cost of $1.00 per acre-foot for water in the Delta was utilized for the purposes of these analyses. For municipal and in- dustrial water supplies, the estimated unit costs of treatment, as set forth in Chapter III, were included. System "A" Presented in Table 33 are the summar.y results of the economic analyses of Aqueduct System "A", with the "steam-electric and feedback" scheme of opera- tion. It may be noted in this table that not only does the entire system exhibit economic justification in that benefits derived exceed costs, but also service to each area is demonstrated to be economicallj' justified for the same reason. The capitalized value in perpetuity of all costs of Aqueduct System "A", including those associated with local conveyance and distribution would be 3,816 million dollars. Equivalent annual fuel oil consumption for this system south of Avenal Gap, including that consumed in local conveyance and distribution facilities, would be 8.03 million barrels or about 2.33 barrels per acre- foot. 1 I System "B" Presented in Table 36 are the summary results of the economic analyses of Aqueduct System "B", with the "steam-drive and feedback" scheme of operation. As in System "A", not only does the entire system exhibit economic justification in that benefits derived exceed costs, but also service to each area is demon- strated to be economically justified. The capitalized value in perpetuity of all costs of Aqueduct System "B", including those associated with local conveyance and distribution would be 3,236 million dollars. k\ INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 145 u < u. o UJ :S (/) o UJ < o m Z £ < < I y E O z o u (N Oi (D iM CI , 00 ■* CO , CO t^ •3-"3 water in service area*> M (N ^ TO ■* [ •* -^ CO ' t^ CM r- to ri| ^1 -m a 2 s •* CO CO b- N CD .-H W t-- •* CO 00 CO CO 00 ^ OJ CO ■^ 10 ^aSS d ^ (N 0 03 » "^ 01 CD 00 d o> OJ CO d OJ d X O) M -H d s d CO lO cq C3> CM CO 1 « CO CM CO CO 04 CD «• 6© «» cm" s gif <2 t^ Tt< »o CO CO 1-- CO OJ ■^ 01 "d oi 10 « ifl CO CO 10 (N CO ^ d ^ t- ■^ *j CO (N 01 N CO •^d t- Tt< i^ d CO o '^ Ol 'tf '.J* (N CM (M 10 CO CO CO H M> «e mT tC a" |g 4* «e IJ 1 1 . CO ■ .'Id I CO d CO M "D CC CO "O 01 (N OJ d •* 00 00 CO d n] 3 1 1 C4 I M CO •* iC t^ CM OJ ■* ^ >> £i (N i-i (M CO co_ c Sg 2. "2 c# W « "* lo" 1 § S .9 «• Ph a " , £ CO ifl o> ^ '^ d 10 cq t-- ; ; ■* S'i 3 oi 10 CO lO CO W d 00 00 00 d d CO C^ C3> CO o> PH I> .-. s M hD^ ■^ C) ■«}" N 01 •* OJ ^^" » w «» tft « ^ U3 U5 Tf 10 r- ^ t- 00 "5 t'- CO 3 I^ --< cq 00 M d ci t^ d OJ d d -* 00 CO t> -- CO iC cq 00 -I CM t- o» r- o CN ^ ^ ^ d d s OS 01 •* CO d Tft m d CO CD Tp C3) c^ ^ lO •V CO OJ CO 3 M . d o IjQ ««» o d h a 00 -* •* CO ■«*< cs — I cq d CD lO .-< CO d ci w d OJ 06 00 -] -, s M CO 00 lA OJ Tf -flH 00 OJ w OS •B 2 as §•1 s t^ d d 00 -*' r- U5 CO M d M hi o (N CO CJ M w M CM g g & M » a fl PU "3 ifl .-H ^ -iS* 10 ■-I h- 10 CO 00 M ift 00 OS -S (M 1-1 CO W -H 00 — 1 W CO t^ 00 t-H CM d S 10 t^ CO ^ •^ OJ 00 .lis 00 (J> CO CD CO r- CO ■Tj< ■^ t* CO ^ OJ a> -* £>- t* -H CO r* CO CO CO 00 §•11 te c^ q_ lO •» M «» 1 1 -g 1 -g 1 1 ; s ; ; ISCM IC^ 1 (3 : J ■ as is i 1 [ : i a ; a ; CO 1 i t :s^ IS I 3 : [ ; M ; ! s ; j I a ■»=• I *3 1 r 1 .Saa !> ! • a a a 1" ™; n> M ■s*».. M 2 S ' ■ —2500 3 ca « ** o 9 ca — o >■ « -99465 146 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS >- u a o < to >- —1 < Z < u O z o Ol iM lO Ol <-i CO -^ --' , CO 05 O o. 1 -3 -^ "o fe S * (N CO t-t CM CO t^ X r* '0 t- to 'J* CO Tot, uni cost wati in servi area , S O) O CI ■-j< .-1 h- t^ o o lO o »o 00 *^ 2 , 00 O r-. O -( .-1 OJ -* d PI .-. o .- lO Cl o d oi OI CO CO « "O CO CO O w i^ -tft C-l -t iC 00 Ol g ■" S ° § 5 S i; flj =- . CO ^ OJ o o ^ C-J <-* CO lO Irs O 00 00 CO iO CO (J- 4i o 0) TO -^S c K rt '-' --i CO (N oi c-q i-h" .-h" n "^ C) " Ol 04 aj o 2 pa OO in t* lO 00 iC 00 ^ CD lO (N -^ o "^ 13 ci »o c: t-^ t>^ t^ eo' tjJ CO ^ CO ^ t- o +j Cl -H oq to CO tP OJ t- t^ N CO o ■^ cq lO ** w .-. ." 1^ «« e* 1 1 •o Td *3 1§l ; ! ! d 1 CD d CD O -d< CO tP »o o CO CO -* o 00 OI d M CO Tf lO CO t- (N OJ ■^ w ■-> cq s CO f-. ■^" CO in S .9 «« P^ a "S £ 00 lO r* Ol CO Ol (N ^ (N to ; ; o OI ai lO to d r-i d d d CO 00 Ol ■* CD (N ^ O CO ^ lO ^ t-- M M M,^ ■^ (N iC w o 09 ■^ Ol 'E * ,=^ «& h> u «« w M W (N ■* ro CO I> ■- lO CO t- (N OJ 01 "rt t~ CO >o CO o CO M M CO ■^ c» ■^ ■* r* 00 "* to OJ CO CO OJ IM CO 00 CO CD CO CO O cq lO CV) 00 ^ H «© ee 0& co" ^ 3 3 CO o -* .-< Ol Tf lO Ol CD o 00 ^ o o "o >ra d i>^ d d ■* w t-^ oJ d t>^ oi d ^ "D CO to -^ O) o -tf CO Ol CO M r- 1:^ CM «& ■* Ol 'o «& e» t» (U g to c o 1^ o Tj« Tjf CO ■*• W3 CO '•I' ■* PH '^ Tj< CO o i CO d (N ^ w d CO O CO oJ 00 d t^ CO §3 ^ d fo o (N CO cq Ol Ol 00 o t* CO t^ o -1* -.; CD CD 3 11 •*t< lO M Ol — « d lO Ol t- CO 00 CO S' tn CO -* CO ^ m ^ CO CO o cs h o 49 «© CD 9? w ^ a a "3 O S .■ssa C3 O O CO ■^ N Ol lO CD (M CO tn CD CO (O CO go' lO CO CD ^ OJ fh 40 in CO 10 M CO ^ ^ w^ h- b- -S oi c» to CM •* CM r- '■f to CM CO o Tf 00 •* M_ CM CM 40 CO to CO H w tf» ■*" t^ •ss W w 1 .10 1 ! I d ■ to d to 00 >n CO CO >o OS ci -* -* X CO 1 1 1 CM CO tt m CO CD CM OS CO » U ^ M ■* CO ■fl*' CO. s .s w FU P. 00 U3 *0 0> Cfi U2 M r- ' t •* oi lO t- (O to >o CM 00 00 X [ I 01 d (fl 'C 3 WOO to ^ t^ ^ Ul £)C^ ■^ CM lO CM o__ "<*• o_ •E oia ¥» «^ CM Jh " 6» W 00 W ^ © CO t^ ^ CO ^ 10 b- ^ ■3 t- CO d d d CM CO 00 CM b- d d d -S 00 CO <0 0> M CO CM OS CD W CM to OS CI \n CM CO H Mr w t» n' si 3 « « •-• cn CO OS i-i -* •0 t- CM 10 d i> d d ->!* d d -^ d d CM CO ID « •* ca CM •-' CO CM CS ■* 1 M tP OS t» M o» © m w £•8 ** CO CO ■* "* to US ^ CM 00 -* - r- N C4 rH rH »o 01 o» 00 00 to CO t~- Tf 00 to d ^ d CO CO t- rt M CM rH to-* OS -* 10 .a 3 CO to -* «• «# •• ci 00 •» 1 ? to CO »o to ■<*< -* CD ■* ^ ■^ 00 ITS a 3 ll ■* CO CM ^ 1-t CO ^ Tj* -H 06 10 CM b- d d d t^ d §■ »o CM CM CO »0 CO CO CO to 00 t^ t^ t^ U3 OS 00 d d d cj d OS X CO •* i> a X CR ■^ r- to r-« OS -* to CO X OS &38 M OS ■*. «» w Wl » 11 1 ! 1 hj 1 d) 1 IS ' ' Q I ii.g :^ : a ' : ^ a : a : 1 g a . a ' » i •T2 I :(i.a- ;», ; S . 8 i a-2 :-2 : 1 rt .SaS l> ! 6 a 1 s s 0. OS < s s •3 Q Kern County- Upper Antelope Pla; Avenal Gap to Pum Pumping Plant In-I Plant In-IV Pumping Plant In-I Plant In-VI i 1 eg San Luis Obiepo Santa Barbara Ventura County i i '0 S 0. 1 OS 1 1 Southern California Coastal Plain and County a •"3 u es V rt fc o ^ ■2 c ^5 ■a c «3 =J O j INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 149 TABLE 38 SUAAMARY ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS « Item System "A" System "B" System ■■C" Capital cost of main aqueduct in millions $2,361 $1,298 $1,220 $ 134 $3,816 $ 33 $ 50 $7,334 1.97 $3,620 1.58 $ 144 8.03 2.33 $1,807 $ 927 $ 745 $ 113 $3,236 $ 29 $ 42 $7,330 2.34 $4,193 2.41 $ .... 9.35 2.71 $2,162 Capital cost of units for initial delivery to Southern California in millions of dollars Capital cost of local conveyance and dis- tribution facilities in millions of dollars- Total equivalent annual cost in millions of dollars — including local conveyance and $1,031 $ 703 $ 122 Capitalized value of all costs in perpetuity $3,498 Average unit cost of water at main aque- duct in dollars per acre-foot*'. » Average unit cost of water in service area $ 33 $ 45 Total direct benefits in millions of dollars. $7,338 2.16 Net benefits in millions of dollars $3,939 1.98 Average cost of producing one dollar of incremental benefit over $7,330 million $ 34 Equivalent annual fuel consumption in 8.67 2.51 •Values in table do not include e.rtimated Federal expenditures of about $100,000,- 000 in facilities for the San Luis serrice area. •> Reflects a one dollar per acre-foot cost in the Delta. " Based upon derived "equivalent annual cost" of water. !> Based upon "steam-drive and feedback" or "steam-electric" operational schemes for main aqueduct south of Avenal Gap and purchased power tor local distri- bution facilities. "B"; and 8.67 million barrels for System "C", when operated under "steam-electric" and "steam-drive and feedback" schemes. These values also include the fuel consumption of local conveyance and distribution facilities. As shown in Chapter V, fuel oil consump- tion under year 2020 conditions would be about 14 per cent less for System "A" than for System "B". System "C" under these conditions would use about 5 per cent less fuel than System "B". The cost relationships among the aqueduct systems cited in a previous section were based on an estimate of $2.50 per barrel of fuel oil for pumping. An an- alysis was made to estimate the relative variation in unit cost of water delivered south of Avenal Gap with various assumed prices of fuel oil. Figure 14 graphic- ally presents the results of this analysis. It is shown by this figure that even were the cost of energy for pumping to rise to much higher levels than are fore- seen at this time, the unit cost of water from System "B" would remain substantially less than from Sys- tems "A" and "C". Summary From the analyses presented in this chapter and preceding chapters of this report, it was determined that Aqueduct System "B", as compared to Systems "A" and "C", would provide water to the ultimate consumer in the southern California area at a mini- mum over-all cost, and, through its construction, would produce the greatest net economic benefit in the area. Further, it was found that the unit cost of water at the main aqueduct wovild be less under Aqueduct System "B" than under the other two, either with an operational scheme employing the concept of power utility participation or with one which is independent of such participation. It was found that Aqueduct System "B" is finan- cially feasible with respect to recovery of incurred costs under the criteria employed. It is also economic- ally justified in that estimated benefits produced bj' its construction would substantially exceed the cost thereof, giving consideration to the time value of money with respect to both benefits and costs. Aqueduct System "B" is feasible of construction from a physical standpoint. It is readily adapted to several methods of operation with respect to pumping and power recovery, and also to the utilization of other sources and types of energy for pumping. On the basis of the foregoing. Aqueduct System "B" is considered the optimum system for the deliv- ery of surplus northern California water to the south- ern California area. I FIGURE 14 NOTE: COSTS SHOWN INCLUDE ALL COSTS OF CONVEYANCE AND PUMPING FROM AVENAL GAP TO POINTS OF MAIN AQUEDUCT DELIVERY.BASED ON STEAM-DRIVE OR STEAM- ELECTRIC AND FEEDBACK SCHEME OF OPERATION. I DOLLARS PER BARREL OIL AND AVERAGE COST OF WATER SOUT H OF AVE N AL GAP FIGURE 14 40 < UJ a: < iij u > UJ a: ir o Ll. a: iij I- < $ u. o 35 o o O < 30 25 < _l O Q 20 CO - o o iLl o < q: UJ > < 15 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . SYSTEM "C" ^SYSTEM "a" 1 1 ^^^^^^ ^SYSTEM "b" 1 1 1 1 1 ' NOTE: COSTS SHOWN INCLUDE ALL COSTS OF CONVEYANCE AND PUMPING FROM AVENAL GAP TO POINTS OF MAIN AQUEDUCT DELIVERY.BASED ON STEAM-DRIVE OR STEAM- ELECTRIC AND FEEDBACK SCHEME OF OPERATION. 2 3 COST OF FUEL OIL IN DOLLARS PER BARREL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COST OF FUEL OIL AND AVERAGE COST OF WATER FOR AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS SOUTH OF AVENAL GAP DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1959 CHAPTER VIII THE OPTIMUM AQUEDUCT SYSTEM The financial and economic analyses presented in Chapter VII resulted in the conclusion that Aqueduct System "B" was the optimum system among possible alternatives for the delivery of surplus northern Cali- fornia water to the San Joaquin Valley, the coastal counties of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara, and to the ai'ea south of the Tehachapi Mountains. This system, together with other Delta export projects and upstream development projects, is depicted on Plate 19, entitled "The Optimum Aqueduct System and Other Features of the California "Water Development Program ' '. This chapter presents a recapitulation of the physi- cal facilities, construction schedule, costs and accom- plishments of Aqueduct System "B". AQUEDUCT FACILITIES The San Joaquin Valley-Southern California Aque- duct System, incorporating selected System " B ", will consist of a large canal leading south from the Delta along the west side of the San Joaquin Valley past the proposed San Luis Eeservoir to Avenal Gap. A "Coastal Aqueduct" from Avenal Gap will extend west and then south through San Luis Obispo County to the Santa Maria Valley of Santa Barbara County. An "Inland Aqueduct" will continue along the west side of the San Joaquin Valley from Avenal Gap through Kern County and across the Tehachapi Moun- tains, where it will divide into a "West Branch" leading to the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County and an "East Branch" to the proposed Perris Reservoir in Riverside County. The total length of aqueduct facilities from the Delta to the three termini will be 638 miles. This aqueduct system, under a 55- year program of staged construction, will eventually deliver in excess of eight million acre-feet of water annually to agricultural lands and the metropolitan areas of the water deficient San Joaquin Valley and southern part of the State. The location and nature of facilities described herein may be expected to be modified in detail by subsequent engineering studies. However, such modi- fications would not alter the conclusions of this in- vestigation and report. Delta fo Avenal Gap The 195 miles of aqueduct leading from the Delta to Avenal Gap will be principally in large canal. The aqueduct will divert from the Delta at sea level through Pumping Plant I and will extend south to San Luis Creek where Pumping Plant II will lift the water into San Luis Reservoir and/or into the canal leading south to Avenal Gap. The Aqueduct between the Delta and San Luis Reservoir will be completed as soon after 1965 as possible in order to build up storage in San Luis Reservoir and thereby provide for conveyance of suffi- cient quantities of water to meet increasing demands on the aqueduct system. Canal sections in this reach would have top widths of about 145 feet and depths of flow of about 30 feet for discharges of about 13,000 second-feet. Until the completion of this reach of aque- duct, water from the Delta will be conveyed through the existing Delta-Mendota Canal, utilizing the off- season capacity thereof under a proposed contractual arrangement with the United States. The canal leading southward from San Luis Reser- voir to Kettleman City, under a proposed joint ven- ture with the United States, will be completed in time to provide initial water deliveries by 1965 to western Fresno County, including the Federal Government's proposed service area therein, to Kings and Tulare Counties and to Kern County to the south. For purposes of this bulletin, it was assumed that the Federal Government's expenditure in the fore- going works would amount to .$100,000,000. Coastal Aqueduct The Coastal Aqueduct from Avenal Gap to its ter- minus will be 131 miles in length. About 78 miles will be in canal, 46 miles in siphon and penstock and about 7 miles in tunnel. The Coastal Aqueduct eventually will divert 581,000 acre-feet of water annually from the large canal in the San Joaquin Valley, at about elevation 325 feet. The aqueduct will proceed west- ward through Pumping Plants C-3, C-4, and C-5, to an elevation of about 1,230 feet and then will enter a five-mile tunnel through the Polonio Pass area. The Polonio Pass Tunnel will have an. inside diameter of 7^ feet with a capacity of 294 second-feet. The aque- duct will continue westward across the Upper Salinas Valley alternately in canal and double-barreled pipe- siphon to enter a two-mile tunnel through Cuesta Pass. Canal reaches will have top widths of up to 30 feet, while siphon barrels will be from 66 to 75 inches in diameter. A short distance beyond the south portal of the Cuesta Pass Tunnel the hydraulic grade line will be lowered about 500 feet through the San Luis Obispo Power Development and the aqueduct will continue southerly, largely in canal, to a terminus in (151) 152 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS Santa Maria Valley at elevation 405 feet. The pump- ing lift from the Delta to the terminus of this aque- duct in Santa Maria Valley will be about 1,300 feet less the head recovered through the 500-foot power drop. Conveyance and distribution in the Santa Barbara Service Area will be accomplished by facilities, con- structed by local agencies, extending southerly from the Santa Maria Terminus. "Work on the aqueduct will be started as soon as possible and completed to provide for initial water deliveries in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Service Areas and to the Upper Antelope Plain in Kern County by 1971. Inland Aqueduct The 120 miles of Inland Aqueduct between Avenal Gap and the southerly end of the crossing of the Tehachapi Mountains will comprise about 105 miles of canal, 6 miles of tunnel, and 9 miles of siphon, and miscellaneous conveyance works. This reach of aque- duct will have a maximum capacity of 9,700 second- feet near Avenal Gap. Canal sections will have depths of up to 28 feet and top widths of up to 130 feet. The Tehachapi Tunnels will have a diameter of 21.5 feet, with a discharge capacity of about 4,800 second-feet. The aqueduct will continue southward from Avenal Gap, at an initial elevation of about 325 feet, along the west side of the San Joaquin Valley to Buena Vista Lake, where Pumping Plant In-III will lift the water to about elevation 500 feet, thence eastward to Pumping Plants In-IV and In-V at Wheeler Ridge. At these plants the water will be lifted to elevation 1,245 feet and the aqueduct will follow along the southerly end of the San Joaquin Valley to a point about one mile east of Pastoria Creek, where Pumping Plant In-VI will lift the water to elevation 3,415 feet. At the end of the discharge lines of Pumping Plant In-VI, the water will enter the Tehachapi Tun- nels and connecting siphons totaling about seven miles in length and terminating in the Antelope Valley. At the south portal of the Tehachapi Tunnels, the Inland Aqueduct will divide into the West and East Branches. Work on the Inland Aqueduct south of Avenal Gap will be started immediately in order to begin water deliveries to Kern County by 1965. Pumping Plant In-VI and tunnels through the Tehachapi Mountains will be scheduled for completion to meet water de- liveries through the West Branch of the aqueduct by 1971. West Branch. The West Branch of the Inland Aqueduct will extend about 50 miles southerly from the Tehachapi Tunnels to the San Fernando Valley. It will comprise about 18 miles of siphon and pen- stock, 14 miles of tunnel, and the balance in canal sec- tion and reservoirs. Siphons will consist of two barrels, having diameters of up to 13 feet. Penstocks will be constructed in three stages and will have diameters of up to 9.5 feet. Tunnels will have diameters of up to 17 feet. The maximum capacity of aqueduct in this reach will be about 2,100 second-feet. The aqueduct will continue from a small afterbay at water surface elevation 3,348 feet at the south portal of the Tehachapi Tunnels, southward across the west end of the Antelope Valley, through a forebay in the vicinity of Liebre Mountain, and through Castaic Power Plant No. 1 into Beartrap Reservoir. This power plant will have an operating head of about 824 feet, and will discharge to a water surface elevation of 2,486 feet in the reservoir. The aqueduct will con- tinue through a series of siphons and tunnels to Cas- taic Power Plant No. 2, with an operating head of about 1,010 feet, which will discharge into Castaic Reservoir with maximum water surface elevation of 1,417 feet. From Castaic Reservoir the aqueduct will continue southward to a terminus at elevation 1,218 feet at the north end of the San Fernando Valley near Balboa Boulevard. The pumping lift from the Delta to Balboa Terminus will be about 3,500 feet, less the head recovered through about 1,800 feet of power drop. Work on the We.st Branch will be scheduled to be- gin by 1965 to permit completion to Balboa Terminus and initiation of water deliveries for Ventura County and the southern California coastal plain by 1971. East Branch. The 142-mile long Bast Branch will have about 93 miles of canal, about 44 miles of siphon, discharge line, and penstock, 4 miles of tunnel and the remainder in reservoir. Canal reaches will have a maximum top width of 82 feet and depths of about 17 feet. Siphon sections will be constructed in either two or three stages, with each barrel having diameters varying from 11 to 14 feet. The tunnel through the San Bernardino Mountains will be about 17 feet in diameter. This reach of aqueduct will have a discharge capacity varying from about 1,800 to 3,200 second- feet. The East Branch will enter a siphon and penstock from the afterbay at the south portal of the Tehachapi Tunnels leading to Cottonwood Power Plant with a tailrace elevation of 3,013 feet. A canal will continue from the power plant along the southerly side of Antelope Valley eastward to the community of Pear- blossom, where Pumping Plant In-VII will raise the hydraulic grade line elevation to about 3,500 feet. The aqueduct will continue eastward to Cedar Springs Reservoir on the West Fork of the Mojave River at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains. This reservoir will have a maximum water surface eleva- tion of 3,455 feet. A four-mile tunnel through the San Bernardino Mountains will lead from Cedar Springs Reservoir to the Devil Canyon Power Development consisting of two drops with a final tailrace elevation of 1,734 feet. From the tailrace of the Devil Canyon Power Development, the aqueduct will continue in INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 153 I siphon across the Upper Santa Ana Valley to Perris , Reservoir in Riverside County, which will have a I maximum water surface elevation of 1,592 feet. The i pumping lift from the Delta to Perris Reservoir will I be about 4,100 feet, less the head recovered from I power drops totaling about 2,000 feet. The canal from the Tehachapi Tunnels to Little Rock Creek near Pearblossom will be started about 1968 and completed by 1971 to initiate water deliv- eries at that time to the Antelope Valley. Subse- quently, the aqueduct from Little Rock Creek to Per- ris Reservoir will be completed and water deliveries made to the Mojave River area and Wliitewater- i Coachella Service Area as well as to the southern Cali- fornia coastal plain and coastal San Diego County by 1982. Should earlier demands for surplus northern California water develop in the latter areas, the con- struction timetable for completion of the East Branch could be advanced about five years to about 1977. SYSTEM OPERATION Controlled releases of water into the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta from upstream storage, as well as naturallj^ occurring flood flows, will be diverted from the Delta to be conveyed southward to the 2,100,000 acre-foot capacity San Luis Reservoir. Until about year 1970, the conveyance of water between the Delta and San Luis Reservoir, as stated, will be by means of the off-season capacitj- of the existing Delta-Men- dota Canal, under a proposed contractual agreement with the United States. Water from the Delta either will be regulated in San Luis Reservoir or conveyed directly to service areas beyond this facility. Water deliveries, primarily for irrigation purposes, in west- ern Fresno, Kings, Tulare and Kern Counties will be on a monthly service area demand schedule. The Coastal Aqueduct will operate on a continuous flow basis throughout its length, with the exception of the reach between Avenal Gap and Pumping Plant C-5, which will be sized to deliver water on a monthly demand schedule to the Upper Antelope Plain portion of Kern County. Continuous water deliveries will be made to San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. Coordinated ground water pumping or use of locally- constructed surface storage within these latter two areas will have the effect of regulating aqueduct flow to demand schedules. Flow in the West Branch of the Inland Aqueduct delivered at Balboa Terminus will be regulated by Castaic Reservoir to the primarily monthly urban de- mand schedule of the southern California coastal plain area. Castaic Reservoir will be built to a storage ca- pacity of 150,000 acre-feet. In addition emergency storage will be provided above Castaic Reservoir in the 56,000 acre-foot Beartrap Reservoir. Water for Ven- tura County will be released from Castaic Reservoir On a continuous flow basis to be conveyed to Balboa Terminus and thence to local regulatory storage at Conejo Reservoir. The East Branch of the Inland Aqueduct will de- liver water for the Antelope-Mojave and Whitewater- Coaehella Service Areas on a continuous flow basis with regulation to be effected in the service areas. Cedar Springs Reservoir with a capacity of 216,000 acre-feet, will permit deliveries to the coastal plain area en route to Perris Reservoir to be made on a monthly demand schedule. Perris Reservoir, with a total storage capacity of 148,000 acre-feet, also will be operated to regulate deliveries to a monthly de- mand schedule in portions of the southern California coastal plain. Water supplies will be delivered to the Colorado River Aqueduct on this schedule, but flows transported through a connection to the Second San Diego Aqueduct will be on a continuous flow basis to be regulated in local storage facilities. A total of 285,000 acre-feet of emergency storage, sufficient to provide continuity of deliveries for more than three weeks' time under 2020 conditions of de- mand, will be distributed among Beartrap, Castaic, Cedar Springs, and Perris Reservoirs, and in existing and future reservoir facilities of local water supply agencies. Several pumping and power recovery schemes for the aqueduct system were investigated and found to be feasible from an engineering standpoint. The rel- ative merits of each of these schemes, employing vary- ing concepts of purchase and/or sale of electric energy or operation independent of electrical utility connec- tions and combinations of these concepts, will be more fully investigated and definite selection made during final design. For facilities south of Avenal Gap the ' ' steam-drive and feedback" scheme of operation was employed herein for the purposes of financial and economic an- alyses. Analyses were also made employing the "off- peak electric and feedback" scheme of operation. With either of the foregoing operational schemes, Pumping Plants I and II were considered to be op- erated continuously using steam-electric generation and electric motor drive. Under the "steam-drive and feedback" scheme. Pumping Plants In-III, In-IV, In-V, In- VII, C-3, C-4, and C-5, would be operated continuously using electric motor drive with energy supplied by feedback from power recovery plants sup- plemented by steam-electric generation. Pumping Plant In-VI would also be operated continuously, with the main pumps driven by direct-connected steam turbines. The "off-peak electric and feedback" scheme, for facilities south of Avenal Gap, would employ electric motor drive on all pumping plants for both Coastal and Inland Aqueducts. Power recovery plants on the Inland Aqueduct would be oversized to permit peak- ing operation. The recovered power would be trans- mitted to pumping plants in the San Joaquin Vallej^ 154 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS and at Pearblossom. San Luis Obispo Power Develop- ment on the Coastal Aqueduct would be operated con- tinuously because of the lack of suitable regulator}' forebay and afterbay sites. Continuous power from this plant would be fed into the transmission lines connecting all of the plants. Off-peak power would be purchased from power utilities to supplement the re- covered peaking- and continuous flow power to drive all of the pumping plants. Since the recovered power would be insufficient to sustain continuous pumping during on-peak hours, pumping plants in the San Joaquin Valley would be oversized for greater rates of discharge during off-peak hours. Set forth in the following tabulation is the installed capacity that would be required at the various pump- ing and power recovery plants for the system, under conditions of water demand of year 2020, using the "steam-drive and feedback" operational scheme: I Pumping plant I II Installed capacity in megawatts — 300 360 In-III 126 In-IV 105 In-V 273 In-VI 1,050 In-VII 156 C-3 34 C-4 28 C-5 11 Installed Power capacity recovery in plant megawatts Castaic No. 1 97 Castaic No. 2 119 Cottonwood 76 Devil Can.von No. 1 282 Devil Canyon No. 2 127 San Luis Obispo 9 Total 660 Total __ 2,443 Under the foregoing scheme, the average annual equivalent fuel oil consumption required to deliver up to eight million acre-feet of water annually through the main aqueduct system, over the period from 1970 to 2020, would be 14 million barrels. This amount of fuel oil was found to constitute only a small fraction of present crude oil production in Cali- fornia. LOCAL CONVEYANCE AND DISTRIBUTION Water service from the main aqueduct sj'stem will require local construction of conveyance and distribu- tion facilities within each service area. For urban uses, treatment including filtration and ehlorination will be required. The Coastal Aqueduct will serve Upper Antelope Plain in the San Joaquin Valley and San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. Service to Upper Ante- lope Plain will require two main laterals extending south, parallel to but at a higher elevation than the main inland aqueduct. Laterals from the Coastal Aqueduct will serve the Upper Salinas Valley and the coastal portions of San Luis Obispo County. Santa Barbara County will be served bj^ a local main con- veyance facility extending from Santa Maria Ter- minus of the main aqueduct to Caeliuma Reservoir, together with laterals therefrom in the northern por- tion of the county. East and west laterals extending from the south portal of the existing Tecolote Tunnel will serve the coastal area of Santa Barbara County south of the Santa Ynez Mountains. The Inland Aqueduct will serve the remainder of Kern County and the area south of the Tehachapi Mountains. Turnouts from the main aqueduct in the San Joaquin Valley will deliver water into local irri- gation distribution systems both above and below the aqueduct. A lateral canal about 40 miles in length will also be required to serve water for urban purposes in the Bakersfield area. From the Balboa Terminus of the West Branch of the Inland Aqueduct, a main feeder 26 miles in length will be required to serve Ventura County and ad- jacent areas in westerly Los Angeles County. In addi- tion, convej'ance facilities will have to be constructed from Balboa Terminus to connect with existing facili- ties of the Metropolitan Water District and other local water service agencies. Service to the Antelope-Mojave Service Area from the East Branch will be by laterals extending north- erly into the desert area. The Whitewater-Coachella Service Area will be served by a lateral, largely in canal, extending from the East Branch near Hesperia through Lucerne, Yucca, and Morongo Valleys to a power development site above Desert Hot Springs. From the tailrace of the Devil Canyon Power De- velopment and from Perris Reservoir, local convey- ance facilities will be required to serve existing facili- ties in the Upper Santa Ana Valley and to connect with the existing Colorado River Aqueduct facilities. Also, from Perris Reservoir, a lateral about 15 miles in length will be required to connect with the Second San Diego Aqueduct near San Jacinto. AQUEDUCT SYSTEM COSTS The estimated capital costs of construction of this optimum aqueduct system are summarized following: Capital costs* Delta to San Luis Reservoir $314,000,000 San Luis Reservoir San Luis Reservoir to Avenal Gap Coastal Aqueduct Avenal Gap to Santa Maria River Inland Aqueduct Avenal Gap to South Portal of Tehachapi Tunnels West Branch to Balboa Terminus East Branch to Perris Reservoir 112,000,000 184,000,000 111,000,000 505,000,000 224,000,000 458,000,000 Total $1,908,000,000 * Capital costs include estimated Federal investment of about $100,000,- 000 in facilities for tlie San Luis service area. Set forth in Table 39 is a year by year schedule of expenditures for construction of the system facilities according to the sequence described previously. The initial State expenditures for construction through the year 1971 will be about $936,000,000 under the as- sumption of an estimated initial Federal expenditure of $90,000,000 in the joint construction of San Luis INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 155 Of O (O a ^5 1— UJ U I 3 (.J Q (O o o< ^o = " =j ;^ - Or: UJ O"- "-Q CO Z UJ < ii UJ ■ "^ ^ X < ex. < U u. o UJ I :3 Q m X u to ■3 A- « O 03 -»^ O So2 o ■** o t^ a> ID Oi r m n ty ^ -f .-t cc . o ' ■^ « lO t- oj I CO I Oi I M ^ I CS 1 lO I lO (N Oi I U3 I CO M © 'I- CI W « Ol CO I Ol — I M* M" Cft IN to i(N lO^ .-iio— lOOQD 00 I.-I .-' — t- ^5 I !-•; Oi <0 O) -^ CT> I O CO • CO iC CO CO I C^ N ■^ N CO I O I O Oi C^ u o. c ~ -^ •= ^ £ _ -3 in ra ,2 -p o. 156 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS Reservoir and the aqueduct south from this point to Kettleman City. This sequence of construction will permit deliveries of vpater to the San Joaquin Valley, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties, the Antelope Valley and to the southern California coastal plain and Ventura Countj^ Equivalent annual costs of capital recovery and in- terest at 3| per cent, operation and maintenance, re- placement, general expense, and energy for pumping over the economic life of the entire aqueduct system will be about $78,000,000. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY AND ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION Financial analyses made for the main aqueduct system as a whole and for units thereof enabled deter- mination of the equivalent annual cost of water at the main aqueduct for each considered service area. Sep- arate computations were made to determine the cost of water delivered within each service area. Included in these costs was a value of one dollar per acre-foot representing the estimated cost of water in the Delta. It is to be emphasized that these costs are not to be construed as suggested prices for water, but rather cost values developed for purposes of this report. The estimated costs so derived are set forth in the following tabulation for service areas south of Ave- nal Gap : Equivalent annual cost per acre-foot of water Delivered at Delivered within Service area main aqueduct service area Kern County Upper Antelope Plain $19 $32 Avenal Gap to Pumping Plant In-III 10 15 Pumping Plant In-III to Pumping Plant In-IV ___ 16 29 Pumping Plant In-IV to Pumping Plant In-VI 24 31 San Luis Obispo 51 73 Santa Barbara 49 81 Ventura County 50 71 Antelope-Mojave 38 53 Whitewator-Coachella 52 79 Southern California Coastal Plain and Coastal San Diego County 44 60 With respect to the area between Pumping Plants In-III and In-IV, the cost within the service area for agricultural water was estimated to be 26 dollars per acre-foot and for urban water, 33 dollars per acre- foot. This difference in cost results from differences in length of conveyance facilities and the necessity of treating the urban water. Since water deliveries from the aqueduct system were adjusted to the rates of growth of economic de- mand for water that were estimated would occur at the foregoing costs, and since it was further esti- mated that full recovery of invested capital with in- terest would be achieved from the service areas over the postulated period of 50 years for each stage of aqueduct construction, the aqueduct system from this standpoint is considered financially feasible. Economic analyses showed that over the assumed economic life of project facilities of 105 years, the estimated ratio of primary benefits to all costs, in- cluding those of local conveyance and distribution systems, would be 2.34 to 1. In the analyses, both bene- fits and costs were discounted to common time at an annual rate of 3^ per cent. Further, the net benefit- investment ratio was estimated to be about 2.4 to 1. It was therefore concluded that the San Joaquin Val- ley-Southern California Aqueduct System will have a high degree of economic justification. Economic analy- ses for units of the system yielded similar results. SYSTEM ACCOMPLISHMENTS This optimum aqueduct system is planned even- tually to convey over 8 million acre-feet per year southward from the Delta, of which about 5.5 million acre-feet per year will be transported to the southern California area south of Avenal Gap. This aqueduct system will support anticipated economic expansion of unprecedented proportions in its service area, the implications of which will be felt throughout the State and nation. By year 2020, water delivered by this system south of Avenal Gap will, to a substantial degree, support an estimated population of over 28 million, and an irrigated area of about 1,200,000 acres. A summary of water deliveries over time to service areas south of Avenal Gap is presented in Table 40. TABLE 40 SUMMARY OF WATER DELIVERIES FROM AQUEDUCT SYSTEM "B" TO SERVICE AREAS SOUTH OF AVENAL GAP (In thousands of acre-feet) ; Service areas a oi o a O .a 1^1 >, > 3aQ .2 a 03 J o a O J o "Sr^ 0) si fl ^ ^ o 5 «• i ft. 15 a J 03 S -— □ Year M ca CO iS < ^ cg<^^ H 1965 13 13 1970... 146 146 1980 823 4 47 41 75 864 1,854 3,237 4,222 1990 1,409 17 66 55 142 35 1.513 2.160 2000 1,606 26 85 115 175 55 2010 1.700 34 118 168 195 90 2,635 4,940 2020. 1.785 52 159 236 208 100 2,955 5,495 Kern County Service Area Water deliveries to the western and southern parts of Kern County from the aqueduct system, beginning about year 1965 and increasing to about 1.8 million INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 157 acre-feet by year 2020, will make possible an increase of over 450,000 acres of irrigated lands during this period. Aqueduct deliveries will prevent eventual abandonment of irrigation on as much as 50,000 acres of presently irrigated lands, which would result from continued overdraft. The aqueduct will also provide sufficient water to meet the increased water demand of a population in the Bakersfield area of up to one million people by year 2020, along with increased urban development in the western part of the county, particularly around the City of Taft. San Luis Obispo Service Area Planned water deliveries through the Coastal Aque- duct to the San Luis Obispo Service Area will provide the additional water supplies necessary to meet the full urban growth postulated therein. It was esti- mated that the service area's population will increase 10 times or to about 700,000 by year 2020. Most of the area's limited supply of high quality land that enjoys favorable climatic conditions ■will be fully utilized either for urban purposes or for production of relatively high value crops. By 2020, it was esti- mated that irrigated land will have increased from 18,000 acres at present to 38,000 acres. Santa Barbara Service Area The activities at Vandenberg Air Force Base have accelerated population growth in the Santa Barbara Service Area, which is expected to continue in the future. The Coastal Aqueduct will supply the sup- plemental water needed to sustain this anticipated development and provide for continued growth. In- creases in urban area will act to limit agricultural expansion since some of the best agricultural lands in the service area are also those lands with the high- est potential for becoming urbanized. The water delivered by the Coastal Aqueduct will permit the projected full development of all irrigable or habitable lands south of the Santa Ynez Moun- tains by the year 2020. In the balance of the service area, it was estimated that only the better lands which are capable of growing high value crops would utilize northern California water. By 2020, it was estimated that the population of Santa Barbara County will have increased to 915,000, and that in excess of 90,000 acres will be under irrigation. Ventura County Service Area Ventura County Service Area is expected to ex- hibit a continuing urbanization at the expense of agricultural lands. The recent increase of 200 per cent in manufacturing employment, from years 1949 to 1957, portends the pattern of future developments in this county. The delivery of imported water to Ventura County, commencing in 1971 from the "West Branch of the Inland Aqueduct, will alleviate the serious ground water overdrafts occurring in the Oxnard Plain and within the Calleguas Municipal Water District, as well as provide for further expansion of population in these areas. It was estimated that use of northern California water by agriculture will be limited to high value crops, and then probably only if this water is commingled with water from existing sources. It was estimated that by year 2020 the population of the county will have reached 1,700,000 and at that time about 50,000 acres will be under irrigation, largely in small suburban holdings. Antelope-Mojave Service Area The availability of large expanses of vacant land in this area located near the Los Angeles metropolitan area was a prime factor in the projection of a popula- tion therein of about two and one-half million people by year 2020. The East Branch of the Inland Aque- duct will provide sufficient water to support this pro- jected population. The derived cost of water delivered in the service area appears generally to be too high to be utilized for the type of agriculture climatically adapted to the Antelope-Mojave Service Area. It is expected that irrigated agriculture in this area will decline as a result of urban encroachment combined with high water costs resulting from continued lower- ing of ground water levels, particularly in Antelope Valley. Whitewater-Coachella Service Area The availability of water from the East Branch of the Inland Aqueduct will enable continuation of the recent rapid population growth of the desert commu- nities to the year 2020. By that time, the population of this area is expected to reach nearly 600,000. It is anticipated that the economy of this area will remain a predominantly residential and resort type, with con- tinuation of irrigated agriculture projected for the lands served with water from the Coachella Branch of the All-Ameriean Canal. As in the Antelope-Mojave Service Area, it is believed that irrigated agriculture could not develop with water costs of the magnitude estimated. Southern California Coastal Plain and Coastal San Diego County Service Area This service area comprises one of the most highly developed regions of the State. Recent growth therein has been spectacular as indicated by a 350 per cent increase in manufacturing employment over an eight- year period in Orange County, and substantial gains in the economy of other parts of the area. Colorado River water is available throughout much of this area, but it was estimated that demands on this source of water will exceed supplies by about 1970. Economic stalemate or retrogression thereafter will be 158 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS prevented through importation of northern California water as planned in the aqueduct system. Further, this sj'stem will prevent the probable loss of the utility of ground water basins of the Upper Santa Ana Val- lej^ with attendant heavy financial burdens, and will provide nearly equivalent mineral qualities of im- ported water supplies throughout the entire service area by deliveries of northern California water through the East and West Branches of the Inland Aqueduct. Use of northern California water of up to about three million acre-feet annually will permit the popu- lation of this service area to grow to about 21 million by year 2020, at which time the area would be essen- tially^ fully developed. This projected future popula- tion is about one and one-half times that of the entire State at the present time. It is anticipated that urban expansion will result in encroachment on agricultural lands, and that a gradual reduction of irrigated agri- cultural land will be experienced. CHAPTER IX CONCLUSIONS The principal conclusions of this investigation of alternative aqueduct systems to transport and deliver surplus "water from northern California to the water- deficient areas of southern California, which include that portion of Kern County in the San Joaquin Val- ley, San Luis Obispo County, Santa Barbara County, Ventura County, Orange County, the Antelope Val- lej'-Mojave River area, the Whitewater-Coachella area, and the coastal portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego Counties, are presented : 1. The phenomenal growth of population and indus- try experienced in recent years in southern California is expected to continue and provision must be made for an adequate supply of water therefor. 2. The only feasible source of additional supple- mental water for these water deficient areas is the surplus water that can be developed in and exported from northern California, over and above the needs of the watersheds of origin. 3. Additional supplemental -water will be required to sustain the economic development of the southern California area after 1970. By that date, only eleven years away, the water needs of expanding population, industry and agriculture will have fully utilized the entire claimed right of The Metropolitan Water Dis- trict of Southern California in and to waters of the Colorado River, amounting to 1,212,000 acre-feet per year. Northern California water is needed now in the San Joaquin Valley and in other portions of the southern California area. 4. The annual supply of 1,800,000 acre-feet of water originally considered for delivery to the area south of the Tehachapi Mountains and the 840,000 acre-feet of water originally considered for Kern County, in the report entitled "Program for Financing and Con- structing the Feather River Project", dated Febru- ary, 1955, will be fully utilized within 20 years after ifirst deliveries of northern California water are made to these areas. 5. Based upon the latest projections of population and economic growth in the considered portions of the southern California area, it is estimated that the eco- >nomie demands for supplemental water to be im- Iported from northern California will amount to about five and one-half million acre-feet annually by year 2020. 6. Since south of Avenal Gap neither a "coastal" nor an "inland" aqueduct route, separately, can physically or economically serve all areas of need wherein an economic demand for northern California water will exist, an aqueduct system comprising ele- ments of both of these routes must be constructed. 7. The aqueduct system must be so planned and constructed as to deliver the requisite quantities of supplemental water in the several areas which will have a demand therefor, in time to meet those de- mands. This will require a more extensive aqueduct system of greater capacities than heretofore envi- sioned. 8. In planning for the importation of supplemental water, particular attention must be given to the neces- sity of providing a supply of high quality water to the Upper Santa Ana Valley and coastal San Diego County in order to avoid large economic losses in these areas. 9. The aqueduct system which can serve forecast demands for surplus northern California water most economically will include an aqueduct from the Delta along the west side of the San Joaquin Valley to Avenal Gap, a coastal aqueduct from Avenal Gap to Santa Maria Valley, an inland aqueduct from Avenal Gap south through Kern County and across the Tehachapi Mountains, with a west branch to San Fer- nando Valley and an east branch along the Antelope Valley through the San Bernardino Mountains to Perris reservoir site in Riverside County. 10. This system, designated Aqueduct System " B " in this report, has been determined to be the best system for delivering water from northern California to the Coastal Counties, the San Joaquin Valley and southern California. The system is feasible of con- struction and operation from an engineering stand- point ; is economically justified, having a ratio of pri- mary benefits produced to costs incured of 2.34 ; and is financially feasible from the standpoint of recovery of the incurred costs. 11. This optimum aqueduct system is adaptable to staged construction over a 55-year period consistent with the build-up of economic demand for water there- from. 12. The aqueduct system will eventually deliver about about five and one-half million acre-feet of water annually to the San Joaquin Valley south of Avenal Gap, the coastal counties, and the area south (159) 160 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS of the Tehachapi Mountains under the following completion scheduled for 1982 to serve the Mojave schedule : River and Whitewater-Coachella areas and provide Delivery in additional water supplies, needed by that time from ""Tq nnn ^^''^ quantity and quality standpoints, to the southern 1970 IIIIIIIIZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 146,000 California coastal plain and coastal San Diego 1980 1,854,000 County. 2000 422^000 ^^' ^^^ second sequence of construction could be 2010 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 4!94o!ooo completed by 1977 if economic demands for water 2020 5,495,000 from the system developed earlier than estimated 13. The aqueduct system must be constructed in herein. time to provide initial deliveries of water to lands in 16. The optimum aqueduct system is physically San Joaquin Valley between San Luis Reservoir and adaptable to several feasible methods of pumping and Avenal Gap and in Kern County by 1965, through power recovery, from which a single definite selection the Coastal Aqueduct to San Luis Obispo and Santa will be made at a later time after further engineering Barbara Counties by 1971, through the "West Branch and economic study. Pending further study, none of of the Inland Aqueduct to the southern California the operational schemes evaluated or referred to in coastal plain and Ventura County by 1971, and this bulletin should be considered as adopted features through the first sequence of construction of the East of the San Joaquin Valley-Southern California Aque- Branch of the Inland Aqueduct to the Antelope Val- duct System, ley by 1971. 17. Satisfaction of forecast economic demands for 14. The second sequence of construction will in- surplus northern California water which will be de- clude the extension of the East Branch of the Inland livered by this aqueduct system requires an immedi- Aqueduct from Little Rock Creek in the Antelope ate start on acquisition of lands and on design and Valley to Perris Reservoir in Riverside County, with construction of facilities throughout the system. f 99465 6-59 IM printed in California state printing office I' INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMSTO SERVE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GENERAL LOCATIONS OF INVESTIGATED AQUEDUCT ALIGNMENTS 1959 n. Pl.ftTE 5 PUMPING PLANT C-7 SISOUOC RIVER OPERATING HEAD 356 FEET PUMPING PLANT C-6 CUVAMA RIVER „.cct OPERATING HEAD 106 FEET FOREBAY W 3 ELEV 433' CAPACITY 380 A.F, .FOREBAY __PUMPING ■^^PLANTC-7 TYPICAL CANAL SECTION ■ TYPr- TAMii, niMENSIONS AND HYDRAULIC PROPE RTIES b A V <■ " * 28 IS 6i .0«2>6 4 5ft 4T24 10 99 014 .0000 iss Z.O 1... .004., 4 47 «49« -" 1 ■>■' %„. S„0«N APE .OP «-""f3,=;:ro'T''o"o;vTpT" VSO,-"'" BQOEDUCT SYSTEM "B" *OULD TERMINATE IN MARIA VALLEY. □ EP.PTMENt'oF WATER RESOURCES SOUTHtBN CALIfOKNllV DISTRICT -^^^ ,E„HER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION :::::. san -»-----— "^"ro:';"" ALTERNATIVE COASTAL AQUEDUCT PLAN AND PROFILE MILE 0.0 TO 136.9 SHEET I OF 2 ELEVATION 2040 ELEVATION 2258 PUMPING PLANT C-5 SAWTOOTH RIDGE OPERATING HEAD 326 PUMPING PLANT C-4 EMIGRANT HILL OPERATING HEAD 347 FEET I PUMPING PLANT C-3 AVENAL GAP OPERATING HEAD 202 FEET PUMPING PLANT C-7 SISOUOC RIVER OPERATING HEAD 356 FEET PUMPING PLANT C-6 CUYAMA RIVER OPERATING HEAD 108 FEET FOREBAY WS ELEV 433' CAPACITY 3B0A F \ \ .• \ 0*^ALTERNATIVE INLAND flOUE STATIONING IN MILES DUCT ROUTE T* PICAL SIPHON DIMENSIONS AND HVOfiA Lie PfiOPERI ,ES| ..1. .... „. ■ >. ON. >., o«.. TYPICAL CANAL SECTION TYPICAL CANAL DIMENSIONS AND HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES 1 n o ' 1 " . MO ■<«s .o.{ .* • TZ. ID» (»* oooors* 1.0 "" •""" *" ..« .0.. 000»t., NOTE: OATa SHOWN ARE FOR AQUEDUCT SYSTEM "A" WITH 'STEAM OHIWE AND FEED BACK" OPERATION DESIGNED TO DIVERT J.790.000 ACRE FEET ANNUALLY THROUGH PUMPING PLANT C-3 FACILITIES OF AQUEDUCT SYSTEM "C" WOULD BE SIMILAR BUT DESIGNED TO DIVERT i,79S.000 ACRE FEET ANNUALLY AQUEDUCT SYSTEM "B' WOULD TERMINATE (N THE SANTA MARIA VALLEY. OePARYMENT OF WATER RESOURCES PKOjecT FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION FE.TUBE SAN JOAOUIN VALLEV-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT ALTERNATIVE COASTAL AQUEDUCT PLAN AND PROFILE MILE 0.0 TO 136.9 *^^ srl ' .y: SHEET I OF 2 PLATE 5 W-S. ELEVATION 1321 FEET PUMPING PLANT C-9 BELL CANYON OPERATING HEAD (VARIABLE) 0-300 FEET BELL CANTON 0AM AND RESERVOIR CAPACITY 1 17.000 ACRE-FEET CREST ELEVATION 1330 FEET "rEAMBEO ELEVATION 920 feet CONEJO DAM AND RESERVOIR CAPACITY 205.000 ACRE-FEET CREST ELEVATION 625 FEET STrIaMBED ELEVATION 235 FEET PUMPING PLANT C-8 ^"pErItING head 497 FEET ^o?Er'It1NgTe:DOT0 23SFEET „T. 5H0V.N ARE FOR '^^^°""J,SlZsL"o"oliuZ ELECTRIC ANO f"OBACK OPERATION DESGNE^^^^^^ ^^ 3,170.000 ACRE FEET fN""''-'-' ™,'^?,e5 of AQUEDUCT OEPARTMENT OF WATER "^f"'' ,R RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION -: SArr:N valley-southern CAL— — ^ ALTERNftTlVE COASTAL AQUEDUCT PLAN AND PROFILE MILE 136.9 TO 260.0 SHEET 2 OF ifi/\ J /l^to,ito WS, ELEVATION 1321 FEET -HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE OPERATING HEAD 356 FEET PUMPING PLANT C-9 BELL CANYON OPERATING HEAD (VARIABLE! 0-300 FEET BELL CANYON DAM AND RESERVOIR CAPACITY 117,000 ACRE-FEET CREST ELEVATION 1330 FEET STREAM8E0 ELEVATION 920 FEET CONEJO DAM AND RESERVOIR CAPACITY 205,000 ACRE-FEET CREST ELEVATION 625 FEET STREAMBED ELEVATION 235 FEET PUMPING PLANT C-B CONEJO OPERATING HEAD 497 FEET BOOSTER PUMP OPERATING HEAD TO 238 FEET 200 STATIONING TYPICAL TUNNEL OIMENS 0^S AND HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES] D V r „ , '" 0.. 00.*, SHEET 2 OF 2 PLATE 6 INVERT OF CANAL ^NT In -m 1 LAKE HEAD 191 FEET PUMPING PLANT In.-Y WHEELER RIDGE OPERATING HEAD 550 FEET PUMPING PLANT In, -12 WHEELER RIDGE OPERATING HEAD 211 FEET 1GL.ELEV,3348 INDEX TO SHEETS ;.^ SBtE" .eai-BOA TERMIN ELEVATIONS. OPERATING HEADS. FOREBAY CAPACITIES. AND TYPICAL CANAL SECTION VARIES WITH AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS DATA SHOWN ARE FOR AQUEDUCT SYSTEM "B". DESIGNED TO DELIVER 3,500.000 ACRE- FEET ANNUALLY THROUGH THE TEHACHAPI MOUNTAINS WITH "steam drive AND FEEDBACK " OPERATION . SCALE OF MILES PROJECT FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION FEATURE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY -SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT ALTERNATIVE INLAND AQUEDUCT PLAN AND PROFILE MILE 0.0 TO 120 e JACKSON ^ f ' ^'J i ^U 7? *-J^M f^^^J^^— ■>J*'^-0 '■ SHEET I OF 3 ^^""lir ■ELEV 170Q EXISTING GROUND LINE- H G L ELEV IZaS AREA OF POTENTIAL SHALLOW SUBSIDENCE. ASSUMED GROUND LINE AFTER I PRECONSOLIDATION , i GL ELEV 500 WS.ELEV 49 CAPACITY 420 EXISTING GROUND LINE INVERT OF CANAL- Irv-m TEHACHAPl MOUNTAINS' OPERATING HEAD 22I4FEET PUMPING PLANT In,-3 WHEELER RIDGE OPERATING HEAD 550 FEET PUMPING PLANT lo.-nr WHEELER RIOGE OPERATING HEAD 211 FEET VERT OF CANAL - -PUMPING PLANT In -!□ BUENA VISTA LAKE OPERATING HEAD 191 FEET STATIONING IN MILES MGlELEV,334( TrpiCflL CANAL SECTION TYPICAL CANAL DIMENSIONS AND HYORAULtC PROPERTIES | «■ „ , *IO0 »JJ1 t>4> •fl ^.H.(,t. ,.., „,0 ,„ ..» ,.. 00».. SCALE Of UILES NOEX TO SHEETS ELEVATIONS. OPEftftTING HEADS. FOREBAT CaPAClTIES, AND TYPICAL CANAL SECTION VARIES WITH AQOEOUCT SYSTEMS OATA SHOWN AR£ FOR AQuEOUCT SYSTEM "B". DESIGNED TO DELIVER 3.500,000 ACRE- FEET ANNUALLY THROUGH THE TEHACHAPl MOUNTAINS WITH "STEAM DRIVE AND FEEDBACK" OPERATION lEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY -SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT ALTERNATIVE INLAND AQUEDUCT PLAN AND PROriLE MILE 0.0 TO 120 SHEET I OF 3 li ^ PLATE GROUND LINE LEV izrs )A TERMINUS INDEX TO SHEETS NON- PRESSURE SECTION PRESSURE SECTION U.^. fOOT BLOC" ieEl liner pl*tc I I,-' CEWIS' TYPICAL HORSESHOE TUNNEL SECTION TYPICAL CIRCULAR TUNNEL SECTION DATA SHOWN ARE FOR AQUEDUCT SYSTEM 8" DESIGNED TO DELIVER 1.185.000 ACRE FEET ANNUALLY THROUGH THE CASTAIC POWER DEVELOPMENT WITH "STEAM DRIVE AND FEEDBACK" OPERATION THE REACH OF AQUEDUCT SHOWN ON THIS SHEET IS NOT INCLUDED IN AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS "A" AND "C" TYPICAL TUNNEL DIMENSIONS AND HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES ] A V n , ; SECTION 21 SO *i5S >6, 12 6 .0.4 S4S 00.47 HORSESKOE 22 00 48SS 3B0 12.8 014 9.S0 00147 Cl«tCOL*R 14 60 1635 187 9. OIIS 3 6S 00.02 PRESSURE IS TO '"• 204 BO 014 9.90 00O30 HORSESHOE PSOJECT FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION FEATURE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY-SOJTHERN CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT ALTERNATIVE INLAND AQUEDUCT PLAN AND PROFILE MILE 120 TO 170 5 GOi E JACKSON ^ /ttiE^ec-tf- *1A^, .^^li^iA^j^-^-f-" 7?^^ APPROVED; tttn: SHEET 20F 3 ftFTERBAY- WS ELEV 3348 CAPACITY 2 STING GROUND LINE -H.G.L.ELEV 1215 BALBOA TERMINUS STATIONING IN MILES NOEX TO SHEETS DATA SHOWN A»E FOR AQUEDUCT SYSTEM *G' DESIGNED TO DELIVER l.tBS.ODO "CBE FEET ANNUALLY THROUGH THE CASTAIC POWER DEVELOPMENT WITH 'STE*M DRIVE AND FEEDBACK" OPERATION THE REACH OF AQUEDUCT SHOWN ON THIS SHEET IS NOT INCLUDED IN AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS "A" AND "C" TYPICAL TUNNEL DIMENSIONS AND HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES ■ SECTION ,1.. ..„ ... .... ... ...., .;<>, • ■» ,„ IZ. .1. ..0 ..i.r CI.COL.. 1. .. ,.„ ,.. » .Ml. . .. 0.101 • ...10.1 „,. .... ■" „ OM ... 0.0.0 "CCIHOI □EPARTMErrr of water resources FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT ALTERNATIVE INLAND AQUEDUCT PLAN AND PROFILE MILE 120 TO 170 SHEET 20F 3 I I PLATE 6 SHEET 3 OF 3 SHEET 3 OF 3 PLATE 7 ONE OR MS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS TO SERVE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS 1959 SCALE OF MILES 'hss INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS TO SERVE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF WATER DELIVERIES FROM AQUEDUCT SYSTEM "A" 1959 • t PLATE 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA RTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE lYSTEMS TO SERVE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DIAGRAM OF WATER DELIVERIES \/l AQUEDUCT SYSTEM "B" 1959 SCOLE Of MILES OCEAN INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS TO SERVE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF WATER DELIVERIES FROM AQUEDUCT SYSTEM "B" 1959 fl ii .^M i INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS TO SERVE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF WATER DELIVERIES FROM AQUEDUCT SYSTEM "C" 1959 PLATE II \ \ DEVIL CANYON '—' POWER PLANT NO I OPERATING HEAO'1074' DISCHARGE = 2000c.f.s 43 DEVIL CANYON POWER PLANT NO 2 OPERATING HEAD = 585' DISCHARGE = 2000c.fs TO PERRIS RESERVOIR ENERGY BALANCE NS OF KILOWATT-HOURS PER YEAR ELECTRICAL ENERGY FROM GENERATING PLANTS COTTONWOOD 401 CASTAIC NO.I 7 40 CASTAIC NO 2 9 10 DEVIL CANYON NO I 10 92 DEVIL CANYON NO, 2 5 95 SAN LUIS OBISPO 41 TOTAL HYDRO 3779 PLUS STEAM 324 TOTAL 4 103 ED ARE FOR FACILITIES SOUTH OF AVE NAL GAP ONLY STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS INVESTIGATION OF ALT E R NATIVE JEDUCT SYSTEMS TO SERVE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LANCE FOR STEAM-DRIVE AND FEEDBACK SCHEME AQUEDUCT SYSTEM B DNDITIONS ESTIMATED FOR YEAR 2000 1959 a- 32-* MILLION KWH 3600- 3200- 2800- ' 2400- 2000- . 1600- ■ 1200- ' 800- 400- r 7^ ^ HVDBAULIC G'ftOE LiHE PUMPING Plant in-: 6UE^A VtSTA LAKE OPEPATINC H£flD = (S DISCHARGE=50e5c( PUMPING PLANT In-EZ WHEELER filDGE OPERAT(N& MEflD = ZII DISCMAHGEOBOOcts -QJ ^ ■^ LD COTTONWOOD POWER PLANT OPERATING HEA0>3£9' DISCHARGE'2135 cti. \ ^ CASTAir POWER PLANT NO OPERATING HEAO^BZI' DISCHARGE^ I635cf s 43 PUMPING PLANT In-2 WHEELER RiOGE OPERATING H£A0 = 55O' DISCHARGE OeOOefj PUMPING PLANT In-m TEHACHAPI MOUNTAINS OPERATING MEAD^saifl' 0lSCHARGE'i625t ti STEAM-DRIVE PLANT RATING =7eBMW ENERGY tNPUT-6600 M CASTAIC POWER PLANT NO 2 OPERATING HEA0 = I0I0' 0ISCHARGE = l635cls MAX WS TO BALBOA TERMINUS LLION KWM/YR EOUIV N L A N D AQUEDUCT A A 222c,ll TO SANTA MARIA VALLEY COASTAL AQUEDUCT ~r ■*o \ J 'V^ LEGEND METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OR SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY- EXISTI !«; CONVEYANCE FACILITY, NOMINAL CONVEYANCE CAPACITY, AND DIRECTION OF FLOW UNDER NORMAL OPERATION. CITY OF LOS ANGELES-MAJOR EXISTING CONVEYANCE FACILITY. WATER SERVICE AGENCIES OUTSIDE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA-MAJOR EXISTING CONVEYANCE FACILITY. MAIN AQUEDUCT, SYSTEM "B". LOCAL MAIN CONVEYANCE FACILITY TO SERVE PROJECT WATER. jiuLO VALLCr REse/ivom po- STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS TO SERVE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MAJOR EXISTING WATER CONVEYANCE FACILITIES AND FOR DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECT WATER FOR AQUEDUCT SYSTEM"B' SOUTH COASTAL SECTION 1959 SCALE OF MILES !'■""■ i 1 iC V ? i h l^wHk .„.....,.. 1 1 '"'1 /T" "■"■""»" 1 I ""^^i M:- (-•y ... 'i^S-ycr^ [^■^ ^... 1 ^■^^^^^^^h^^^p^ . PROFILE OF VENTURA COUNTY FE EDER — SATICOY- VENTURA LATERAL AMD VENTURA EXTENSION ^ l^ "— \ WA« »i-* .»c^ ^ oVs COACHELLA \ \ r^ .\ \: \^ v LEGEND METnOPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OR SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY- EX I STINS CONVEYANCE FACILITY, NOMINAL CONVEYANCE CAPACITY, AND DIRECTION OF FLOW UNDER NORMAL OPERATION. CITY OF LOS ANOELES-MAJOR EXISTING CONVEYANCE FACILITY. WATER SERVICE AGENCIES OUTSIDE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA-MAJOR EXISTING CONVEYANCE FACILITY. FLOW IN MAIN CONVEYANCE SYSTEM TO SERVE PROJECT WATERXSIZED FOR CONTINUOUS FLOW) FLOW IN MAIN CONVEYANCE SYSTEM TO SERVE PROJECT WATER. (MAXIMUM MONTH) FLOW IN EXISTING CONVEYANCE FACILITY OPERATED IN CONJUNCTION WITH REQUIRED NEW FACILITY (MAXIMUM MONTH). 1ST. STAGE CONVEYANCE AND APPROXIMATE AREA SERVED BY I ST. STAGE IN CONJUNCTION WITH EXISTING SYSTEM IN YEAR 2020. 2ND. STAGE CONVEYANCE AND APPROXIMATE AREA SERVED BY2N0.iT*0E ONLY IN YEAR 2020. APPROXIMATE AREA SERVED BY EXISTING CONVEYANCE FACILITIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH 2 NO. STAGE CONVEYANCE IN YEAR 2020. APPROXIMATE AREA SERVED BY 1ST. STAGE IN CONJUNCTION WITH EXISTINO SYSTEM IN YEAH 1982 AND EXISTINO SYSTEM IN CONJUNCTION WITH 2ND. STAGE CONVEYANCE IN YEAR 2020. NOTE: DISCHARGES SHOWN ARE FOR YEAR 2020 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS TO SERVE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRIBUTION OF IMPORTED WATER IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL PLAIN AND SAN DIEGO COUNTY 1971 TO 2020 AQUEDUCT SYSTEM C" 1959 SCALE OF MILES 2 4 P A C I F I INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS TO SERVE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRIBUTION OF IMPORTED WATER IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL PLAIN AND SAN DIEGO COUNTY 1971 TO 2020 AQUEDUCT SYSTEM "C" 1959 ^3 1 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW RENEWED BOOKS ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RECti-L tJUN 2 1954 M JAN h 19^5 MAR 21 > 1 RtC'D l,\AR ^' JUN7 REC'D, 9l^ u ECEiVE b JUiM 1 '-':>T LIBRARY, UNIVERSM 6f CALIFORNIA, DAVIS Book Slip-20m-8,'61(C1623B4)458 i Mi*W 2)j0506 Califorria. Dept. of water resources, Riillftti n . PHYSICA' sciences; LIBRARY Call Number: TC821; C2 A2 nr..7R AX Wi CJIJ oi ^= 00| oof UBKAKT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS 240506