TC 8Z4 UBRARY fiMjVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS j - ^hn z STATE OF CALIFOTINIA DEPARTMENT OF WATKll UHSOL'RCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING Bulletin No. 60 MVW COPY 2 I INTERIM REPORT TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE sr ON THE / SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIG4TJ0N GOODWIN J. KMGHT Governor March 1957 Typical Delta Channel Robert Yelhnd Photogiaph" ^ STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OK HRSOURCES PLANNING Bulletin No. 60 INTERIM REPORT TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE ON THE SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION Prepared Pursuant to THEIABSHIRE-KELLY SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER ACT OF 1955 Chapter 1434, Statutes of 1955 GOODWIN J. KNIGHT fesr^>l HARVEY 0. RANKS Governor tefc'? ti^^'jfl) Director of Water Resources March 1957 LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS TABLE OF CONTENTS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL - 9 LETTER FROM BOARD OF CONSULTANTS 10 ORGANIZATION, WATER PROJECT AUTHORITY 11 ORGANIZATION, STATE WATER BOARD - _' ll3 ORGANIZATION, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 13 SPECIAL CONSULTANTS 14 SPECIAL COOPERATIVE STUDIES 14 BOARD OF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 15 ACKNOWLEDGMENT 16 Page CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 17 Authorization 17 Abshi re-Kelly Salinity Control Barrier Act of 1955 - 18 Agreement With Water Project Authority 18 Budget Act of 1956 18 Area of Investigation 19 San Francisco Bay Counties 19 Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 19 Scope and Conduct of Investigation 21 CHAPTER II. SALINITY CONTROL BARRIERS Basic Considerations Junction Point Barrier Plan Biemoud Plan Description of Principal Structures Cross-Delta Canal and Appurtenant Facilities Flood Control Features of Biemond Plan North Bay Aqueduct Oifsite Corrective Features Cost Water Conservation Aspects of Biemoud Plan Economic Justification of Biemond Plan Benefits of Water Conserved Benefits of Flood Control Benefits of Cross-Delta Canal Detriments to Navigation 23 23 25 25 28 30 30 31 33 33 34 35 35 35 36 36 Page Detriments to Fish and Wildlife 36 Net Benefits 36 Benefit-Cost Ratio 37 Comparison of Junction Point Barrier Plan With Biemond Plan 37 Chipps Island Barrier Plan 37 Modified Chipps Island Barrier Plan 37 Barrier Embankment 37 Floodway Structures 38 Navigation Locks 38 Salt-Scavenging System 39 Fishing 39 Flood Control Features of the Chipps Island Barrier Plan 39 North Bay Aqueduct 39 Offsite Corrective Features 39 Cost _^ 40 Water Conservation Aspects of Chipps Island Barrier Plan 40 Economic Justification of Chipps Island Barrier Plan 41 Benefits of Water Conserved 41 Benefits of Flood Control 41 Transportation 42 Detriments to Navigation 42 Detriments to Fish and Wildlife 42 Detriments to Offsite Features 42 Net Benefits 42 Benefit-Cost Ratio 43 Comparison of Chipps Island Barrier Plans 43 (5) TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued CHAPTER III. SAN FRANCISCO BAY WATER PLAN — 45 Population 47 Land Use 47 San Francisco Bay Area 48 Urban Land Use 48 Agricultural Land Use 48 North Coastal Area 50 Urban Land Use 50 Agricultural Land Use 50 Central Valley Area 51 Urban Land Use 51 Agricultural Land Use 51 Central Coastal Area 51 Urban Land Use 51 Agricultural Land Use 52 "Water Requirements 52 San Francisco Bay Area 52 Urban Water Requirements 52 Irrigation Water Requirements 52 North Coastal Area 53 Central Valley Area 53 Urban Water Requirements 53 Irrigation Water Requirements 53 Central Coastal Area 53 Water Supplies 54 San Francisco Bay Area 54 Local Water Supplies 54 Imported Water Supplies 54 North Coastal Area 57 Local Water Supplies 57 Imported Water Supplies 57 Central Valley Area 57 Local Water Supplies 57 Imported Water Supplies 57 Central Coastal Area 57 Local Water Supplies 58 Supplemental Water Requirements 58 San Francisco Bay Area 58 North Central Area Central Valley Area Central Coastal Area- Page _ 58 _ 59 _ 59 Water Plan 59 North Bay Counties Water Plan 59 The California Water Plan 59 Plans for Local Water Resources Development 60 The North Bay Aqueduct 61 Russian River Development 63 Solano Project 64 South Bay Counties Water Plan 65 South Bay Aqueduct 65 CHAPTER IV. CONTINUING STUDIES 67 Subsurface Exploration 67 Field Operations 67 Laboratory Analyses 68 Water Quality 68 Salinity Control Flows 68 Ground Water in Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 68 Water Quality in the San Joaquin Valley 69 Hydrology 70 Fish and Wildlife 70 Staging of the Biemond Plan 71 Water Rights 71 Financial Responsibility 72 Delta Irrigation and Drainage 72 CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 73 Summary 73 Conclusions 75 Recommendations 76 ( C) TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued TABLES 'nil.lcX... I'anc T:il)li'No. I'liKC 1. Pertinent Data on Control Structures of the 1"). I'resent and New li-rifiated Lantl — l!l()() to - Biemond Plan 28 liOlO, San Franeiseo Bay Area 50 2. Summary of Estimated Costs of the Bie- 10. Estimated Irrifjated Acreage in Sonoma moud Plan 34 County, North Coastal Area 51 3. Estimated Potential A<>:rieultural Water 17. Estimated Urban Water Requiivments. San Sales in San Joacpiin Valley 35 Praneiseo Bay Area 52 4. Monthly Distribution of Annual Water I)e- jg Estimated Irrigation Water Requirements, liveries from Salinity Control Barrier to San Francisco Bay Area 53 Project Service Areas 35 m t-. i- . i tt , ^ r ■ ^- tit ^ t> Ji). Estnnated Irban and Irrigation Water Ke- 5. Annual Equivalent Net Benefits of the Bie- (|uirements in Sonoma Conntv, North mond Plan 36 Coastal Area 1 53 6. Coinparison of Junction Point Barrier Plan 2^ Local Water Supplies, San Francisco Bav with Biemond Plan 37 . ii ■ - 7. Number and Size of Locks in the Chipps .^-i t^ x- ^ i c ^ x i itt ^ t> , , 1 „ • Til OD 21. Estimated Supplemental Water Keriuire- • Island Barrier Plan 38 ^^ o, t-i • t> a m ments, San Francisco Bav Area 58 8. Snmmarv of Estimated Costs of the Modi- „^ . , , -,,. -r, ■ fied Chips Island Barrier Plan 40 22. Estimated Supplemental ^^ ater Require- _ . _,. n T , • -TT , rr,, , ments, Sonoma Conntv, North Coastal Area 5!l y. Average Time tor Locking \ essels Through Conventional and Salt-Clearing Locks 42 ^3. Areas and Capacities of Spring Valley 10. Annual Equivalent Net Benefits of the Modified Chipps Lsland Barrier Plan 42 24. E.stimated Capital and Annual Costs of '.' -,\ r^ • i! /-( x i! /-> ■ • 1 1 TIT T Spring Valley Project 61 11. Comparison of Costs of Original and ftlodi- ■ it- . j fied Chipps Island Barrier Plans 43 25. Cost Allocation, North Bay Aqueduct 63 12. Population— 1950 to 2010, San Francisco 26. Repayment Analysis of North Bay Aque- Bay Counties 47 duet 64 13. Turban Land Use— 1960 to 2010, San Fran- 27. Summary of Subsurface Exploration Pro- cisco Bay Area 48 gram 67 14. Undeveloped Irrigable Land in 1949, San 28. Comparison of Biemond Plan With Modified Francisco Bay Area 49 Chipps Lsland Barrier Plan 74 FIGURES , Fifiure Xo. Page Figure No. Page 1. Classification of Irrigation Water 23 1,000,000 Parts Water Under Project Con- 2. Location of Mean Tidal Cycle Surface Zone ditions 24 Salinity Line of 1.000 Parts Chlorides to 3. Typical Section of Master Levee 31 APPENDIX Located at End of Report Estimated Capital and Annual Costs, North Baj' A(iuednct 77 PLATES Plates Are Located at End of Report Plate Xo. Plate Xo. 1. Area of Investigation 6. Layout of Principal Structures. Chipps Island 2. Junction Point Barrier and Delta Flood Con- Barrier Plans trol Plan ^- Chipps Island Barrier and Delta Flood Control 3. Biemond Plan 8. Modified Chipps Island Barrier and Delta > 4. Layout of Principal Structures. Biemond Plan Flood Control Plan 5. North Bay Aqueduct 9. San Francisco Bay Counties Water Plan (7) TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued ILLUSTRATIONS Typical Delta Channel Frontispiece Intensive urbanization, Oakland Metropolitan Area 20 Harvesting- i-orn in the Sacraniento-San Joaquin Delta 20 Bouldin Island — Levee failure prevented by sand- bags during flood of December, 1955 26 Bradford Island — Damage to levee along Fisher- man Cut during high water of December, 1955_ 26 Calcasieu Lock on Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, near Lake Charles, Louisiana — Locks proposed at Ryde and Quiiuby Island would be of this type" " 29 Drawbridge on Sacramento River near Freeport _ 29 Irrigable land in the Fairfield-Suisun marshlands which could be irrigated from the North Bay Aqueduct 32 City of Santa Rosa 32' Pilarcitos Dam in San Mateo County, completed in 1866, created the first reservoir designed to serve San Francisco 46 Cherry Valley Dam in Tuohunnc County, com- pleted in 1956, is the most recent addition to the City of San Francisco's developments 46 Monticello Dam during construction 56 Putah South Canal 56 City of Sonoma — The Xorth Bay Aqueduct coidd serve this eomnuuuty 62 Contra Costa Canal — Water from this oanal is dis- tributed by the Contra Costa County Water District 62 (S ) GOODWIN J. KNIGHT HARVEY O. BANKS oovirnor address reply to DIRECTOR P- o- ^°* io7» Sacramento 5 liaO N STREET Ol LBCRT a-4711 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ifpartntf ttt uf Wntn IJ^Bnurr^a SACRAMENTO March 29, 1957 Honorable Goodwin J. Knight, Governor, and Members of the Legislature of the State of California Gentlemen: There is transmitted herewith Bulletin No. 60 of the Department of Water Resources, entitled "Interim Report to the California State Legislature on the Salinity Control Barrier In- vestigation". This is a report of the investigation conducted as authorized by Chapter li^-3^, Statutes of 1955, the Abshire-Kelly Salinity Control Barrier Act of 1955' Bulletin No. 60 contains the conclusions which have been reached regarding the feasibility of alternative plans designed to (l ) provide a means of transporting large quantities of water across the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, (2) repel salinity from the Delta channels, (3) improve the quality of water applied to Delta lands, (k) provide flood protection to Delta islands, and (5) include a means for delivering water from the Delta to the San Francisco Bay Area . It is recommended that further studies of salinity con- trol barriers be limited to the modified Junction Point Barrier Plan designated as the Biemond Plan, and that the North Bay Aqueduct unit of that plan be authorized. It is further recommended that funds be appropriated for acquisition of lands, easements, and rights of way, and preparation of plans and specifications for the North Bay Aqueduct, contingent upon reasonable assurance from the prospective water users of their willingness to assume the obligation for repayment of the reimbursable costs. It is further recommended that a policy relating to reimbursable and nonreimbursable costs be established by the Legislature . Very truly yours, HARVEY 0. BANKS Director ( 0) March 8, 1957 Mr, Harvey 0, Banks, Director State Department of Water Resources P. 0. Box 1079 Sacramento 5> California Dear Sir: 1. In accordance with your request, the undersigned consultants have conferred with your staff on a number of occasions and reviewed the Interim report to the California Legislature, entitled "Salinity Control Barrier Investigation." The detailed estimates and back-up data for this report have also been studied and taken into account in the following comments and recommendations. 2. It is our conclusion that the modified Blemond Plan described in the above-mentioned report is an essential feature of a coordinated California Water Plan. It appears to be entirely feasible, economical, and by far the best solution for conserving water and at the same time protecting the lower Delta lands from salt-water invasion. The master levee system and the Cross-Delta fresh water canal included in the Blemond Plan are urgently needed to prevent serious flooding of the many highly productive Islands in the Delta. Although the full capacity of the Cross-Delta canal may not be needed for some years, it should be constructed soon as an Integral part of the flood control plan. 3. We concur with the conclusion that the North Bay Aqueduct should be authorized and the studies for its design undertaken and completed as soon as possible. In the event that the project is authorized by the Legislature, we would urge that funds be provided to purchase key portions of the right-of-way required for the project before rapid, unplanned urban development Jeopardizes or greatly Increases the cost of the project. k. The estimated cost of the work, as shown in the report, appears to be properly conservative and, with the contingencies which have been Included, to be consistent with the preliminary status of the study. These estimated costs are based on the best available information on current prices. However, attention is called to the rising trend in oonstruetion costs, which may require an upward revision in the estiirates when the project is authorized and designed, particularly for many portions of the plan which probably will not be placed under contract for two years or more. 5. In view of the superiority of the Blemond Plan over other alternatives, studies necessary for its final design should be continued to completion, to the end that its benefits in water conservation and flood protection may be enjoyed as soon as possible. We have made some specific recommendations regarding these studies directly to your staff. 6, We greatly appreciate the cooperation and assistance of your staff, which has supplied us with all the factual data we have requested. Ray K. Llnsley ( 10 ) ORGANIZATION WATER PROJECT AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA* FRANK B. DURKEE, Director of Public Works Chairman EDMUND G. BROWN CHARLES G. JOHNSON Attorney General State Treasurer JOHN M. PEIRCE ROBERT C. KIRKWOOD Director of Finance State Controller HARVEY O. BANKS, State Engineer Executive Officer ISABEL C. NESSLER Acting Secretary ' The Salinity Control Barrier Investigation was initiated in July, 1955, under the jurisdiction of the Water Project Authority. With the abolishment of the Authority on July 5, 1956, the investigation became the responsibility of the Director of Water Resources. ( 11 ORGANIZATION STATE WATER BOARD CLAIR A. HILL, Chairman, Redding A. FREW, Vice Chairman, King City JOHN P. BUNKER, Gustine W. P. RICH, Marysville EVERETT L. GRUBB, Elsinore PHIL D. SV/ING, San Diego KENNETH Q. VOLK, Los Angeles SAM R. LEEDOM, Administrative Assistant ( IL' ) ORGANIZATION DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES HARVEY O. BANKS - Director of Water Resources WILLIAM L. BERRY..... ...Chief, Division of Resources Planning JOHN M. HALEY... Chief, Project Development Branch This investigafion was conducted as a function of tl^e California Aqueduct Section ROBERT O. THOMAS Chief, California Aqueduct Section This report was prepared by, and the studies of the Salinity Control Barrier Investigation were under the direction of HERBERT A. HOWLETT Supervising Hydraulic Engineer Whose principal assistants were HERBERT W. GREYDANUS Senior Hydraulic Engineer LAWRENCE A. MULLNIX Senior Hydraulic Engineer LAURA L. BRITTAIN ._._ Executive Assistant and LANGDON W. OWEN Associate Hydraulic Engineer ROBERT W. ROONEY.... _ _. Associate Hydraulic Engineer GERALD C. COX Assistant Hydraulic Engineer RANDOLPH M. LIPELT, JR.... : Junior Civil Engineer NEIL M. CLINE lunior Civil Engineer SAM ITO . - Delineator MARLO R. MARTIN _ ..„ Engineering Aid II JOHNNY E. BAKER Engineering Aid I ELMER C. WRYE Engineering Aid I JACK KINCHELOE Engineering Aid I Assistance was furnished to the Salinity Control Barrier Unit by the following personnel from other functions of the Department of Water Resources DONALD P. THAYER Principal Engineer, Design and Construction of Dams ARTHUR J. BUNAS Senior Structural Engineer HAROLD E. RUSSELL Senior Civil Engineer J. W. THURSBY Senior Economist COLE R. McCLURE, JR ^ Senior Engineering Geologist ROBERT K. MILLER Assistant Physical Testing Engineer ROBERT E. THRONSON Associate Engineering Geologist EDWARD M. TOKINAGA Associate Economist RUSSELL R. CHANDLER Assistant Hydraulic Engineer PHILLIP E. BENJAMIN Assistant Hydraulic Engineer GEORGE A. NEWMARCH Junior Engineering Geologist ANDREW CASSELL Junior Engineering Geologist ISABEL C. NESSLER Coordinator of Reports F. JAMES MURPHY Acting Chief, Division of Administration ( 13 ) / SPECIAL CONSULTANTS IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE DR. DAVID K. TODD Consultant SOIL MECHANICS AND FOUNDATIONS O. J. PORTER Consulting Engineer SPECIAL COOPERATIVE STUDIES FISH AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME SETH GORDON Director DAVID E. PELGEN Fisheries Biologist IV LEONARD O. FISK Fisheries Biologist II LAWRENCE H. RUBKE Game Manager II VEHICULAR CROSSING, CHIPPS ISLAND DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS G. T. McCOY State Highway Engineer ELECTRONIC ANALOG UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DR. HANS A. EINSTEIN Professor of Mechanical Engineering DR. JAMES A. HARDER.. Assistant Research Engineer ( 14 BOARD OF CONSULTING ENGINEERS The Director of Water Resources engaged a board of consulting engineers to review the work accomplished during the Salinity Control Barrier Investigation and to appraise the conclusions which were reached prior to this report. This reviewing board consisted of the following members: HANS KRAMER,* Chairman Brigadier General, Retired, U. S. Corps of Engineers San Francisco, California RAY K. LINSLEY O. J. PORTER Professor of Civil Engineering Porter, Urquhart, McCreary & O'Brien Stanford University Consulting Engineers Stanford, California Newark, New Jersey * General Kramer passed away on February 16, 1957. His keen interest in the Salinity Control Barrier Inves- tigation resulted in many valuable contributions. (15) ACKNOWLEDGMENT The contributions and assistance by many public and private agencies and individuals rendered to the Department of Water Resources during the inves- tigation are gratefully acknowledged. Special mention is made of the cooperation received from the United States Bureau of Reclamation, the United States Corps of Engineers, and the Recla- mation Districts in tlie Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. ( i(> ) CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION The ('cutral \'alU\v of California is over 500 miles long: and averages 120 miles in width. This valley is drained by the Sacramento River, which flows south, and by the San .loaquin River, which flows north. Near the mid-point of the State, these rivers join and discharge their flows into the chain of bays, Suisun, San Pablo and San Francisco, and finally to the Pa- cific Ocean. At the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joa- quin Rivers, an extensive delta has formed. This Delta is interlaced with some oOO miles of sloughs and channels separating over 50 islands which have been reclaimed for agricultural purposes during the last 100 years. During the winter months these channels must be capable of safel.y discharging some 600,000 second-feet of flood waters from the river systems ; but during the sununer months, the natural runoft" of the river beeomfes insufficient to repel the tide-in- fluenced salt water of the ocean from the Delta chan- nels. With the passage of time, California found it neces- sary to conserve large quantities of water in the Sac- ramento River Basin for transfer to the San Joaquin River Basin. As the Delta channels play an important role in this north-south transfer and about 500,000 acres are irrigated by diversions from these channels, it became necessary to maintain the ((uality of water in the Delta by wasting water into Suisun Bay spe- cifically for salinity repulsion. With the ever-increas- ing demand for more and more water throughout California, consideration was given to every po.ssible means of conserving the available supjilies. One pos- sible means of conserving water would be to construct physical works designed to separate the salt water of the Bay system from the fresh water of the river system and thereby recover the water now used for salinity repulsion. Historically, the reclaimed tracts in the Delta have been extremely vulnerable to high water caused by floods, hifih tides, or a combination of both. S^err hav£-beeti— ^ 4 inLLudalion.s since 1025, inch ^tfarg' the flooding, of Empire Tract and Quimby Isl aa^l-dTrring December, .JlLa5. At the-TTrpsFiTt^ime, tlffee ma,ior areas are under water. These are Ijcnrer Sherman Island, floodedTiuice J Hi/, rorter J' from the Ab.shire-Kelly Salinity Control Barrier Act of ]95;j was to weigh the relative merits of alternative harrier plans; the objective of the investigation directed by the Abshire-Kelly Salinity Control Barrier Act of 19o5, is to choose between the Junction Point Barrier Plan (Biemond Plan) and Chipps Island Barrier Plan and design the most feasible plan. The cm-rent studies, therefore, require (1) refinements of the pre- vious plans, cost estimates, and economic studies and (2) development of data for the design and construc- tion of the selected ])lan. The cost estimates and economic studies of the -1 unction Point and Chipps Island Barrier Plans, as described in the 1955 report were reviewed and the plans were modified as found necessary. The studies of future water re(|uirements, previously prepared for the extremes of population, were re-evaluated to reflect the probable supplemental water recpiirements of the San Francisco Bay Area. A plan was then developed which could deliver sufficient water to keep pace with the demands. A subsurface (>x]iloratiou j)rogram was initiated in the Delta to accjuire informatiou on (1) the depth of peat, and the nature and strength of the underlying stratum, and (2) the location, depth to, and thickness of the confining layer overlying the connate water which underlies portions of the Delta. Ilydrologie studies were made to determiiu- the amount of fresh water needed to maintain the line of 1.000 parts of chlorides to ],000,00n parts of water at \arinns locations, under conditions which wouhl exist with the Biemond Plan in oi)eration. An interagency connnittee, containing rcprcscnla- tives of the I'liitcd States Bni'can ol' Hcchiiiiat ion. I'nited States Coi'ps of Engineers, I'nivcrsity of Cali- fornia and the Department of Walei' Hesonrces, was established to exj)lore the use of an clecti'onic analog as a tool in evaluating possible changes in Delta tidal characteristics which would I'l'snlt from const ruction of the Biemond Plan. At the reconnnendation of this committee, the construction and opei'ation of an ana- log is being performed by the TTniversity of Califoinia at Berkeley under the direction of Dr. Hans A. Einstein. A study was made to i-eappraise the economic value of a vehicular crossing at the Chipps Island barrier site. This study was made by the Divi.sion of High- ways, Department of Pidilic Works, under tci-ms of a service agreement. An experimental vertical baffle fishway was con- structed to test its lu'oficiency in passing anadromons fish, es])ecially striped bass and shad. The structure was designed in accordance with general plans sii])- plied by Department of Fish ami Came officials, and is being operated jointl.y by the Departments of Fish and Game and Water Resources. In January, 1957, a special board of consulting en- gineers was retained to review the progress of the investigation and to appi'aise the conclusions being formulated. This board consists of engineers having national recognition in the fields of foundations, flood control and hydrology. CHAPTER II. SALINITY CONTROL BARRIERS The construftion of a salinity control barrier would involve changes in many existing practices and might require changes in long-standing policies of public agencies. Recognizing these possibilities, the basic factors Mhioh are important to an understanding of salinity control are stated in the following section, prior to discussions of the Junction Point and Chipps Island Barrier Plans. BASIC CONSIDERATIONS Before one can understand the puri^ose of a salinity control barrier, he must have an appreciation of some of the factors which distinguish usable water from unusable water. A single set of rules cannot be estab- lished which can be applied to all circumstances. For example, an industrial plant maj' be able to use sea water for cooling purposes, and at the same time requii-e distilled water for processing purposes. Drink- ing water should be clear, colorless, odorless, pleasant to the taste, free from toxic salts, and should not contain an excessive amount of dissolved mineral 2400 2000 9 1600 O en a UJ o I/) 1200 ^ 800 < o 400 200 400 600 800 CHLORIDES - PPM 1000 FIGURE 1 CLASSIFICATION OF IRRIGATION WATER Closs I — Excellent to Good Class II — Good to Injurious Class III — Injurious to Unsatisfactory .solids. As little as ()..'> part of boron to ],()()(),()()() parts of water may be lethal to some crops. In this investigation the major consideration, (pial- ity-wise, is whether the water of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is suitable for irrigation. The broad classifications of irrigation water set forth by Dr. L. D. Doueen of the Irrigation Division, University of California at Davis, are presented graphically in Figure 1. These classifications are not to be inter- preted as rigid limits applicable to all conditions, but rather should be used as a generalized guide in under- standing the problem at hand. The intensive engineering studies of salinity prob- lems in the Delta, conducted during the mid-twenties by the United States Bureau of Reclamation, the United States Corps of Engineers, the California Di- vision of Water Resources, and the Sacramento Val- ley Development Association led to the generally ac- cepted conclusion that the mean tidal cycle surface zone salinity should not exceed 1,000 parts of chlo- rides per 1,000,000 pai-ts of water iiear Antioch. This criterion was selected to be assured of usable quality water in the Delta. The term mean tidal cycle refers to a 25-hour lunar daj^ during which two high tides and two low tides would occur. The reference is to the mean location of the 1,000 part line during this 25-hour period ; chlorides were measured from water samples taken from the river's surface. The exact location was specified to be at a point 0.6 mile below Antioch, as shown on Figure 2. The view of the State of California in 1930 with respect to .salinity control i-equirements was given in Bulletin No. 25 of the Department of Public Works, Division of Water Resources, entitled "State Water Plan." The following quotation is taken from that report : "In order to control the advance of salinity, a supply of water flowiiis: into the eo|)k^ of t'alifoniia. It is, therefore, iieeessary to state the oouditions which are assumed to exist prior to chancres whieh would result from construction of either of the plans. The current study of salinity con- trol harriers is based iipon the premise that salinity is h( inf/ controlled by the Central Valley Project at the point near Antioch shoicn in Figure 2, and that this is being accomplished by a minimum fresh water flow to Suisun Bay of 3,800 second-feet, consisting of 3,300 second-feet of surface inflow from the Sacra- mento and or San Joaquin Rivers and 500 second-feet of accretion in the Delta. Sea water may be repelled from the Delta by two methods: (1) by maintaining a predetermined flow of fresh water from the Delta to Suisun Bay; or (2) by physical works constructed to separate the saline water of the ba.y system from the fresh water of the river system. At the jiresent time salinity con- trol is being achieved by maintaining a fresh water flow into Suisnn Bay. However, this is at the cost of water sorely needed in other parts of California. Just as tliere are two methods of rejielling salinity from the Delta, there are also two basic concepts for maintaining a satisfactory quality of water within the Delta : ( 1 ) b.v completely isolating the poor quality inflows from the high qnalit.v inflows, and (2) b,v di- luting the poorer quality inflows with high quality in- flows. The two barrier plans under consideration are illustrations of these two basic principals. Ihider the Biemoiul Plan, the isolation concept would be followed, while successful operation of the Chipps Island Plan would be dependent upon mixing of water in the barrier pool. The flood stages in the Delta which cause levee failures generally result from flood flows of the Sac- ramento, Mokelumne and San Joaquin Rivers coupled with liigh tides, increased by off.shore winds. It is difficult to maintain adequate levees in the Delta due to the general occurrence of deep, intermixed, com- pressible peat upon which the existing levees have been constructed. In addition, the land sitrface of the islands continues to subside resulting iu greater difPerences between water and land .surfaces. His- torically and somewhat ironicall.v, overtopping of the levees with inadeqttate freeboard has not been the prime cause of failures and subsequent inundation ; instead, sections of levees have been displaced inward- ly to the island causing a major break which cannot be innnediately repaired to prevent complete inunda- tion of the island. This chapter discusses the relative merits of the Junction Point Barrier Plan and the Chipps Island Barrier Plan. A plan for providing flood protection to the Delta has been included in each barrier pro- posal. Studies disclosed the need for certain modifica- tions of the original plans as described in the report entitled "Feasibility of Construction b.y the State of Barriers in the San Francisco I'>ay System," JMarch. 1!)55. There foUows a descri[)tion of the pliysical fea- tures of tiie two plans, their costs, ami their fiun-t ioiuii and economic feasibitities. JUNCTION POINT BARRIER PLAN The Junction Point Barrier Plan was designed in accordance with .suggestions made by the Dutch engi- neer, Coi-uelus Biemond and is an example of the "control b.v isolation" princi])le. The Plan, as de- scribed in the 1955 report, would consist of control structures across the Sacramento River and Steam- boat Slough, an isolated channel to convey fresh water across the Delta, a Delta Flood Control Plan, a North Baj^ Aqueduct and a South Ba.v A(iuedtu-t. The loca- tion of the Delta features are shown on Plate 2 en- titled "Junction Point Barrier and Delta Flood Con- trol Plan." The control structures would regulate the qnantit.v of water passing into Suisun Bay from the Sacra- mento River and would provide a means of maintain- ing a desired water surface elevation in the i"iver; the isolated Cross-Delta Canal would deliver water of high quality throughout the Delta and to the existing Central Valley Pro.jeet Pumping Plant and the pro- posed Feather River Pro.ject Pumping Plant near Tracy ; the proposed master flood control levees would lirovide much-needed flood protection to Delta lauds ; and, reduction of the tidal prism, accomplished by construction of the master flood control levee sys- tem, would result in conservation of a portion of the watei- now needed to maintain the line of 1,000 parts of chlorides to 1,000,000 parts of water at any given point. As previously stated the current investigation has developed the need for certain modifications of the original •! unction Point Barrier Plan. In order to dis- tinguish between the original ]ilan and the modifica- tion thereof, the original concept is called the Junc- tion Point Barrier Plan while the modified vei-sion is referred to as the Biemond Plan. Biemond Plan The Biemond Plan reflects modifications to the Junction Point Barrier and Delta Flood Control Plan found desirable as the result of this investiga- tion. While these modifications change the location of some of the principal structures, the basic concept is continued and functional feasibility imiiroved. The locations of those elements of the plan within the Delta are shown on Plate 8 entitled "Biemond Plan." Under the Junction Point Barrier Plan, provisions were not made for using San Joaquin River water (luring periods when it would be of satisfactory qual- ity. Also, the entire flood flow of the San Joaquin River would have been restricted to a single Delta Bouldin Island— Levee failure prevented by sandbags during flood of December, 1955 -"^ •'■ ^ 4 Bradford Island— Damage to levee along Fisherman Cut during high water of December, 1955 SALINITY CONTROL BARRIERS 27 eluxiuiel, whifli would have required expensive levee ► setbacks to provide the necessary channel capacity. Study disclosed that with the inclusion of a control structure at the junction of Paradise Cut with the San , Joaquin River, the flood flows of the San Joaquin River could be accommodated within the existing levee system of the river, and in a channel throujih Paradise Cut, Grant Line Canal, Old River and Holland Cut. This latter route would also make it possible to utilize a portion of San Joaquin River flood flows at the Cen- tral Valley Project Pumping- Plant and proposed Feather River Project Pumping Plant. The admission of flood flow into the Cross-Delta Canal at Paradise Cut necessitates a means of expelling the flows in ex- . cess of that pumped by the two plants, to the San Joaquin River. This would be accomplished by a con- trol structure on Holland Cut between Holland Tract and Quimby Island. As Old River and Grant Line ' Canal are used extensively for commercial navigation purposes, a barge lock would be included at the Quimby Island end of this control structure. Under the Junction Point Barrier Plan, Franks Tract, an inundated island near the center of the Delta, would have been reclaimed. In the reappraisal of that plan, it was found that sevei-al factors exist which require consideration in determining whether Franks Tract should be eliminated from the area under tidal influence. Among these factors are the value of the area for recreational uses, the proposed False River Cutoff feature of the Stockton Deep "Wa- ter Channel (shown on Plate 3), and the effects of the tract on maintenance of the line of 1,000 parts of chlorides near Antioch. The economic value of these recreation and navigation considerations is not en- tirely subject to monetary appraisal. However, rec- ognizing their importance, studies of the water con- servation potential of the Biemond Plan were made Avith and without reclamation of Franks Tract. These studies disclosed that reclamation of Franks Tract would result in a substantial saving of fresh water; however, the saving could be accomplished at a future date when Avater might be considered more A'aluable than the other factors. For these reasons, it Avas con- cluded that Franks Tract should be left open to tidal influence, for the present. The further review of the Junction Point Barrier Plan focused attention on the proposed flood channel of the Mokelumne RiA'er. This channel was originally designed to pass 2."), 000 second-feet to the San Joaciuin River Avithin a flood plane of 7.5 feet at Venice Island. Investigation disclosed that the channel could also , serve as a portion of the Cross-Delta Canal, eliminat- ing the cost of improving tAvo separate reaches north of the San Joaquin River. Further study proved the superiorit}' of using the South Fork of the Mokel- umne River for this pui-pose, as (1) its alignment passes through areas having better foundation con- ditions, (2) it arrives at the San Joacjuin River at a location Avhich Avould not recjuire a siphon of exces- sive length, (3) it Avould not require the Cross-Delta Canal to cross Bouldin, Venice or Mandeville Islands, and (4) it would not interfere with the present Stock- ton Deep Water Channel, nor would it require reloca- tion or modification during construction of the pro- posed False River Cutoff. With the decision to make dual use of the South Fork of the Mokelumne River, it became necessary to relocate the headwoi'ks of the Cross-Delta Canal. After considering seA'eral alternative sites, it was concluded that the best plan would be to enlarge the headworks of the Central Valley Project Delta Cross Channel at Walnut Grove. Thus under the Biemond Plan, a sepa- rate Cross-Delta Canal between Isleton and the San Joaquin River would be eliminated. However, the dual use of the South Fork of the Mokelumne River (to carry both flood flows to the San Joaquin River and fresh water to the pumps), Avould require a control structure at Little Venice Island. The structure would be used to discharge Mokelumne River flood flows dur- ing periods Avhen the two major pumping plants would be supplied from the San Joaquin River. A ver- tical bafSe fi.shway provided adjacent to this structure would permit upstream migration of anadromous fish, principally salmon and .steelliead. Under the Junction Point Barrier Plan, down- stream migrating fish would have been screened from the Cross-Delta Canal near Isleton. HoAvever, under the Biemond Plan, either (1) the Sacramento, Mo- kelumne and San Joaquin Ri\'er inlets to the Cross- Delta Canal Avould haA'e to be screened, or (2) screens would be necessary at the intakes to the major pump- ing plants. As the Tracy Pumping Plant has recently been equipped Avith an elaborate screen, and as plans call for a similar device at the proposed Feather River Project Pumping Plant, the second alternative was adopted. The decision to use the South Fork of the Mokel- umne River for a portion of the isolated Cross-Delta Canal, and the conclusion that the most economic lo- cation for its headworks Avould be at Walnut Grove, made it possible to reconsider the location of the struc- tures across Steamboat Slough and the Sacramento River. The factors involved in the selection of the sites relate to navigation and seepage. The principal use of the lock AA'ould be made by tugs towing oil barges to ports along the Sacramento RiA'er between the control structure and Sacramento, barges carrying farm pi-od- uce from docks along the same reach to the ports of Stockton or Sacramento or to sugar refineries at Clarksburg and Tracy, and barges carrjdng material for levee improvements. If the control structure on Steamboat Slough Avere moved from its junction with Cache Slough to its junction Avith Sutter Slough, produce from Ryer and Grand Islands destined to down.stream ports could be loaded at points along Steamboat Slough Avhich would not require passing 28 SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION the craft through a lock. Produce destined to u]i- streain ports could be loaded on Miner, Sutter or Steamboat Sloujrhs and would likewise not require locking;. However, a lock would still be required at the control structure across the Sacramento River. The primary purpose of the structures across Steam- boat Slouch and the Sacramento River would be to control the amount of water passin": into Suisun Ba.v and to maintain a desired water surface elevation at the intake to tlie Cro.ss-Delta Canal. This desired ele- vation was computed to be five feet, mean sea level datmn. The maintenance of this level, which is greater than the average tidal condition experienced at the present time, might cause seepage problems which could require remedial measures as a pro.iect cost. Therefore, the control structures slionid be as far up- stream as po.ssible. Having this in mind, a location was found near Ryde which would be suitable for the lock and control structure across the Sacramento River. At the jn-ojioscd sit(\ shown on Plate 3, a barge lock and vertical baffle fishway would be constructed. Hydrologic studies disclosed that the line of 1,000 parts of chlorides per 1,000,000 parts of water could be maintained at Antioch under operation of the Bie- mond Plan and, therefore, the quality of water in the Sacramento River above the point would be essentially as exists today. Therefore, it would not be necessary to provide control structures (called for under the Junction Point Barrier Plan), across Cache and Lind- say Sloughs. This would also eliminate the need for a siphon under the Yolo By-Pass, and extensive channel improvements between the By-Pass and Lind- say Slough, originally proposed as features of the North Bay Aqueduct. In summary, the principal modifications to the Junction Point Barrier and Delta Flood Control Plan were to make provisions for the Cross-Delta Canal to carrj- flood water during periods of excess runoff' and to conve.v water from the Sacramento River to the major pumping plants during the summer months, thereby gaining greater control over the available water supply and eliminating unnecessary channels across valuable Delta land. Description of Principal Structures. The general ]ilan and type of structures proposed lender the Biemond Plan are shown on Plate 4, "I/ayout of Prin- cipal Structure.s — Biemond Plan." The control structures across the Sacramento River, Steamboat Slough, Holland Cut, and at Little Venice Island would be of similar design. The structures would have pile-supported, concrete sills, piers and abutments with fixed-wheel, vertical-lift, steel gates. The gate piers and abutments would support a hoist frame for raising the gates and two service bridges with 15-foot roadways. The hoist frames would extend about 170 feet out from an abutment into a storage and maiiitciiancc area where the gates could be serv- iced during periods of flood flows. The channels would be dredged to minus 20 feet and the levees riprapped for a distance of 500 feet upstream and downstream from the structures. Pertinent data on these struc- tures are shown in Table 1. TABLE 1 PERTINENT DATA ON CONTROL STRUCTURES OF THE BIEMOND PLAN Length, in feet Gates Sill eleva- tion, in feet Flood plane Location Num- ber Size, in feet eleva- tion, in feet Sacramento River Steamboat Slough Little Venice Island Holland Cut 410 470 470 470 5 6 6 6 .55 X 23.5 55x23.5 55 X 23 . 5 55x23.5 —17 —17 —17 — 17 16.2 15.1 7.5 7.5 A vertical baffle fishway would be constructed at the Ryde site with six baffles creating five bays each 15 feet wide by 20 feet long. The openings between the bays would be 3.67 feet wide extending for the full height of the baffles. A second fishwa.y would be con- structed on Little Venice Island with four baffles creating three 15 feet by 20 feet bays; the openings would be 3.17 feet wide. The minimum depth of water through both fishways woiild be 10 feet. Barge locks would be constructed along the left bank of the Sacramento River and on Quimby Island ad.iacent to the Holland Cut control structure. These locks would be similar to the Calcasieu Lock on the Gulf Intercoastal Waterwa.v near Lake Charles, Lou- isiana, as shown in an accompanying illustration. The sector gates and controls would be contained in ]nle-supported, concrete structures. The gate sills would be 12.0 feet and 13.0 feet below mean sea level at Sacramento River and Holland C\it sites, respec- tively. The riprapped levee sections, forming the lock chambers, would have a clear length of 600 feet and a bottom width of 56 feet. Timber pile guide walls would be provided along both sides of the chamljers and in the approach channels. The existing headworks of the Central Valley Project Delta Cross Channel at Walnut Grove would be modified to provide additional capacity. The exist- ing structure has two radial gates 60 feet long by 30 feet deep. Two additional gates of the same dimen- sions would be constructed on the right or southerly end of the existing facility. The concrete structure would be pile-supported with a sill 15 feet below mean sea level. The highway bridge and the Southern Pa- cific Railroad bridge would each be lengthened by about 133 feet. The existing channel between the head- works and Snodgrass Slough would be adequate to convey the desired quantities of water. The siphon under the Stockton Deep Water Chan- nel would consist of four, 32-foot diameter, reinforced, Calcasieu Lock on Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, near Lake Charles, Louisiana— Locks proposed at Ryde and Quimby Island would be of this type U. S. Corps of Engineers Photograph /S Drawbridge on Sacramento River near Freeport Rofaerf Yeltand Photograph 30 SATJXITY CONTROL BAERIER INVESTIGATION concrete tubes. These tubes would be cast in sections in a graving dock, capped, floated to the site, and sunk onto circular caissons. The caissons would be 43 feet in diameter and 25 feet high, and would extend to 112 feet below mean sea level. The over-all length of the siphon would be 663 feet. Concrete pipe, 12 feet in diameter, would be placed vertically along the levees at both ends of the structure to provide a cellular- type cofferdam for levee stabilization. The control structure at the head of Paradise Cut would be located on the left bank of the San Joaquin River and would consist of an migated, broad-crested weir, 400 feet in length, with its crest five feet above mean sea level. To permit controlled diversion of good quality water into Paradise Cut during low stages on the San Joaquin River, gated inlets would be con- structed at the right end of the weir. Three top-seal, radial gates 33.3 feet long and 10 feet high would control the flow. The gate sills would be five feet below mean sea level. Cross-Delta Canal and Appurtenant Facilities. Under operation of the Bieinond Plan, the Cross- Delta Canal would serve in a dual capacity, first to convey water from the Sacramento River to the major pumping plants near Ti-acy, and second to carry flood flows during periods of excessive runoff on the Mokel- nmne RiA'er and San Joaquin River. The basic criteria established for the design of this system of works, shown on Plate 3, were as follows : 1. The Cross-Delta Canal would be capable of con- veying 4,600 second-feet of water to the Central Val- ley Project Pumping Plant near Tracy simultaneously with 11,000 second-feet of water to the proposed nearby Feather River Project Pumping Plant, plus water necessary for irrigation of the Delta, diversions to the Delta Uplands, and water developed by the Biemond Plan which would be diverted into San .Joa- quin Valley. A design capacity of 20,000 second-feet was selected. 2. The Cross-Delta Canal would deliver the water stated under condition 1 to the major pumping plants near Tracy at an elevation of mean sea level. It was assumed that under operation of the Biemond Plan, water in the Sacramento River would be held to a minimum elevation of five feet above mean sea level. 3. The reach of the Cross-Delta Canal carrying flood flows of the Mokelumne River would be capable of carrjdng 25,000 second-feet within a flood plane of 13.5 feet at New Hope Bridge and 7.5 feet at Little Venice Island. 4. The reach of the canal carrying flood flows of the San Joaquin River would be capable of carrying 35,000 second-feet within a flood plane of 22.0 feet at head of Paradise Cut and 7.5 feet at Holland Cut. Stages of intei-mediatc points may exceed the existing flood planes, if provisions are included in the design to assure safety to the adjacent landowners. Flood Control Features of Biemond Plan. The proposed Delta flood control features of the Biemond ^ Plan were designed to jjrovide the maximum degree of protection for the smallest capital investment, I'ec- ogniziug the significance of navigation and recreation, and to provide at project cost, facilities to main- '* tain and improve upon the existing irrigation and drainage facilities. The plan developed to accomplish this objective was based upon principles used in Hol- land and set forth b.y Cornelns Biemond. Simply .stated, the plan is to enclose groups of islands within a master levee system, thereby reducing the mileage of levees requiring reconstruction and annual mainte- nance against flood and tidal forces. The interior channels, severed during construction of the master levee system, could be maintained at nearly constant elevations and would serve to deliver water to and from the enclosed islands. The location of the pro- posed master levee system is shown on Plate 3. -t Levees of the Sacramento River Flood Control Proj- ect now provide protection to most of the islands lying north of the Sacramento River and also to the north- western sides of Sherman, Brannan, Andrns and Tyler Islands. Although under the plan there would be a .slight increase in the flood plane on the Sacra- mento River and Steamboat Slough above their jnnc- tion near Rio Vista due to severing Miner and Georgi- ana Sloughs, the existing levees are at satisfactory heights to contain the design flood flows. The Biemond Plan would not affect the flood planes on the Sacra- mento River below its junction with Steamboat Slough near Rio Vista. The Sacramento River Flood Con- trol Project would continue to operate essentially as it does today. As previously described, the levees of the Cross-Delta Canal would be con.strncted to high standards and woiild carry the flood waters of the Mokelumne River, and a portion of the flood flows of the San Joaquin River, to the Stockton Deep Wa- ter Channel. Under the Biemond Plan the levees along the San Joaciuin River from Paradise Cut to Stockton would not require reconstruction. The levees in this reach would be adequate, with bank protection, as in the federally-authorized Lower San Joaquin River Tributaries Project. All channels entering the Stockton Deep AVater Channel, excej^ting the main branch of the San Joaquin River, French Camp Slough, Calaveras River, Old River at Franks Tract and Threemile Slough would be severed. Bear Creek would be diverted into the Calaveras River. The total length of levee sub- jected to flood and tidal forces would be 4.50 miles. 4 Of this total, 200 miles would be protected by the Sacramento River Flood Control Project, 58 miles would be in the Lower San Joaquin River Tributaries ^ Project, and 192 miles would be levees not now under an authorized project. SALINITY CONTROL BARRIERS 31 SERVICE ROAD FLOOD PLANE M.LL.W. SAND FILTER-, BASEMENT - SAND FIGURE 3 TYPICAL SECTION OF MASTER LEVEE As M result of subsurface exploration, it appears unlikely that a single levee section can be adopted for all locations tliroughout the Delta. The type of levee section most adaptable to the foundation condi- tions existing at the construction site will be recom- mended at completion of the investigation. However, for estimating purposes, a section of the type and dimensions sliown in Figure 3 was used. This type of levee spreads the loads over a wide base, and results in a smaller concentrated load due to the relatively narrow crown. The use of the berm as a counterweight and as a road increases the factor of safety against foundation slipout failures, and reduces seepage through the levee. Many of the channels which would be closed by the master levee system are navigable for fishing and recreational craft, and some are used for commercial tug and barge operations. Provisions were made to acconunodate the commercial traffic by installation of locks at critical points. The Corps of Engineers was asked to analyze the effect of the levee system on recreational boating and to recommend solutions to the problems which it would create. The Corps of Engineers will undertake this study during 1957. Since the results are presently not available, it was assumed that three pleasure craft locks would be required at various but unspecified locations in the Delta. While eonstruction of the proposed master levee system wouUl result in flood control and water cjuality benefits in the Delta, it would necessitate certain modi- fications of existing irrigation and drainage facilities. These modifications would be carried as project costs, but would liave to be acceptable, both in design and operation, to the landowners. Studies of this subject liave progressed only to a point from which prelimi- nary estimates of cost could be obtained. North Bay Aqueduct. A North Bay Acjueduct was originally (■(uiceived as a means of providing serv- ice from upstream barrier plans similar to that whicli could be provided b.v barrier plans whicli would create fresh water lakes in Suisun and San Pablo Ba.ys. The system was designed to deliver supplemental water, needed during the 1960-2010 period, to the Fairfield- Suisun marshlands, Napa, Sonoma and Petaluma Val- leys, and to the portion of ilarin County draining to San Pablo Bay. A North Bay Acpieduct was shown to be economically justified and financially feasible in the March, 1955, rejDort. Further investigation of this system of works was made to improve upon the loca- tion of the original alignment and to refine estimates of its cost. The estimate of i^robable water demands within the potential service area are described in Chapter III and a plan and profile of the North Bay Aqueduct is shown on Plate 5, "North Baj- Aque- duct." The modified North Bay Atjueduct was designed to be capable of delivering sufficient water to its pro- posed service area to meet the demands during the maximum month in year 2010. An allowance of 10 per cent was made in carrying capacities to provide for operational losses. The system was planned as a trunk facility, with daily fluctuations to be absorbed within the distributing agencies' systems. Only raw (untreated) water would be carried in the aqueduct; treatment, where required, would be furnished by the distributor. Having established the basic policy of maintaining the line of 1,000 parts of chlorides near Antioch, and having demonstrated the ability of the Biemond Plan to accomplish that objective, it then became possible to modify the original North Bay Aqueduct and re- duce its costs. With high quality water assured in the lower reaches of the Yolo By-Pass, it would not be necessary to provide an isolated system to trans- port water from Miner Slough to the Calhoun Cut Pumping Plant. Therefore, under the Biemond Plan, the aqueduct would divert water directly from Lind- say Slough through an improved channel following Ji Irrigable land in the Fairfield- Suisun marshlands which could be irrigated from the North Boy Aqueduct City of Santa Rosa California State Chamber of Commerce Pfyotograph SALINITY CONTROL BARRIERS 'V:i the existing aligrnmeut of Calhoun Cut. A h)nvpi--type fish screen would be constructed in Calhoun Cut to screen fingerling fish out of the system. A jiuinping plant with a ca])acity of 000 second- feet would be con.structed at the westerly end of Calhoun Cut. Water woiild be lifted at this point to elevation 15 feet and discharjied into an unlined canal which would continue generally westward, cross- ing State Highway 12 about one-half mile northwest of Denverton. Water for use in ])ortions of the Suisun marshlands and in the Collinsville area would be re- leased from the aqueduct in this vicinity, and its capacity would be reduced to 680 second-feet. The elevation of the hydraulic gi-ade line at the highway' crossing would be about 13 feet. The North Bay Aqueduct would continue west- ward in an unlined canal, lying generally parallel to and about one mile south of the highway, and passing about midway between the Potrei'O Hills and Travis Air Force Base. The aqueduct would reach navigable Suisun Slough at a point about one mile south of Suisun City.* The water would be at eleva- tion eight feet at its entrance to a siphon laid under this channel. The inverted siphon would be 12 feet in diameter and 600 feet in length. The aqueduct would continue generally westward from Suisun Slough along the northerly fringe of the marshlands as an unlined canal having a capacity of 680 second-feet. Water would arrive at the town of Cordelia at an elevation of about three feet. The unlined portion of the North Bay Aqueduct would terminate at a pumping plant located about two miles northwest of Cordelia. The water would be at sufficient elevation, between the Calhoun Cut Pump- ing Plant and the Cordelia Pumping Plant, to per- mit direct diversion into existing channels which could be used for distribution throughout the Suisun marshlands. The Cordelia Pumping Plant would be designed for 500 second-feet capacity. A 1,300-foot pipeline would convey the water from the pumps to the next reach of a(|ueduct. From the discharge line of the Cordelia Pumping Plant, water would flow in concrete-lined canal, hav- ing a capacity of 500 second-feet, to a 10-foot diamet- er, concrete-lined, horseshoe-shaped tunnel extending from Green Valley to Napa Valley. The water would enter this tunnel at an elevation of 99 feet and would be discharged at the Napa Valley portal at an eleva- tion of 82 feet. A concrete-lined canal, with a capac- ity of 500 second-feet, would lead from the tunnel to a point near Suscol ; water would arrive at this iioint at an elevation of 80 feet. At Susool, the water woiild enter a 10-foot diameter, reinforced concrete pipe with a eapacitj' of 420 second- feet for conveyance across Napa Valley and under the navigable Napa River. Water would be discharged fiom this i)iiie at an elevation of 70 feet on the west- ei'u side of Napa Valley just north of Los Amigos School. The a(|ueduct, westward from Los Amigos Si-hool to a point near Ramal, apiiroximately two miles southeast of Schcllville. woidd have a ca|)acity of 400 second-feet, and would consist mostly of concrete- lined canal placed along the contour of the hills. A short reach of 10-foot diameter pipe would be used to convey the water across Iluichica Creek. At Ra- mal, the water would enter a nine-foot diameter, rein- forced concrete pipe with a capacity of 290 secoud- feet for conveyance across Sonoma Valley. The aque- duct, consisting of conci'ete-lincd canal with a capac- ity of 280 second-feet, would follow along the contour of the hills, crossing Highway 37 nears Sears Point at an elevation of 50 feet. Due to the pooi' surface geologic conditions between Mile 48.3 and Mile 53.6, consideration is being given to constructing a lined tunnel, 4,400 feet in length, and 4,300 feet of lined canal between these |)oints, as indicated on Plate 5. At a point near Lakeville Road, about one mile north of its .iunction with Highway 37. the water would enter a six-foot diameter reinforced concrete pipe hav- ing a capacity of 100 second-feet, for conveyance across Petaluma Valley and under navigable Peta- luma Creek. A short reach of conci'cte-lined canal would then lead to a terminal storage reservoir in the hills northeast of Novate. The Novato Reservoir would be the terminous of the North Bay Aqueduct. This reservoir would be created by construction of a 40-foot earthfill dam, and would have its normal water surface at an elevation of 32 feet. The capacity of the reservoir would be 570 acre-feet with a surface area of 51 acres. The reservoir would lie immediately north of Atherton Avenue, ap- proximately two miles northeast of the City of Novato. Offsite Corrective Features. Further study of the water quality considei-aticms of the Junction Point Barrier Plan disclosed that secondary treatment of sewage and industrial wastes entering the Sacramento River in the vicinity of Sacramento would not be a legitimate charge against the plan as indicated in the March 1955 report. It was shown that the dissolved oxygen content of the river is only negligibly affected by the discharge of sewage rei-eiving primary treat- ment. It was further indicated that the future in- creases in the sewage output would be offset by the additional flow of water in the river due to operation of the Feather River Project. For these reasons, the cost of the oft"-site, cori-ective works, included as fea- tures of the Junction Point Barrier Plan, would not be ap])lii-able to the Bicmoiul Plan. Cost. The cost of the Biemond Plan, based upon <'onstruction costs which prevailed during 1956, is presented in Table 2. All items include an allowance of l") per cent for contingencies and 10 jier cent for 34 SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF THE BIEMOND PLAN ' Unit Amount Sacramento River 82,570,000 1,967,000 70,000 Steamboat Slough Control structure - - - Cross-Delta Canal 2,654.000 1,360,000 168,000 171,000 11,800,000 Canal, Paradise Cut to San Joaquin River . . Little Venice Island 15,880,000 2,087,000 100,000 12,050,000 Paradise Cut 922,000 Holland Cut 2,406,000 1,865,000 Flood control features 12,500,000 Irrigation and drainage system 1,170,000 26,760,000 «96,600,000 —10,400,000 Total Capital Cost $86,200,000 Estimated Annual Equivalent Cost 3,330,000 1,439,000 Total - -- $4,789,000 ^ Based on 1956 construction costs. administration and engineering, jjlus interest during construction. The Cross-Delta Canal was designed to convey wa- ter for use in the Delta, Central Valley Project water destined to the Tracy Pumping Plant, water devel- oped by the Biemond Plan, and Feather River Proj- ect water to the proposed project pumping plant. As other features of the Biemond Plan would create obstacles to the natural distribution of water in the Delta and the transfer of water to the existing Tracy Pumping Plant, the i^lan sliould properly include capacity to overcome these obstacles. However, in the case of the Feather River Project water, facilities provided by the Biemond Plan would eliminate the need for works which would otherwise require con- struction. As the Feather River Project is authorized for early construction, and as the cro.ss-canal pro- posed in the Delta as a part of that project could be made to conform to the alignment of the Cross-Delta Canal feature of the Biemond Plan, it was concluded that the Feather River Project should bear a portion of the cost. The amount allocated to that project was •t 10,400,000. This would be the cost of the works in- cluded in estimates of the Feather River Project wliieh would not be necessary under operation of the Biemond Plan. The estimated annual equivalent cost is also shown in Table 2. The operational cost includes operation and maintenance, replacement and general expense. Variable annual costs such as power were reduced to annual equivalent values. Water Conservation Aspects of Biemond Plan. The Biemond Plan was designed to conserve a por- tion of the water now used to repel salinity from the Delta. Under present conditions, a continuous flow of 3,800 second-feet is required to maintain the line of 1,000 parts of chlorides at a point near Antioch. It is tentatively concluded that this could be accomplished with a flow of about 1,200 second-feet with the Bie- mond Plan in operation. The difference between these two quantities, approximately 2,600 second-feet, would become available for other uses. A portion might be retained in upstream reservoirs ; it might be diverted on a constant flow basis to areas of use or to off- stream storage reservoirs ; or it might be diverted from the Delta in accordance with demand schedules in the potential service areas. There being no storage associated with the Biemond Plan, the water would either have to be diverted as rapidly as it reached the Delta, or lost to Suisun Bay. For investigational purposes, it was assxuned that salinity control would become the responsibility of the barrier agency. It was further assumed tliat the pres- ent salinity control flows, 3,800 second-feet, would be available for salinity control and disposition by the barrier construction agency. It was also assumed, for use in the economic comparisons, that the amount of water conserved by the Biemond Plan would be that which could be diverted on a firm monthly demand schedule from the Delta to the potential service areas. As the Act of 1955 contained an urgency measure directing that a study of salinity control barriers be undertaken as a means of supplying fresh water to the areas adjacent to San Francisco Bay, the require- ments of the service area of the North Bay Aqueduct would be met before water developed by a barrier project would be distributed to areas outside of the San Francisco Bay Counties. As is shown in Chapter III, the North Bay service area will require apjiroxi- mately 308,000 acre-feet annually by year 2010. That amount was taken from the supplies which would be- come available under operation of the Biemond Plan, and the remainder, insofar as it would supply firm water, was assigned to San Joaquin Valley. The esti- mated potential demand for irrigation water in the San Joaquin Valley is .shown in Table 3. SALINITY CONTROL BARRIERS 35 TABLE 3 ESTIMATED POTENTIAL AGRICULTURAL WATER SALES IN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY (In acre-feet) Year Amount 1960 1»6,5 500.000 1970 •. 197,5 1,000,000 1,2,50,000 1980- 1,. 500.000 The luoutlily demand schedules for water in the San Joa([niii Valk\y and the North Bay Aqueduct service areas are shown in Table 4. TABLE 4 MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL WATER DELIVERIES FROM SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER TO PROJECT SERVICE AREAS (In per cent) San Joaquin VaUey, irrigation soliedule North Bay Counties Month Urban schedule Irrigation schedule January 4 5 6 5 4 12 18 18 13 8 4 3 7.0 6.4 7.0 8.1 8.8 10.0 10.2 10.1 9.6 8.7 7.2 6.9 2.0 .\pril May June July_ 8.6 11.8 17.3 19.4 17.9 September 13.8 7.0 2.2 Totals 100 100.0 100.0 It was determined that up to 629,000 acre-feet could be diverted to San Joaquin Valley annually without regulatory storage. The total annual amount of water whieli coiild be conserved by the Biemond Plan under the stated conditions would be 937,000 acre-feet. If the unallocated portion of the salinity control flows (the remainder after operational losses in the Delta and diversion into the North Bay Aqueduct) could be diverted from the Delta and regulated in an offstream storage reservoir, the amount of water con- served by the Biemond Plan could be more than doubled. If 510,000 acre-feet of offstream regulatory storage were provided, the Biemond Plan would conserve about 1,900,000 aci-e-feet of water annually, includ- ing water taken directly from the Delta for use in the North Bay Aqueduct service area. This would re- quire facilities, loading to an offstream reservoir of 2.450 second-foot capacity, only 600 second-feet larger than those which woiild be required to meet the de- mand schedule shown in Table 4 without regulatory storage. While the investigation of sites for offstream reservoirs was beyond the scope of the present study, their potential value, when operated in conjunction with the Biemond Plan, should he recognized. Economic Justification of Biemond Plan. The benefits and detriments of the Biemond Plan were evaluated for the 50-year period beginning in 1961 and ending in year 2010. This ai)praisal was made solely for the purpose of comparing the Biemond Plan with the C'hipps Island Barrier Plan, hereinafter de- scribed. In view of this fact, a hypothetical service area in San Joaquin Valley was assumed for disjiosal of water beyond the needs of the San Francisco Bay Counties and the benefits of supplying water to that area were computed. Benefits of Water Conserved. The largest project benefit would result from water made available for irrigation purposes. Irrigation benefits which would occur in the North Bay Aqueduct service area were derived from a detailed study of the productivity of agricultural land with and witliout irrigation. The average annual equivalent difference between the total net income under project conditions and the total net income under pre-projeet conditions was used as the measure of the direct benefit. Benefits were computed at points of use and all costs of distribution from the aqueduct to points of use were deducted therefrom in order to derive the net benefits at the aqueduct. Indirect benefits were not included in the analysis. Similar studies were made of the benefits of irriga- tion water applied to land in the San Joaquin Valley. Only direct benefits were considered and were de- rived at the point of diversion from the Delta. The distribution system costs and the cost of a main con- veyance aqueduct from the Delta to the service area were deducted as associated costs in the derivation of the net benefits. The inclusion of the main aqueduct costs as associated costs, rather than as project co.sts, is at variance with usual pi-actice and exaggerates the benefit-cost ratio. However, a main aqtieduct to the San Joaquin Valley was not included as a ])roject feature and, therefore, was not included as a project cost. Benefits which would result from the use of water for municipal and industrial purposes in the service area of the North Bay Aqueduct wei-e measui-ed by an assumed sale price of $30 per acre-foot based upon vendibility and cost of alternative supplies. It is em- phasized that this is merely an assumption used in the economic comparisons of the two barrier plans and in the financial feasibility study of the North Bay Aqueduct. Benefits of Flood Cimtrol. The benefits of flood control to the Delta landowners would be two-fold. The islands would be (1) protected again.st crop dam- age, cost of re-establishing the agricultural enterprise 36 SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION and ro]iaiT of leveo breaks, and (2) decrease in opera- tion and maintenance of interior levees due to con- trolled lower water stages. The analysis of benefits to agriculture was based upon crop patterns for each island, costs of re-establishing the agricultural enter- prise, and the freciuency of flooding under present conditions as developed in studies made by the Corps of Engineers. Benefits of Cross-Delta Canal. As noted above, the principal benefits of the Biemond Plan were meas- ured in terms of the water conserved and the flood protection afforded. However, a significant and far reaching benefit would also be obtained from improve- ment of the (|uality of water diverted from the Delta for use in the San Joaquin Valley. The Cross-Delta Canal would make it jiossible to convey high quality water to the ma.ior inuninng plants in lieu of a mix- ture of San Joaquin River water, drainage water from the Delta, sea water and Sacramento River water which is now being exported. While the monetary value of this improvement in water quality was not determined, a benefit would exist and, therefore, war- rants mention. The Cross-Delta Canal feature of the Biemond Plan would also deliver water of better quality throughout the Delta. Here again, a monetary value was not placed on this benefit ; however, the improved quality of water would probably require less leaching of the soils than is now necessary, and would increase the crop yields. Detriments to Navigation. The Biemond Plan would not interfere with ocean-going and other water- borne traffic destined to, from or between, the Ports of Stockton and Sacramento. The plan would how- ever cause lockage delays to tug and barge movements along the Sacramento River and in the Delta proper. The value of these delays, developed from estimates of traffic and locking times, was assessed against the project as a detriment. Detriments to Fish and Wildlife. The Biemond Plan would decrease the populations of certain species of fish and would increase the popvilations of other species. Moving water, such as tidal currents afford, is essential to successful spawning of striped bass. The elimination by the Biemond Plan of many of the tidal channels in the Delta would reduce the spawning area. The reduction in area of channels would also affect the available wintering area of the striped bass. The control structures would be physical obstructions to the upstream migration of anadromous species, princi- pally striped bass and shad and, to a lesser extent, salmon and steelhead. These factors would tend to decrease the anadromous fish populations. Although the anadromous species would be adversely affected bv the Biemond Plan, the wai-m water species would be benefited since the channels eliminated from tidal action would be ideal for warm water fi.sh. To permit analysis of the economic value of the effect of the Biemond Plan on recreational fishing, it was necessary to express the losses and gains in terms of fisherman days and assign a value to a fisherman day. The Department of Fish and Game evaluated the reduction in fisherman da.vs which would be caused by a reduction of the anadromous species and also the increase due to increased warm water species. The average daily gross expenditure by a fisherman is a measure of the economic value of a fisherman day. However, this amount is considered luiapplicable since the gross expenditures per day would be mncli more than the direct benefit or detriment. A similar problem in the evaluation of the direct benefit of a recreation day was studied in connection with the investigation of the Upper Feather River Basin (Department of "Water Resources Bulletin No. 59) by the firm of Harold F. Wise and Associates, City and Regional Planners, for the Department of Water Resources under terms of a service agreement. Dr. Andrew H. Trice, of Harold F. Wise and Asso- ciates, analyzed the expenditures of several hundred recreationists and concluded that about !f^2.(10 \wv day would be a reasonable mea.sure of the primary benefit of a reereationist day. The total value of the detri- ments to recreational fishing caused by the Biemond Plan were computed as the product of the fisherman days times $2.00 per day. A reduction of salmon and shad due to tlie Biemond Plan would also be detrimental to commercial fishing interests. The economic value of commercial fish should be the detriment to the commercial fisherman as he suffers the initial loss. The net income of the* commercial fisherman was considered as the primary detriment. This was estimated to be 20 per cent of the price which the fisherman receives for his catch. The weight of the commercial catch was estimated by the Department of Fish and Game. Xet Benefits. The net benefits of tlie Biemond Plan were computed as the difference l)etween the TABLE 5 ANNUAL EQUIVALENT NET BENEFITS OF THE BIEMOND PLAN Benefits IrriK'ition wat^r Municipal and industrial water Flood control Subtotal Detriments Navigation Fish and wildlife Sul)tl.t!ll Net Henefits S8.9I10,000 979,000 1,1.-)2.000 .?U, 091. 000 13,000 228.000 $241,000 SI 0.850,000 SALINITY CONTROL BARRIERS 37 beiii^fits and detrinicnts described in the foregroinf;- sections. The benefits and detriiueiits are summarized in Table 5. Beiiefit-Cosf Hafin. The benefit-cost ratio of the Biemond Plan is based upon the annual equivalent net direct benefits presented in Table 5, $10.S5(),- 000 and the annual equivalent costs presented in Table 2, $4,789,000. The resultant ratio of net direct benefits to costs is 2.3:1. It is recognized tliat many indirect and intangible benefits would result from the construction of the Biemond Plan. These benefits have not been evaluated and, therefore, are not included in the derived benefit- cost ratio. Comparison of Junction Point Barrier Plan With Biemond Plan A comparison of the caj^ital costs of the Junction Point Barrier Plan, as described in the report entitled "Feasibility of Construction by the State of Barriers in the San Francisco Bay System," and of the Biemond Plan is shown in Table 6. The capital costs of the Junction Point Barrier Plan wei-e adjusted, by use of the Engineering News Record construction cost index, to reflect prices which prevailed during 1956. The construction cost indexes for 1954 and 1956 were 628.0 and 692.4, respectively. TABLE 6 COMPARISON OF JUNCTION POINT BARRIER PLAN WITH BIEMOND PLAN Item Junction Point Barrier Plan' Biemond Plan" S3 1.4.50.000 14.580.000 31.920.000 17.460.000 3,930,000 36,360,000 •«16 340 000 Siphon Flood control features 12.050,000 =12 .500.000 27.780.000 Irrigation and drainage features 1,170,000 26,760,000 Subtotals S135,700,000 —10,400,000 $96,600,000 Allocation to Feather River Project —10,400,000 Total Capital Cost $125,300,000 $86,200,000 I Based on 1956 construction coats. - Exclusive of flood control costs for MnkelumiK' Rivfr and Parailii^iL' Cut wliicli are included in the costs of the Cross-Delta Canal. CHIPPS ISLAND BARRIER PLAN The Chipps Island Barrier Plan is an examijle of operation under the mixing concept. Water would enter the barrier pool from (1) the Sacramento River (2) the San Joaquin River system, (3) Sni- sun Bay through lock operation, and (4) rising ground water in the Delta. During critically dry summer mouths the water entering from Sacramento River would be of excellent quality; that from the San Joaquin River and Delta would be high in total dissolved solids; while that cnlci-ing from Suisun Bay would be high in chloride content. SiU'cessful opera- tion of the Chipps Island Barrier Plan woulil re(iiure either complete mixing of the incoming waters, or interce]itioii and disposal of the jioor quality water to some point below the principal works. The construction of the Chipps Island Barrier Plan as described in the March 1955 report would ]ilace physical structures between the saline water of the San Francisco Bay system and the flows of the Sacra- mento and San Joaquin River systems. These struc- tures would be located near the City of Pittsburg and would follow the general alignment of the Sacramento Xorthern Railway right of way across Chijjps Island and Van Sickle Island. With the Chijips Island Bar- rier Plan in operation, the dividing line between salt water and usable fre.sh water would be at the physical structures. This would eliminate the need for further consideration of the line of 1,000 parts of chlorides as discussed in the introduction of this chapter and shown on Figure 2. The principal features would con- sist of the barrier embankment, three floodway struc- tures, four navigation locks, a salt-scavenging system, a fishway and a system of levees in the Delta. Details of the principal works are shown on Plate 6, "I;ay- out of Principal Structures, Chipps Island Barriei- Plans,'' and the flood control features are shown on Plate 7, "Chipps Island Barrier and Delta Flood Control Plan." Modified Chipps Island Barrier Plan The studies of the Chipps Island Barrier Plan, directed by the Act of 1955, disclosed the advantages of making minor modifications to the plan as described in the March 1955 rej^ort. Changes were also found to be needed in the previous economic appraisal. The studies conducted and the resultant modifications are hereinafter discussed. The reader is directed to sec- tions of Plate 6 and to Plate 8, "Modified Chipps Island Barrier and Delta Flood Control Plan." Barrier Embankment. Subsequent to completion of the investigation authorized by the Act of 1953, the Sacramento Northern Railway was granted permission to abandon service across Chipps and Van Sic-kle Islands. As its trackage closely followed the Chipps Island barrier alignment, study was made of the feasi- bility of acquiring the railway right of way to take advantage of any compacted fill which might exist. Field reconnaissance, however, disclosed that a major portion of the track was located on trestles, and that the removal of these structures would become an added consideration. However, the railroad is laid upon an embankment across most of Chipps Island. Part of this embankment would have to be removed during excavation for the locks and fishway. The re- maining portion would have to be raised to a much 38 SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION higher elevation. As very little information was avail- able regarding the existing embankment, and because of the pool- foundation conditions which prevail throughout the area, it was concluded that the aban- doned railway right of way offered oul.y negligible, if any, advantages over the original alignment. There- fore, no changes were made to the original design of the barrier embankment. The barrier embankment of the Chipps Island Barrier Plan would consist of four levee sections : ( 1 ) from high ground in Contra Costa County to the Sacramento River, (2) across Chipps Island, (3) across Van Sickle Island, and (4) from Montezuma Slough to high ground northwest of Col- linsville in Solano County. The total length of em- bankment would be about 22,000 feet. The design and cost of this embankment was based upon predredging of the soft peat material and construction of a sand levee to elevation 15 feet, mean sea level datum. The levee would have 5 : 1 side slopes, a top width of 30 feet, and riprap protection at critical points. Floodway Structures. A review of the studies pertinent to the Chipps Island floodway structures failed to disclose a need for further work in the field of structural design and operation. The small storage area upstream from the Chipps Island barrier would require that floodways be provided equal in area to the present channels. This would be accomplished by constructing floodways of similar design but of differ- ent sizes across the Saci'amento River, Spoonbill Creek and Montezuma Slough. The floodway across the Sacramento River would provide 115,200 square feet of opening below mean sea level and would consist of a pile-supported, con- crete apron, piers and abutments, and 48 fixed-wheel, vertical-lift, steel gates, each 60 feet wide and 48 feet deep with gate sills 40 feet below mean sea level. The gate piers would support a hoist frame and deck for raising the gates, and two service bridges with 15-foot roadways. The floodway across Spoonbill Ci'eek would provide 1,800 square feet of area, below mean sea level, by means of three gates, each 40 feet wide and 23 feet deej) with sills 15 feet below mean sea level. The Montezuma Slough structure would provide 4,000 square feet of opening, below mean sea level, through five gates each 40 feet wide and 28 feet deep with gate sills 20 feet below mean sea level. Preliminary results, obtained from operation of an electronic analog, indicated that a Chipps Island bar- rier might increase the tidal amplitude at the site by five feet. If this were to occur, the floodway gates would be subjected to forces beyond which were originally contemplated, and would, in fact, be nearly topped. Time did not permit redesign of the necessary structures to overcome this problem. For this reason, the estimated cost of the Chipps Island floodway structures must be recognized as too low. Navigation Locks. The lock sizes and juimber recommended for inclusion with the Chipps Lsland Barrier Plan were reviewed and found acceptable by the members of the San Francisco District, Corps of Engineers. These data are shown in Table 7. TABLE 7 NUMBER AND SIZE OF LOCKS IN THE CHIPPS ISLAND BARRIER PLAN Number Length, in feet Width, in feet Depth of sill, in feet below mean sea level 2 1 1 800 '000 '300 96 86 45 40 18 16 1 Gated at midpoint. The review of the functional feasibility of the Chipps Island Barrier Plan revealed the need for im- proving the quality of water in the barrier pool. The conclusions presented in the March 1955 report pointed out that the quality of water would be de- pendent upon the amount of sea water which would enter through the locks. Only limited information was available on this matter and an estimate of the amount had to be based largely on judgment. It was concluded that as much as 10 per cent of the invading salt might be dispersed throughout the barrier pool and it was shown that this would render the water unusable during periods of critical water supply. Model studies conducted by the United States Waterways Experiment Station, Vickshurg, Missis- sippi, and published in 1946, indicated that the use of salt-clearing locks would greatly reduce the salt transfer into the upper pool over that which would be expected with conventional locks. Investigation disclosed that with salt-clearing locks and a small salt-scavenging system, the water in the Chipps Island barrier pool would be of Class I quality, if complete mixing of the incoming water was accomplished in the pool. As the construction of a barrier plan would be disastrous were the quality to be unacceptable, the original Chipps Island Barrier Plan was modified to include salt-clearing locks. A salt-clearing lock is one which is designed with separate filling and emptying systems which permit finishing of the sea water with fresh water during the locking procedure. The salinity of water in the lock is thereby reduced to tolerable limits and only a small amount of salt would actually invade the fresh water pool. The redesign of the navigation locks for the Chipps Island Barrier Plan was accomplished in accordance SALINITY CONTROL BARRIERS 39 with data provided by the Sau Fi'aiieiseo Distriet, Corps of Engineers. The same number and size of lofks, as shown in Table 7, were used. The location and orientation of these h)cks, as well as sectional , views are sliown on Plate 6. Provisions were included in the plan for providing tug assistance to unwieldy vessels passing tln-oiigh the locks. One tug, and a wharf equipped with adminis- tration (puirters, storage and fueling facilities were provided. These facilities would be t>perated on a 24- hour basis. Salt-scavenging System. "With the introduction of salt-clearing locks into the Chipps Island Barrier J Plan, it became feasible to greatly reduce the size of the originally planned salt-scavenging system. The main scavenger pipe would be five feet in diameter. A detention sump 500 feet wide, 1,000 feet long and having its bottom 55 feet below mean sea level, would be dredged in front of the lock. Multiple inlet collection pipes would be located in the bottom of the sump and wye-connected to the main pipe. Each inlet pipe would be 100 feet long and three feet in diameter. Fishway. Changes were not made in the previous design of a tishway to operate with the Chipps Island Barrier Plan. The fishway would be of the vertical baffle type. It would consist of a rectangular, concrete channel, 20 feet wide, 24 feet deep and approximately 600 feet long. The floor of the channel would be 14 feet below mean sea level to provide a minimum water depth of 10 feet at low tide. The channel would have . cross walls at intervals with vertical slot openings for water flow and passage of fish. The cross walls would serve as baffles to di.ssipate energy. The channel would be equipped with a radial gate to prevent salt water flow into the barrier pool during periods of high tide. Flood Control Features of the Chipps Island Bar- rier Plan. The Biemoiul principle of restricting flood flows to specified channels was fni-ther explored in connection with the Modified Chipps Island Barrier Plan. The resultant flood control plan, also shown on Plate 8, would confine flood waters of the Sacramento River system to the Sacramento River, Steamboat Slough and the Yolo By-Pass. Flows of the Mokel- umne River would be restricted to the North Fork of the Mokelumne River. Flood water of the San Joaquin River would follow the same channels as in the Bie- mond Plan, namely, the San Joaquin River and Para- dise Cut, Grant Line Canal, Old River and Holland " Cut. The Calaveras River would also carry the di- verted flows of Bear Creek. Franks Tract would re- main inundated. • The modified plan, as shown on Plate 8, would re- quire approximately 418 miles of levee including 190 miles in the Sacramento River Flood Control Project and 58 in the autliorized Lower San Joaquin River Tributaries Project as compared with the 992 miles of levees under the present system. As with the Bie- mond Plan, the interior channels, severed during construction of the master levee system, Avonld be used to distribute water for irrigation of the Delta, and for drainage thereof. North Bay Aqueduct. The reanalj'sis of the al- terjiative North Bay Aqueduct alignments iiulicated that a sj'stem of works diverting water from Lindsay Slough would be the most economical for inclusion with the Chipps Island Barrier Plan. The North Bay Aqueduct of the Chipps Island Barrier Plan would, therefore, be identical with that previously described for the Biemond Plan and shown on Plate 5. Offsite Corrective Features. Treatment and/or disposal of sewage and industrial wastes entering a Chipps Island barrier pool would be required to main- tain quality standards. It was found that wastes from some of the industrial plants could not economically be treated and would, therefore, have to be collected, conveyed and discharged into Suisun Bay below the barrier. However, the majority of the wastes, with secondary treatment, could be returned to the pool and re-used. In estimating the cost of treatment of these wastes, it was assumed that primary treatment is in the pub- lie interest and, therefore, only the cost of construct- ing the secondary treatment facilities would be charged to the barrier project. The annual operational costs, including maintenance and replacement were assumed to be borne by the owners of the plants. The industrial wastes which are strongly min- eralized or high in oil and phenolic substances would require diversion around the barrier. The capital costs of the diversion system would be borne by the barrier project as well as the animal maintenance and opera- tion costs. The creation of a nearly quiescent lake in the Delta by construction of the Chipps Island barrier would require special facilities to dispose of warm industrial return waters now being diffused by tidal currents. These facilities would be necessary to protect the fish from abrupt temperature changes. As in the case of the sewage treatment plants, only the capital cost of the dispersion w-orks were assessed against the bar- rier project; operation and replacement costs were assumed to be borne by the industries. The salt-scavenging sump, placed just upstream from the locks, would capture a portion of the river's sediment load. The annual cost of removing this ma- terial was cliarged against the project. A review was made of the .salt routing .studies con- ducted during the previous investigation. It was found that with salt-clearing locks, the mineral qual- ity of water in the Chipps Island barrier pool would 40 SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION be acceptable. However, in tlie event that a master drain is planned to deliver low quality irrigation re- torn flows from the entire San Joaquin Valley, prior to its construction reanalysis of its effects on the Chi])])s Island barrier pool would be necessary. It is conceivable that with a Chipps Island Barrier Plan in operation, the drain from San Joaquin Valley would have to discharge directly to Suisun Bay. If the Chipps Island barrier were to greatly in- crease the tidal amplitude in Suisun Bay, as indicated by operation of the electronic analog, an extensive levee system would be required in the Suisun marsh- lands and along the Contra Costa County shore. It is indicated that under certain conditions, a water stage of about 12 feet, mean sea level datum, woiild be experienced at the barrier; a stage of about 10 feet would be expected at Benicia. A very preliminary estimate was made of a master levee system to protect the Suisim marshlands and the southern shore of Suisun Bay in Contra Costa County. This system would cost about $11,000,000 if it were constructed over a period of yeai-s to allow for foundation con- solidation. However, it would cost about $17,000,000 if it were constructed in a few years since special foundation treatment would be required. In addition to levee protection, the change in tidal amplitude would lower low-water stages and make it necessary to dredge the navigation channels and berthing areas. It woiTld also be necessary to modify the plants of industries and military installations on the shores of Suisun Bay. The costs of dredging and plant moditica- tions were not evaluated. Since the magnitude of the increase in tidal amplitude has not been firmly estab- lished, the costs of the resultant offsite corrective features were not included as costs of the Chipps Island Barrier Plan. However, the possibility of a change in tidal amplitude and resultant increase in cost of the plan must be recognized. Cost. The costs of the Chipps Island Bar'ie'- Plan, modified as noted, but not including costs which would result from a change of tidal amplitude in Sui- sun Bay, are presented in Table 8. The estimated costs are based iipon construction prices which prevailed during 1956. The cost of those elements of the original plan, which were not redesigned, were adjusted by means of the Engineering News Record construction cost indexes to reflect the 1956 prices. It is emphasized that the costs for modifications which would be re- quired by an increase in tidal amplitude are not in- cluded. The Modified Chipps Island Barrier Plan would eliminate the need for the proposed Cross-Delta Canal of the Feather River Project which would follow, for the most part, existing sloughs and channels but which would refpiire enlarging. Under the Modified Chipps Island Plan, the existing chaiuiels north of TABLE 8 SUAAMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF THE MODIFIED CHIPPS ISLAND BARRIER PLAN ^ Item ..Vmount $5,380,000 ,')7, 640,000 67,640,000 1 ,400,000 460,000 Flood control features 29,7.i0,000 1,020,000 Offsite corrective features H),0,'jO,000 26,760,000 Subtotal- - - - - - $209,300,000 —10,400,000 Total Capital Cost . - .5198,900.000 Estimated .\nnual Etiuivalent Cost 7.730,000 3,236,000 Total $10,966,000 1 Based on 1956 construction costs. the San Joaf|uin River would have adecpiate capacity, and Old River and Holland Cut south of the San Joaquin River would be enlarged for flood channels. The saving to the Feather River Project, $10,400,000, was considered as a deductible cost chargeable to the Feather River Project. The estimated annual equivalent cost is also shown in Table 8. The operational cost includes operation and maintenance, replacement and general expense. Variable annual costs such as jiower were reduced to annual equivalent values. Water Conservation Aspects of Chipps Island Barrier Plan. Tlie amount of water which could be conserved by the Chipps Island Barrier Plan would directly reflect basic conditions regarding inflow to the pool, area of the ])ool, operating range in the pool, type and location of demand for water from the pool, and operational losses. The only water considered as inflow to the jiool was that which would be required under ]M-esent conditions, to maintain the line of 1,000 parts of chlorides at a point near Antioeh shown in Figure 2. The amount of water required has been established as 3,800 second-feet. The surface area of the Modified Chipps Island barrier pool, 36,400 acres, would be less than that of the original plan (38,200 acres), due to the master flood control levee system in the Delta even though Franks Tract would remain open under the modified plan. The evaporation considered as a loss chargeable to the plan was computed only on the 2,900 acres of water surface between the barrier and the desired loca- tion of the 1,000 part line near Antioeh. Evaporation from the remaining area is supplied from some other SALINITY CONTROL BARRIERS 41 sourc-e under present conditions and would not be reflected in the 3,800 seeontl-feet of salinity control flow. In addition to the loss of water from the pool due to evaporation, there would be unavoidable losses throunrh operation of the locks, salt-scavensrin.u' system and fishway. Studies of these water requirements were made under conditions which were estimated to occur in the year 2010. The amount of fresh water required to accommodate the water-borne traffic was based upon one lockful of water per passage, including scavenging of the invading salt. The fishway at Chipps Island would require an average flow of 200 second-fi':''^ to pass anadromous fish across the barrier. This flow would vaiy depend- ins upon tlie stage of the fresh water pool and tidal conditions. In the previous investigation of barriers, studies were made of three operating conditions — no conser- vation operating range, a three-foot operating range, and a six-foot operating range. It was shoAvn that the amount of water conserved would increase with the increase in range. Although offsite corrective costs would result from a six-foot range, the additional benefits from increase in yield would be greater than the cori'ective costs. In the modified plan, the Delta would be provided with a master levee system capable of withstanding higher water stages under flood con- ditions than those of a six-foot operating range. There- fore, the six-foot range was accepted for water conser- vation study purposes. The monthlj' demand schedules used in determining the water conservation benefits of the Modified Chipps Island Barrier Plan were the same as used for similar studies of the Biemond Plan. Those schedules are shown in Table 4. As in the case of the Biemond Plan, water would first be assured for the North Bay Aque- duct .service area, with the remaining water used in the San Joaquin Valley. It was assumed that water would be delivered to the service areas in accordance with their monthly demands without deficiency in any year. Under the establi.shed conditions, the Chijjps Island Barrier Plan would eon.serve about 1,675,000 acre-feet of water annually from flows now used to repel sa- linity. Of this amount, 308,000 acre-feet would be available to the North Bay service area, and 1,367,000 acre-feet would be exported to the San Joaquin Val- ley. To meet the monthly demands in the San Joaquin Valley as shown in Table 4, it would recpiire diversion facilities from the Delta with capacity for about 3,9.50 second-feet. The yield of the Chipps Island Barrier Plan could be increased by supplementing the regulatory storage in the Delta with offstream storage along the aque- duct leading to the San Joaquin Valley. If 530,000 aere-feet of additional storage were provided, the plan would yield approximately 2,400,000 acre-feet an- nually, including the water taken directly from the Delta for use in the North Bay service area. This would not rc(|uii-e an increase in the capacity of the diversion fa<'ilities leading to the off'stream reservoir. Economic Justification of Chipps Island Barrrier Plan. The benefits and detrimi'iits of the Chipps Is- land l^arrier Plan were reduced to monetary values for compai'ison with those of the Biemond Plan. As noted in discu.ssions of the Biemond Plan, both plans were evaluated for the 50-year period beginning in 1961 and ending in year 2010. Bnirfits of Wafer Conserved. The largest benefit of the Chipjis Island Barrier Plan would be that re- sulting from use of the 1,675,000 acre-feet of con- served water. It was estimated that all but 132,000 aere-feet of this water would be used for irrigation of agricultural lands in 2010; 132,000 aere-feet would be used for urban purposes in the service area of the North Bay Aqueduct. Benefits of water for irrigation were determined from detailed studies of the net income fi-om the land in the service areas (North Bay and San Joai|uin Valley) with and without irrigation. Benefits were measured at project facilities, i.e., at the Delta or at the North Bay Aqueduct. The costs of all other works necessary to deliver the water from these points to the land were deducted as associated costs. Benefits which would result from use of water for municipal and industrial purposes in the North Bay Acjueduct service area were measured by an assumed sale price of .+30 per acre-foot based upon vendibility and cost of alternative supplies. This assumed price was used merely for the economic comparison of the two barrier plans and is not to be taken as the firm sales price from the aqiieduct. Benefits of Flood Control. For comparison pur- poses, it was assumed that the flood control benefits to agricultural enterprises from operation of the Chipps Island P)arrier Plan and the Biemond Plan, would be eqiud since the same area would he pro- tected. There, however, would be a slightly less benefit from decreased levee maintenance with the Chipps Island Barrier Plan than with the Biemond Plan due to different lengths of levees. The factors considered in the determination of these benefits were described under the Biemond Plan. The improvement of water ipuUity in the Delta would be less for the Chipps Island Barrier Plan than for the Biemond Plan. Return irrigation water from the Delta would find its way to the ma,ior diversions. The cpiality of water in the Delta would, however, be expected to imiirove over present conditions, due to the exclusion of salt water from Suisun Bay. The benefit of this water qmdity im]irovement was not evaluated for either the Chipps Island Barrier Plan 42 SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION or the Biemond Plan. As the benefits would not be equal, this would tend to favor the Chipps Island Barrier Plan. Transportation. Studies conducted during the in- vestigation leading to the March 1955 report, con- cluded that a Chipps Island barrier would be benefi- cial for use as a vehicular transportation crossing. Since completion of those studies, a bridge has been authorized, and is currently under construction across Carquinez Strait near Valle.io and a bridge has been authorized for construction between Martinez and Benicia. These two occurrences, plus the adoption of a more liberal Federal aid highway program, rendered the previous studies obsolete. In view of the changed condition, a service agree- ment was executed between the Division of Highways of the Department of Public Works and the Depart- ment of Water Resources for a reappraisal of the warranty of a Chipps Island vehicular crossing. The service agreement pro\ided that the Division of High- ways: "1. . . . shall conduct an investigation of the economic war- ranty of a vehicular crossing between Contra Co.sta and Solano Counties in the vicinity of Chipps Island. The investigation shall include : "a. An evaluation of vehicle time and distance which would be conserved to the traveling public by con- struction of a vehicular crossing in the vicinity of Chipps Island, "b. An estimate of the cost of the approach freeways, "c. A statement of the complications involved in the in- tegration of this route in the California and interstate highway systems." The report submitted by the Division of Highways on October 11, 1956, concluded as follows: ". . . The estimated worth of the costs in 1960, based on a total net 50-year cost of $105,789,000 at three per cent interest, is $91,100,000. This amount does not compare favorably with the worth of the benefits in 1900 of $56,500,000. It is concluded that the project is not economically warranted. "Integration of the proposed route in the State Highway System would require Legi.slative authorization (Section 24 of the Streets and Highways Code) and subsequent action by the California Highway Commission for adoption of more precise portions of the route. "Integration of the propo.sed route in the Inter.state System would require approval of the Secretary of Commerce. A 40,000 mile Interstate System has already been designated and it is not likely that the proposed route could be recommended for in- clusion in the additional 1,000 miles authorized by the 1956 Act, because of its proximity to the highly important Interstate Route along U. S. 40." In view of these conclusions, transportation benefits should not be assigned to the Chipps Island Plan. Detriments to Xaviejation. The construction of a Chipps Island barrier would cause a delay to all deep draft water-borne trafific destined to or from the Ports of Stockton and Sacramento. It would also interfere with the free movement of tugs and barges from Bay ports to inland waters. Tlic introduction of salt-clear- ing locks into the plan would further increase the time of delay as indcated in Table 9. TABLE 9 AVERAGE TIME FOR LOCKING VESSELS THROUGH CONVENTIONAL AND SALT-CLEARING LOCKS (In minutes) Type of vessel Steamers. Tugs Salt-clearing locks 47.0 21.5 The economic value of the delay to navigation in- terests was appraised, using the estimated traffic and cost of operations shown in the March, 1955 report. Detriments to Fish and Wildlife. The Chipps Island Barrier Plan would have an adverse effect on fish for reasons similar to those described under the Biemond Plan. However, the affect of the Chipps Island Barrier Plan would be more severe than with the Biemond Plan. The losses of anadromous species and gains of warm water species under the Chipps Island Barrier Plan were estimated by the Department of Fish and Game. The analysis of the value of the losses and gains was made as described under the Biemond Plan. Detriments to Offset Features. A review of the sanitary considerations of a Chipps Island barrier pool confirmed the conclusions drawn in the previous study that severe oxygen depletion would be expected under future conditions if only primary treatment of organic wastes were provided. Therefore, the pre- vious estimates of cost for preventative facilities were brought to 1956 levels and assessed against the Chipps Island Barrier Plan. The added cost of operating these facilities, assumed to be borne by some other agency, were carried as detriments. Net Benefits. The net benefits of the Modified Chipps Island Barrier Plan were computed as the difference between benefits and detriments described TABLE 10 ANNUAL EQUIVALENT NET BENEFITS OF THE MODIFIED CHIPPS ISLAND BARRIER PLAN Item Amoxmt Benefits 815.596.000 Municipal and industrial water _ ;i7it.ooo 1.146.000 $17,721,000 Detriments SI 12.000 951,000 485,000 SI. 548,000 §16,173,000 SALINITY CONTROL I'.AKRIEUS 43 in the foregoing sections. The direct benefits and det- riments are snmmarized in Table 10. Benefit-Cost Eatio. The benefit-cost ratio of the Modified Chipps Island Barrier Plan was based npon the annnal eqnivalent net benefits presented in Table 10, $16,173,000, and the annnal etpiivalent cost pre- sented in Table 8, $10,966,000. The resnltaiit ratio of benefits to cost was found to be 1.5 to 1. It is emphasized that the cost of the Modified Chipps Island Barrier Plan, used in the derivation of the benefit-cost ratio, does not include the cost of remedy- ing possible oft'site damages which might be caused by a change in tidal amplitude. If remedial works were required, the benefit-cost ratio would be less than 1.5:1. Comparison of Chipps Island Barrier Plans A comparison of the original Chipps Island Barrier Plan with the Modified Chipps Island Barrier Plan is presented in Table 11. The capital costs of the orig- iiuii plan were indexed upward by use of the Engi- neering News Record construction cost index to re- flect construction costs which prevailed in 19.'J6. The iSouth Bay A(|iieduct is not included in this compari- son since it is an authorized feature of the Feather River Project. TABLE 11 COMPARISON OF COSTS OF ORIGINAL AND MODIFIED CHIPPS ISLAND BARRIER PLANS Item Original plan^ Modified plan' Barriers and appurtenant facilities $128,110,000 39,,'")00,000 3,930,000 Ifl,0.iO,000 27,060,000 $132,720,000 29,7.'iO,l)00 1,020,0011 19,0,^0.000 26.7(10.000 $217,650,000 —10,400,000 $209,300,000 Allocation to Feather River Project —10,400,000 Total Capital Cost _ $207,250,000 $198,900,000 1 Based on 1956 construction costs. CHAPTER III SAN FRANCISCO BAY COUNTIES WATER PLAN ". . . initiate tlic fiirtliei- investigation anil stnily . . . for I lie purposes of developing eomplete plans of the means of ae- i-oni|ilishin!; delivery of fresh water to the San Franeisco I!ay area . . ." The abtivc (luotatioii is taken from tlie Abshire- Kelly Salinity Control Barrier Act of 1955. The Act further specifies that the study is to include the Counties of Solano, Sonoma, Napa, Marin, Contra Costa, Alameda. Santa Clara, San Benito, and San Mateo, and the City and Count.v of San Francisco. Portions of this area lie in four priiK-ii)al hydro- frrajihic areas of the State: San Francisco Ba.v Area, North Coastal Area, Central Valley Area and Central Coastal Area. As these counties have many and varied water jn'oblems, the following discussion is by the iiydrographie areas as shown on Plate 9, "San Fran- cisco Ba.\- Counties Water Plan." Those portions of the counties Avhich drain to Suisun, San Pablo and San Francisco Bays are defined as being' within the San Francisco Ba.v Area; those areas draining to the Russian River are within the North Coastal Area; tiiose areas drainino into the Sacramento River or its tributaries are within the Central Valley Area; and those areas tributary to the Pajaro River are within the Central Coastal Area. Investigations leading- to the development of a wa- ter plan uormall.v begin with a determination of basic hydrologic phenomena of precipitation and runoff, i.e., water supjily. However, for the present purpose, these basic studies were not required as a large amount of liydrologic information had been gathered, compiled and published bv the State Water Resources Board, the Water Project Authority, offices of the Geological Surve.v and Bureau of Reclamation of the United States Department of Interior, the San Francisco District, Corps of Engineers, local districts and pri- vate engineers. B,v application of information found in reports of these agencies, it was possible to "initiate the further investigation ' ' without intensive new field investigations of water supply. The present study was one of continuing aiul refining the estimates of future water re(iuirements presented in "Economic Develop- ment of San Francisco Bay Area," dated October, 1955, which constitutes Appendix A of the March 1955 report. As the objective was to develoji "com- plete plans." it was necessarv to establish the condi- tions under which the complete plans were to be de- veloped. The California Water Plan, a complete iilan for comprehensive development of the water resources of the entire State, is nearing completion. This plan was conceived as a guide to the orderly development by logical progressive stages of numerous individual projects. When constructed. The California Watci- Plan would be capable of distributing water t(i all areas of the State at a time when ail potentially iiTi- gable land is either under irrigation or inhabited, and when our cities have reached a state of e()uilibriiun. Having available a plan capable of meeting the water requirements of all areas at some distant, but un- specified, time in the future, it was concluilcd that the present task was to determine which projects of The California Water Plan could best satisfy conditions which would be encountered during the next 50 years. It was found that different conclnsions could be drawn from different sets of basic criteria. The basic- criteria upon which a water plan for the San Fran- cisco Ba.v Counties was developed are as follows : 1. The plan is to include facilities capable of sup- plying sufficient (juautities of w^ater to meet the demands of the study area during the period be- ginning in 1960 and ending in year 2010. 2. The plan is to be designed to develop and convey water for both municipal and agricultural uses : distribution and treatment of said water shall be the responsibilit.v of local agencies. 3. Sufficient water should be reserved to meet the future needs of the area of origin before con- sideration is given to exporting water from that area. 4. The plan should be designed to supjilement. rather than supersede, existing water resources developments to the fullest extent possible. 5. The need for the plan is to be demonstrated. (). Projects of the plan should be economically justi- fied and financially feasible at the time of con- struction. 7. There should be a demonstrated desire for proj- ects b.v a majorit.v of the beneficiaries thereof. The San Francisco Bay Counties Water Plan was conceived to supply sufficient water to meet all sup- plemental water requirements until year 2010. Sup- plemental water requirements were developed frcim estimates of population and land use, estimates of future water re(piirements, estimates of presentl,\' available supjilies, and an assumed distribution of those su]iplies. Only time will disclose the accuracy of the estimates; however, the reader is reminded that most estimates of this t.\'pe lun-c proven to be ton small. (45) Pilarcitos Dam in San Mateo County, completed in 1866, created the first reservoir designed to serve San Francisco City of San Francisco Photograph Cherry Valley Dam in Tuolumne County, completed in 1956, is the most recent addition to the City of San Francisco's developments City of San Francisco Photograph SAN FRANCISCO BAY COUNTIES WATER PLAN 47 The watei' problem.s within the San Franei,sco Bay Area portion of the North Bay Counties are unlike those in the South Bay Counties. For the most part tlie development in Marin, Napa, Solano and Sonoma Cox^nties has just befjun while in Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco Counties water supplies have already been obtained to permit and sustain a high degree of development. For this reason pertinent data are summarized for the Nortli Bay Counties and the South Bay Counties in the following discussions of the San Francisco Bay Area. POPULATION Studies of population, covering all of the San Fran- cisco Bay Counties, except San Benito County, were conducted during the investigation authorized by the Abshire-Kelly Salinity Control Barrier Act of 1953 and are discussed in Appendix A of the March 1955 report. Those studies were conducted on the basis of the probable extremes in population. The high pop- ulation estimate reflected a high level of economic activity and the low population estimate reflected a low level of economic activity. Land use patterns, both urban and irrigated agri- cultural, are related to population. It was, therefore, ni>cessary to develop population projections and the lU'cvious estimates of population were used as the starting point of the new study. The objective of the new study was to determine the probable population beginning 1960 and ending in 2010. The population estimates basic to this study were those developed by the firm of Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Hall and Macdonald during its investigation for the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Commission. Those estimates were prei^ared by Mr. Van Beureu Stanbery, a nationally recognized economist and demographer. The basic population estimates were reanalysed and estimates of the probable level of pop- ulation were developed. The original studies, whicli ended with year 1990, were extended to year 2010. The resulting estimates of probable future i)opulation of the San Francisco Bay Counties are presented in Table 12. These estimates were basic to estimates of the future urban water requirements. Population estimates of San Benito County were not included in Mr. Stanbery 's studies nor wei-e tliey de- veloped during the current investigation. Tlie ma- jority of the water requirements in San Benito County will be for irrigation of land which overlies a ground water basin. The relatively small quantity of this land which might change from agricultural to municipal uses would not significantly alter the future water requirements of the basin. LAND USE Urban land use is related directly to population whereas the irrigated agricultural land use is related indirectly to population, since it must develop on the remaining land. Urban demands for land appear to outrank agricultural demands since a greater mone- tary value is placed upon the former. Therefore, xirban demands would probably predominate if there were conflicts between urban and agricultural uses. Esti- mates were prepared of the urban land requirements and then the land available for agriculture was deter- mined. The amount of irrigable land whicli would be irrigated in the future and the probable crop patterns on these lands w-ere also estimated. It was assumed that water would be available at prices which would Ijermit unimpeded development of the land, both for municipal and agricultural purposes. TABLE 12 POPULATION-] 950 TO 2010 SAN FRANCISCO BAY COUNTIES (In thousands) County 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 North Ba.v Counties Marin 85.6 4() . 104.8 103.4 120 70 140 140 170 100 190 180 220 130 250 230 270 170 320 290 310 210 420 360 350 270 Solano 550 Subtotals 340.4 740.3 299.0 14.4 775.4 235.7 290.5 470 940 440 040 1,110 600 830 1,280 760 Not ilcv 840 540 750 1,0,50 1 ,4,50 900 eloiied 860 600 890 1,300 1,600 1,030 1 .620 South Bay Counties Contra Costa _._ _ 1 150 San Benito .San Francisco . _ 800 390 460 820 470 610 880 660 1,030 900 San Mateo _ 7'>0 Subtotals- - - --- 2,355.3 3,030 3,610 4.170 4,700 S.200 5.030 Totals _ _ ___ 2,095.7 3,.500 4,2,50 5,000 5,750 6,500 7,250 48 SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION San Francisco Bay Area The t'litiire land use patterns in the North Bay Counties involve more uncertainties than those of the South Bay Counties where the patterns have, for the most part, been well established. The growth in the South Bay Counties would not have occurred without adequate water supplies. Since the water plan for the North Bay Coiinties has been predicated upon an ade- quate supply of water, it is reasonable to assume that future patterns of land use in the North Bay Counties will be comparable to those in the South Bay Counties. Urban Land Use. Estimates of future urban land use were developed by application of population den- sity factors to the estimates of future population. The density factors were based upon a composite of all types of urban development, i.e., residential, commer- cial, industrial, city parks, institutional and streets. Areas with very limited applied water requirements, such as tank farms, arsenals and salt evaporating ponds, were not included. Consideration was given to existing urban patterns and development trends in each county. The land used for urban purposes in the San Fran- cisco Bay Area would be withdrawn from irrigated, nonirrigated irrigable, or from nouirrigable land. Careful consideration was given to the proportion which would be withdrawn from each of these cate- gories. While it was not possible to develop a detailed pattern of the future Tirban land use, consideration was given to the probable location of new urban de- velopments and the amount of land taken from the irrigable and nouirrigable classifications. Estimates of population and holding capacities of urban centers, prepared by the planning staff of Parsons, Brineker- hoff, Hall and Maedonald, were also used as guides in TABLE 13 URBAN LAND USE-1 960-2010 SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA (In thousands of acres) County 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 North Bay Counties 13 7 10 8 19 10 14 10 26 14 20 14 34 19 27 18 40 23 37 24 47 Napa 30 50 33 38 80 42 26 31 43 53 96 60 26 60 59 74 113 81 26 69 75 98 131 102 26 78 91 124 148 126 26 87 107 160 South Bay Counties 162 Contra Costa 148 San Francisco San Mateo 26 97 Santa Clara ... 120 Subtotals 242 301 364 428 494 553 Totals 280 354 438 520 618 713 distributing the estimated county-wide population to smaller units, and thereby develop a logical distribu- tion of population to various land classes. The esti- mated urban land use in the San Francisco Bay Area is shown in Table 13. Agricultural Land Use. For purposes of estimat- ing the amount of new irrigated land, it was assumeil that a supply of fresh water would be available by 1960 at a price attractive to the farmer, and that districts would be formed to facilitate financing of distribution and drainage s.vstems. Consideration was also given to such factors as the condition of the soil at various .stages of develojiment, the t.vpes of crops best-suited to the soils, the payment cajiacity of the crops, the probable developii;ent stage of distribution systems, market conditions, and the probable period available for agricultural endeavors prior to urban- ization of the ]K)tentially irrigable land. The a : ouut of undeveloped irrigable land in the San Francisco Bay Area portion of the counties in 1949 is presented, by elevation, in Table 14. It is emphasized that not all of this land would be available for new irrigation since some would be withdrawn for urban pnrjioses ; some valleys are high in the mountains and could not economically be served irrigation water; and, many small valleys are similarly isolated or occupy long narrow fingers which would involv(> costly irrigation facilities. New irrigated acreage in Marin County would probabl.v be limited to land along San Pablo Ba>- and Petaluma Creek in the vicinity of Novato. Some of the marshland in that vicinity has been reclaimed for dry-farmed agriculture and would be in a position to use water almost as soon as it could be made avail- able. Marin County has a zoning ordinance which precludes development of land below elevation five feet for residential purposes. Since a large ]iortion of the new irrigated acreage would be below this eleva- tion and would require filling to permit subdivision, it was anticipated that some land would re i^aiii in agriculture until 2010. Land which could be irrigated for the first time in the San Francisco Bay Area portion of Sonoma County lies along the eastern side of Petaluma Creek, generall.v south of its confluence with Adobe Creek, and in the lower reaches of Sonoma Valley. Ill Napa County new land could be developed for irrigation in two separate areas, one north and the other south of the City of Napa. Frban development north of Napa would probabl.v iireelude irrigated agricultural development within four miles of the present central district, and econon.ic considerations would probably limit irrigation with impoi-ted water to land south of Rutherford. The potential areas south of Napa are on both sides of the Napa River and north of the salt evaiiorating ponds. A limited acreage of irrigated agricultural development miglit occur SAN FRANCISCO BAY COUNTIES WATER PLAN 49 TABLE 14 UNDEVELOPED IRRIGABLE LAND IN 1949 SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA (In acres) County Elevation, in feet 0-50 50-100 100-150 150-250 250-500 Over 500 Total North Bay Counties 13,000 15,700 73,200 32,300 2,400 14,800 8,400 11,400 900 10,900 2,400 7,700 2,400 15,600 900 7,400 1,300 8.500 200 3,700 200 3,200 200 68.700 85.100 (JO 700 136,800 21,700 6,200 2,500 6,100 37,000 1,600 3,700 1,400 900 21,900 500 2,400 700 1,800 26,300 1,400 3,200 400 3,100 13,700 20,300 11,200 1,200 5,200 3,600 20.300 4,400 8,300 239.300 0") 800 South Bay Counties ■'5 400 Subtotals -- 36,500 7,600 5,400 8,100 37,900 33,000 128,500 Totals -- 173,300 44,600 27,300 34,400 51,600 30,600 367,800 around Suscol Creek. The rapid southward expan- sion of the City of Napa would probably preclude irrigation of land within three miles of the present central district. In the portion of Solano County within the San Francisco Bay Area, new irrigated acreage would be expected in the marshland ad.iacent to Suisun Bay. About 50,000 acres of this land, lying between sea level and five feet in elevation, would be suitable for irrigation, if properly reclaimed. Most of the re- maining irrigable land in Solano County, within the Sail Francisco Bay Area, is in the Solano Irrigation District and will either receive water from the Solano Project or is geographically situated to annex to tlic Solano Irrigation District. The majority of the land in Alameda County which would be expected to be irrigated for the first time is located in Livermore Valley. It is expected that irrigation of presently dry -farmed land would take place between Pleasantoii and Livermore, and south- east of Livermore. Due to the rapid urbanization of the portion of Alameda County along San Francisco Bay, it is believed that new land would not be brought under irrigation. A similar situation will arise in Contra Costa County where the urban pressure will be great. Al- though there is undeveloped irrigable land in Amador Valley, it is anticipated that it will be developed for urban jourposes .so rapidly that irrigated agricultural development would be uneconomical. The large areas of irrigated land on both the free ground water zone and pressure ground water zone in Santa Clara Vallej^ necessitate separate consideration of each area. A free ground water zone refers to the portion of a ground water basin not overlain by im- 3—51344 pervious layers of soil, and where water can percolate directly from the surface into the ground water basin. A pressure ground water zone refers to the portion of a ground water basin overlain by impervious soils which prevent direct percolation into the ground water basin. The pressure zone is supplied with water from the free ground water zone. Applied irrigation water could not percolate into the pressure zone. Therefore, estimates were made of the probable amount of irrigated land on each zone. The 1955 land use plate presented in State Water Resources Board Bulletin No. 7, "Santa Clara Valley Investigation," indicates that about one-third of the urban develop- ment between 1948-49 and 1955 was on the free ground water zone while two-thirds was on the pres- sure zone. It was assumed that the same proportion would occur until 1990. From 1990 to 2010. the dis- tribution between each zone would be equal since the pressure zone would be quite well-developed. Signifi- cant amounts of new irrigated land are not antici- pated in Santa Clara County. The undeveloped irrigable land in San Mateo County is largely on the Pacific Ocean slopes in scat- tered locations and could be economically developed only by small local projects. Therefore, a detailed study was not made of this area. The amount of land presently irrigated which will remain under irriga- tion in the future, and the amount of land which is not now irrigated but will be irrigated in the future are shown in Table 15. These acreages apply only to the portions of the counties within the San Francisco Bay Area. A crop pattern was developed for the future acre- age of irrigated land to derive the future agricultural water requirements. In areas well-developed for irri- 50 SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION TABLE 15 PRESENT AND NEW IRRIGATED LAND-1960 TO 2010 SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA (In thousands of ocres) 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 County Present New Present New Present New Present New Present New Present New North Bay Counties 0.5 2.4 9.2 1.4 2.0 0.3 2.1 11.7 1.3 5.0 4.0 10.0 9.0 0.2 2.0 11.7 1.1 4.2 6.6 17.5 18.0 0.1 1.9 9.7 1.0 3.0 7.4 25.0 21.4 0.1 1.7 6.4 0.9 2.0 5.6 31.0 23.4 0.1 1.3 2.2 0.8 1.0 Nana . 3.0 « 1 ,.-r35-0 22.9 Subtotals -- -- - 13.. 5 21.1 4.7 4.7 57.0 34.0 2.0 15.4 12.8 2.4 3.8 53.0 2fi.O 28.0 3.0 15.0 r..3 0.5 3.4 49.0 19.0 46.3 8.0 12.7 3.3 3.1 45.0 12.0 56.8 8.0 9.1 0.3 2.5 40.0 6.0 62.0 5.0 4.4 0.3 1.9 35.0 2.0 61.9 South Bay Counties 2.0 San Mateo - - Santa Clara 121.5 98.0 3.0 78.2 8.0 63.4 8.0 48.8 5.0 39.2 2.0 Totals -- 135.0 2.0 113.4 31.0 93.2 54.3 76.1 64.8 57.9 67.0 43.6 63.9 gation, patterns have been p;enerally established and these patterns were assumed to continue during the next 50 years. The projected crop patterns included consideration of established patterns, patterns in comparable areas, urban competition for land which would induce higher value crops, and the sequence of crops which might be necessary to bring virgin land into full production. The yields and net returns of various crops were considered and, in eases where physical conditions would permit alternative crops, those with the highest net return were assumed to occupy the land. North Coastal Area The trend of land use patterns is not fixed in the portions of Marin and Sonoma Counties within the North Coastal Area. It is expected that only limited urban and irrigated agricultural development will oc- cur in Marin County during the 50-year pei-iod. How- ever, a significant development is expected in Sonoma County. Urban Land Use. The total urban land require- ments in Sonoma County in 2010 will probably not exceed 20,000 acres, and a large portion of the urban development will occur on nonirrigable land. There is a large amount of undeveloped irrigable land in Sonoma County and, therefore, urban land use will have little influence on tlie development of irrigated agriculture. Agricultural Land Use. There are only negligible areas of irrigated agriculture in Marin County. These areas are relatively small and widely scattered along numerous creeks. The productivity of these lands is limited by climatic conditions and, therefore, even with a firm water supply, their payment capacity would be low. The scattered location of the areas would involve excessive costs for development of either imported or local water resources. For these reasons, reportable acreages of newly irrigated land are not expected in the portion of Marin County in the North Coastal Area. Although the ultimate net irrigable area in the portion of Sonoma County in the North Coastal Area, as shown in State "Water Resources Board Bulletin No. 2, is about 190,000 acres, the development during the 1960-2010 period will depend somewhat u|iou the price of water available for agricultural uses. The most favorably located lands, with respect to large scale irrigation development, are on the Santa Rosa Plains and along the Ru.ssian River and Dry Creek. A large portion of the irrigable land is in isolated valleys and on rolling land amenable only to sprin- kler irrigation. The "Whipple Engineering Company, Consulting Engineers of Palo Alto, California, prepared a re- port for the Sonoma County Flood Control and "Water Conservation District in 1950. That report included an intensive analysis of agricultural development in Sonoma County and was used in estimating the fu- ture irrigated agricultural development in the por- tion of Sonoma County in the North Coastal Area. The estimates prepared by "Whipple Engineering Company were also used by the United States Corps of Engineei-s in its study of the Coyote Valley Proj- ect. The estimated future irrigated acreage in this ar<>a is shown in Table 16. SAN FRANCISCO BAY COUNTIES WATER PLAN 51 TABLE 16 ESTIMATED IRRIGATED ACREAGE IN SONOMA COUNTY, NORTH COASTAL AREA (In acres) Year Amount 1960 - -- 13.800 1970 1980 ..- - .-- 19.200 24.700 1990 30,200 2000 2010 3.5.700 40.600 Central Valley Area Portions of Napa, Solauo, Contra Costa, Alameda and San B(Miito Counties lie within tlie Central Valley Area. The seetion of Napa County in this area is in 9 the upper Putah Creek drainage basin. Extensive urban development is not anticipated in this area and the irrigable land lies in small scattered valh^ys which can be developed most readily from limited local water supplies. The small portion of Alameda County in the Cen- tral Valley Area lies on the eastern slope of the Coast ' Ranges. There would be only limited, if any, urban development in this section during the 1960-2010 period. Urban development in the portion of San Benito County in the Central Valley Area is also not anticipated, and irrigated agricultural development will probably be limited to local water supplies. Large scale development will be dependent upon imported supplies from the Central Vallej% and, as the irrigable area lies between 1,000 and 1,500 feet in elevation, this will probably not occur during the period under study. Urban Land Use. It is estimated that about » 10,000 acres of land will be recpiired for urban pur- poses in Solano County. Tlie ma.iority of tliis develop- ment will occur 1111 irrigated land which will result in little cliange in over-all water requirement. A detailed analysis of the future urban land use was not made for the portion of Contra Costa County in the Central Valley Area since ( 1 ) the areas con- sidered susceptible to urban development during the next 50 years can be served water from tlie Contra Costa Canal or from facilities of the East Contra Costa or Byron-Bethany Irrigation Districts, and (2) a change from irrigated agriculture to urban land use usually results in little change in over-all water requirement. Industries which require large quantities * of water will probably continue to locate along the northeast fringe of the county and rec(>ive water from either the Contra Costa Canal or from tlie San Joa- » quill River. Agricultural Land Use, A large portion of the irrigable land in the Central Valley Area portion of Solano County is contained within the Solano Irriga- tion District wiiich is shown on I 'late 9. This area will be served supplemental water from the Solano Project. There is also a relatively large area between the Solano Irrigation District and the areas presently served by diversions from the Delta. This land is in a position to very easily receive water fioin the Solano Project and was considered by the I'liited States Bureau of Reclamation in its planning of the project. The Solano Project is under construction and will supply water in conjunction with local gi-ound water supplies to meet the reqviirements of the Solano Irri- gation District. Therefore, the District will not need additional supplemental water during the study ]W- riod. In the portion of the county outside of the dis- trict, the better irri;rable land is adjacent to the Delta and is presently irrigated by direct diversion. There are also some poorer ii-rigable lands, with heavy soils, which lie between the probable service area of the Solano Project and the Delta. The Maine Pairie Water Association, Inc. was created in 1956 to develop about 7,500 acres of this land from Delta water sup- plies. Further development of this area, by diversion from the Delta, will probably occur. Most of the irrigable land in Contra Costa County is presently irrigated in the districts shown on Plate 9. The undeveloped irrigable land is in long, narrow valleys adjacent to the existing districts and at higher elevations. If these areas are developed for irrigation, they would probably be annexed to the existing dis- tricts. As in Contra Costa County, the majority of iri-iga- ble land in Alameda County in the Central Valley Area which is economically feasible for development is presently irrigated. This land is within the Byron- Bethany Irrigation District. Cenfral Coastal Area Portions of Santa Clara and San Benito Counties lie within the Central Coa.stal Area. A large section of San Benito County lies in the upper watershed of the San Benito River. The irrigable land is in scattered valleys at relatively high elevations and irri- gated agricultural development will be dc]ieudeiit upon local water resources. The studies on San Benito County have been devoted priuciiially to the areas around Ilollisler and in the San Juan Valley. Urban Land Use. The future water re(|niremeuts of the portion of Santa Clara County in the Central Coastal Area may be considered on an area-wide basis since (1) the urban land use will be relatively small compared to the irrigated land use in 2010 (about 5.000 acres comimred to about 45,000 acres, respec- tively), and (2) urban development will be largely on 52 SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION land presently irrigated and will, therefore, have only a slight effect on water requirements. Therefore, detailed estimates were not made of the urban land i-i'f|uirements. The future urban land requirements in San Benito County will have little bearing on the future water requirements of the area since the population growth will be nominal. Therefore, estimates were not pre- pared of urban land requirements of San Benito County. Agricultural Land Use. The irrigable land in Santa Clara County in the Central Coastal Area is largely developed for irrigation at the present time. The South Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District includes this area and is actively developing local water resources to meet the local water require- ments. The irrigable land in San Benito County is located principally around Hollister and in the San Juan Valley at the lower end of the San Benito River. The United States Bureau of Reclamation conducted an investigation of the Hollister area including San Juan Valley in 1950-53. It was concluded that the produc- tive land in the area is about 53,000 acres, excluding farmsteads and roads, of which about 49,300 acres would be irrigated in any one year under full develop- ment. About 32,400 acres are presently irrigated from ground water supplies but do not receive sufficient water for optimum crop yields. An estimate of the future irrigated acreage was not made by decades. WATER REQUIREMENTS Water requirements, as the term is used in this bulletin, ai'e the amounts of water which must be sup- plied in addition to precipitation to provide for all beneficial uses and for irrecoverable losses incidental to such uses. San Francisco Bay Area The studies of water requirements of the San Fran- cisco Bay Area were based upon the detailed studies on population and land use. Urban Water Requirements. The urban water re- quirements of the San Francisco Bay Area were esti- mated through use of the population-water factor method. In this method, the required urban water delivery is determined by applying a per capita water use factor to the population. In preparation of State Water Resources Board Bulletin No. 2, "Water Utilization and Requirements of California." factors of urban water utilization were estimated for condi- tions of ultimate development by considering present trends and estimating the effects of changing land use patterns. The urban water requirement factors were developed for areas of like climatic conditions and not necessarily on a county-wide basis. These require- ments would be measured at the consumer's meter. An additional 10 per cent would be required at the point of diversion to attain this delivery. In the current study, the ultimate water use factors developed for State Water Resources Board Bulletin No. 2 were used for the j^ear 2010 ; factors for inter- mediate years were obtained by straight line inter- polation. Factors were developed for the North Bay Counties for 1970 after considering estimates of in- dustrial development for that year, and factors for intermediate years were obtained by straight line in- terpolation between 1950 and 1970, and between 1970 and the ultimate factors used for 2010. The estimated urban water requirements are pre- sented by the portions of counties within the San Francisco Bay Area in Table 17. These estimates in- clude allowances for distribution losses. TABLE 17 ESTIMATED URBAN WATER REQUIREMENTS SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA (In thousands of acre-feet) County 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 North Bay Counties Marin . 16 12 20 7 24 17 28 11 33 23 39 17 43 31 50 25 53 39 66 35 63 Napa 52 88 Sonoma 49 Subtotals South Bay Counties 55 135 138 89 64 78 80 164 178 92 79 105 112 198 209 95 93 132 149 231 234 98 105 159 193 264 254 102 117 186 252 289 Contra Costa 267 105 San Mateo 131 Santa Clara 210 Subtotals -- - 504 618 727 827 923 1,002 Totals 559 698 839 976 1,116 1,254 Irrigation Water Requirements. Future irriga- tion water requirements were estimated bj' computing the consumptive use of the various crops utilizing the Blaney-Criddle method. This method gives considera- tion to the length of growing season, the thermal units and the eft'ective precipitation for each crop. Con- sumptive use coefficients have been developed by the authors through experimentation. Future irrigation water deliveries were then obtained by appl.ving con- sumptive use factors to the estimated acreage of varioiis crops grown on the future irrigated land and using an irrigation efficiency of 60 per cent. On laud overlying free ground water zones, it was assumed 30 per cent would percolate to ground water, and 10 per cent would be irrecoverably lost. In Livermore and Santa Clara Valleys considera- tion was given to the application of water to lands overlying free ground water zones, and 30 per cent was a.ssumed to be available for reuse. Based upon data i)resented in Bulletin 7, an irrigation efficiency SAN FRANCISCO BAY COUNTIES WATER PLAN 53 of 85 percent was considered in the extensive pressure zone in Santa Clara Valley. It was assumed that the remaining 15 per cent would not be available for reuse. Similar consideration was given to the pressure zone in Livermore Valley. Due to the limited extent of the free ground water zone along the bayside of Alameda County, reuse of return water was not con- sidered. The estimated future irrigation water requirements within the San Francisco Bay Area portion of the counties are presented in Table 18. The decrease in requirements after 1980 reflects the changeover from irrigation to urban land use. TABLE 18 ESTIMATED IRRIGATION WATER REQUIREMENTS SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA (In thousands of acre-feet) County 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 North Bay Counties Marin Napa Solano 8 5 2.5 4 10 17 67 31 13 24 91 57 9 26 109 65 6 20 116 69 3 11 113 Sonoma 66 Subtotals South Bay Counties Alameda 42 47 13 8 146 56 131 31 7 6 130 43 183 30 2 6 125 31 209 25 5 114 20 211 12 4 101 9 193 5 3 Santa Clara Free ground water zone Pressure ground water zone _ 88 3 Subtotals 270 226 194 164 126 99 Totals.- -_- 312 357 379 373 337 292 North Coasfal Area As described in the foregoing sections, significant urban and irrigated agricultural land use will develop only in Sonoma County. The urban water require- ments were related to the portion of the population previoiLsly described which would settle in the area. Per capita water requirement factors, with an allow- ance of 10 per cent for distribution system losses, TABLE 19 ESTIMATED URBAN AND IRRIGATION WATER REQUIREMENTS IN SONOMA COUNTY NORTH COASTAL AREA (In acre-feet) Year Urban Irrigation 1960 _ 11.000 14.000 18.000 23,000 28.000 33,000 28 000 1970 38.000 1980 48,000 1990 57,000 67,000 75 000 2000 2010 .. were applied to the po|nilation estimates. The future irrigation water re(inircineiits were based ujjon studies made by Whipjile Engineering Company. Tlie esti- mated urban and irrigation water requirements of So- noma County M'ithin the North Coastal Area, are presented in Table 1!). Centra/ Valley Area Water for the portions of the San Francisco Bay Counties within the Central ^'allcy Area will be re- quired mainly in Solano and Contra Costa Counties. Limited local supplies will be utilized in Napa and San Benito Counties and in Alameda Coiint.v water will be diverted from the Delta. Urban Water Requirements. The future iir])an water requirements within Solano County will be largely within the service area of the Solano Project. Rio Vista, on the Sacramento River, would be an ex- ception. The annual urban water requirements M'ill increase from about 3,000 acre-feet at present to about 20,000 acre-feet in year 2010. The Solano Project and local ground water resources will provide sufficient water to meet these requirements. The urban reqiTirements in Contra Costa County will also be largely within organized water service agencies which will be able to meet the demands. A large portion of the requirements will be for indus- trial purposes which will probably be met by direct diversion from the San Joaquin River. Detailed esti- mates of the total requirements were not made due to the location of the county with respect to available supplies. Irrigation Water Requirements. The water re- quirements of most of the irrigable land in Solano County can be met from ground water, the Solano Project, and direct diversions from the Delta. Fur- ther development of irrigable land can be accom- plished by additional diversions from the Delta of water made available by the Central Valley Project or the Feather River Project. Detailed estimates were not made of the water requirements of Solano County. The irrigable areas in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties are largely developed with .sujiplies diverted from the Delta. Extension of the irrigated acreage, if any, can be developed with water from the same source. Therefore, the water retjuirenients of the area were not computed. Cenfra/ Coastal Area Detailed studies were not made for the urban water requii-ements of the portions of Santa Clara and San Benito Counties within the Central Coastal Area since the relatively small urban development would occur on irrigated land and the effect on total water retiuire- ments would be minor. 54 SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION Santa Clara County is almost wholl.y developed for irrigated agriculture. Only limited areas of dry- farmed land are scattered throughout the irrigated area. Data presented in State Water Resources Board Bulletin No. 7 indicate that local water supplies are adequate to meet the ultimate rei|uirements. In the studies of the Holli.ster area of San Benito County, conducted by the United States Bureau of Reclamation, it was concluded that the land presently under irrigation, 32,400 acres, would require about 62,000 acre-feet annually for optimum crop yields. About 52,000 acre-feet are presently being applied. It was estimated that the area would require about 100,- 000 acre-feet annually under full development. WATER SUPPLIES To determine the supjilemental water requirement, i.e., the amount of water needed in addition to pres- ently available supplies, it was necessary to evaluate the yields of present and foreseeable water supplies. It was also necessary to assume a distribution of those yields to potential service areas. As used in this study, yield is synonymous with safe yield and is defined as follows : Yield is the amount of water which can be obtained annually from a given source under stated conditions of eon- ■struction, or other limiting factors without a defi- ciency in any year. San Francisco Bay Area To facilitate presentation, the water supplies of the San Francisco Bay Area were considered as local sup- plies and imported sujiplies. The local supplies would be utilized principally within the county in which they exist while imjiorted supplies might be utilized in more than one county. Local Water Supplies. The estimated yields of local supplies were obtained from data developed for State Water Resources Board Bulletin No. 2, and are limited to works constructed to 1955. The studies of surface supplies considered the monthly demand schedule for intended uses and losses due to evapora- tion. The local yields were measured at the reservoirs, and do not reflect limitations which might be imposed by presently constructed conveyance works. The water supply available to .surface storage reservoirs was de- termined from stream flow records, or estimated by means of correlation with records of streams having similar runoff characteristics. Yields of ground water basins were based upon the best available information at this date. The local surface water supplies within the San Francisco Bay Area would be utilized almost entirely for urban purposes. The ground water supplies, in- cluding water fi-om those basins operated conjunc- tively with surface reservoirs, were assumed to be available for irrigation purposes and when not any longer required for this use, would be available for urban purposes. There has been a tendency to abandon ground water supplies in favor of surface supplies for urban purposes. This has occurred in San Francisco and in other localities of the Bay Area where the yield from ground water sources was limited. It was as- sumed that not more than 6,000 acre-feet from ground water in Solano County would be utilized for urban purposes when not required for irrigation purposes, and in San Mateo Countj' 4,000 acre-feet of the ground water supplies would not be used for urban purposes when not required for agricultural purposes. The local water supplies would be used within the county in which they exist, except for the yield of Calaveras Reservoir in Alameda County which is owned and operated by the San Francisco Water Department. The yield of this reservoir would be distributed by the San Francisco Water Department. The estimated firm annual yields of the local water supplies within the portions of the Bay Counties in the San Francisco Ba.y Area are presented in Table 20. TABLE 20 LOCAL WATER SUPPLIES SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA (In acre-feet) County ■ Surface supplies Underground supplies Total Marin - - -- 19,000 2,000 16,000 5,000 132,000 12,000 8,000 (comb 11,000 3,500 (comb minor 4,000 6,000 8,000 17,000 31,000 8,000 ined) 13,000 12,500 ined) 19,000 6,000 22,000 13,000 Alameda Livermore Valley Bavside 49,000 43,000 16,000 175.000 San Mateo 24,000 16,000 11,000 1 Yield of Calaveras Reservoir wliicli is owned and operated by the Han Francisco Water Department. Imported Water Supplies. Unlike the South Bay Counties, the North Bay Counties have only recently looked to outside areas for imported water supplies. The potential yields of the importation works, shown on Plate 9, were assumed to be restricted to the condi- tions set forth in applications to the State of Cali- fornia for water rights or to estimates of yields pre- pared by the constructing agency. The City of Vallejo has a permit from the State Water Rights Board to divert a constant flow of 31.52 second-feet from Cache Slough. This is equivalent to approximately 23,000 acre-feet per year which was taken as the yield of the system. It was assumed that the portion of this supply not required by Vallejo would be available for distribution in .southern Napa SAN FRANCISCO BAY COUNTIES WATER PLAN 55 County. Approximately 9,600 aere-feet of water were diverted from Cache Slough during 1956. The United States Bureau of Reclamation is pres- ently constructing Monticello Dam across Putah Creek west of the town of Winters. This dam, together with its appurtenant features, is officially entitled the Solano Project. The Bureau of Reclamation has esti- mated that tliis project will be completed in 1958 and will yield 216,000 acre-feet of water for agricultural uses, and 31,000 acre-feet of water for municipal and industrial uses. The proposed service area of the Solano Project lies entirely within Solano County, extending from north of Dixon to west of Cordelia. Thei-efore, only a portion of the service area lies within the San Francisco Bay Area. It was estimated that about .')5,000 acre-feet will be required in the San Francisco Bay Area. The City of Vallejo has contracted for 15,000 acre-feet of water, and a portion of the quantity not required by the City woidd be available for distribution in southern Napa County. Of the remaining 40,000 acre-feet available to the San Francisco Bay Area, up to 25,000 acre-feet would be available for irrigation uses and the remainder for urban uses. As urban development replaces irrigation development, the irrigation supplies were assumed to become available for urban purposes. It was further assumed that Solano Project water would not be available for irrigation use outside of the Solano Irrigation District. The South Bay Counties presentl.y import water from the Central Valley Area through three major systems: (1) the Contra Costa Canal, diverting from the Delta ; ( 2 ) the IMokelumne River system of the East Bay Municipal Utility District; and, (3) Hetch Hetehy system of the City of San Francisco. The amounts of water which can be depended upon from these projects, and certain limitations placed thereon, are described in the following paragraphs. The Contra Costa Canal was built with a capacity of 350 second-feet at the point of diversion by the United States Bureau of Reclamation as a feature of the Central Valley Project. The capacity is presently limited by installed pump facilities to 310 second-feet at that point. The canal has a capacity of only 269 second-feet where it enters the San Francisco Bay Area. Studies were made to detei-mine the amount of water which might be available to the Bay Area through this canal, including pumping facilities with ultimate capacity, but not including additional regu- latory storage. This study indicated that 146,000 acre- feet of water could be imported annually to the San Francisco Bay Area and would be distributed by the Contra Costa County Water District. This amount was taken as the yield of the canal as it relates to the San Francisco Bay Area. In 1956, approximately 46,200 acre-feet of water were diverted into the canal at Pumping Plant No. 1. The East Bay Municipal Utility District has de- veloped the Mokelumne River under terms of a permit from the State Water Rights Board for diversion of 224,000 acre-feet of water per year (200 M.G.D.) to its service area as shown on Plate 9. All of the storage works necessary to develop this water have been con- structed and present conveyance works are capable of delivering the entire amount. Approximately 122,- 000 acre-feet of water were imported to the San Fran- cisco Bay Area through the Mokelumne Aqueduct during 1955. The District has recently been granted a permit for an additional 140,000 acre-feet of water. Since the District has always increased the size of its conveyance system to keep pace with demands, the de- pendable yieid of the Mokelumne River system is con- sidered to be 364,000 acre-feet of water per year. This system would supply water to meet the requirements, in excess of the yield of local supplies within the serv- ice area of the district. The City of San Francisco claims a right to in ex- cess of 448,000 acre-feet of water per year (400 M.G.D.) from the Tuolumne River. The claim of the City of San Francisco is based upon water rights filed prior to the Water Commission Act and, therefore, the place of intended use is not specifically defined. The City proposes to import at least 448,000 acre-feet to the San Francisco Bay Area through an expanded Hetch Hetehy system. At the present time, neither the storage reservoirs nor the conveyance system is capable of importing more than about 157,000 acre- feet of water per year; the maximum importation to date was 123,000 aere-feet. made during the 19.54-55 water year. A yield of at least 448,000 acre-feet of water can be developed if the City of San Francisco carries its present plans to conclusion. This supply would be available to meet the urban requirements as the Raker Act prohibits its use for irrigation pur- poses. It is anticipated that this supply would be used to supplement the local supplies in San Francisco and San Mateo Counties.. In addition, the City of San Francisco has stated its willingness to supply supple- mental water in northern Santa Clara Valley and in the southern bayside portion of Alameda County. Local interests in these two areas have not yet specifi- cally indicated whether they desire water from this source and, therefore, it is not possible to specify the amounts of water which will be furnished. The State Legislature has authorized the Alameda- Contra Costa-Santa Clara-San Benito Branch of the Feather River Project Aqueduct as a feature of The California Water Plan and has also provided funds for plans and specifications. Tliis branch, wiiich is re- ferred to herein as the South Bay Aqueduct, would import water from the Central Valley to serve the supjdemental water requirements in Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara and San Benito Counties. The magnitude of the supplemental requirements in these Monticello Dam during construction U. S. Bureau of Redamation Phoiograph Putah South Canal U. S. Bureau of Reclamation Photograph SAN FRANCISCO BAY COUNTIES WATER PLAN 57 counties is currently being studied in cooperation with f local water service agencies. In Alameda and Santa Clara Counties tlie requirements will be dependent upon tlie amount of water supplied by the San Fran- cisco Water Department, and the desires of the local * agencies have not been fully expressed on this matter. When the demands from the South Bay Aqueduct have been determined, the aqueduct will be designed to meet these demands. Norfh Coastal Area The description of water supplies in the portions of the San Francisco Ba.y Counties lying in the North Coastal Area is limited to Sonoma County, since the , requirements in Marin County will be relatively small and will be met from local sources. Local Water Supplies. In studies by the United ►' States Corps of Engineers for the Coyote Valley Project, the annual yield of local sources in Sonoma County was estimated at 44,000 acre-feet. The annual yield of sources within the San Francisco Bay Area has been estimated at about 6,000 acre-feet indicating a supply of 38,000 acre-feet in the portion of Sononui County in the North Coastal Area. This supply is mainly from ground water and was considered as a portion of the total suppl.y to be utilized for urban and irrigation purposes. Imported Water Supplies. The Coyote Valley Project is presently being constructed by the United States Corps of Engineers on the East Fork of the Russian River in Mendocino County. In addition to flood control, this project will produce a Ann annual conservation yield of 60.000 acre-feet of which 5,000 acre-feet will be available to Mendocino County, and 55,000 acre-feet to Sonoma County which will be avail- able for Tirban and irrigation u.ses. Water will be released from the reservoir into the Russian River and will be directed into main convey- ance systems for transmission to service areas. Bonds are available to tlie Sonoma County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for construction of the main conveyance systems. These works will be con- structed by the District when local agencies have con- tracted with the District for water to assure financial feasibility of the facilities. An estimate of the distribution of local and im- ported supplies in Sonoma County was not attempted. The ground water supplies will probably be utilized primarily for irrigation. In 1950, about 19,000 acre- feet were used for irrigation, and 7,200 acre-feet were \ised for urban purposes. The proposed conveyance systems from the Russian River will be used for both irrigation and urban purposes. The total annual sup- ply in Sonoma County, 9:5,000 acre-feet, inchuling the yield from the Coyote Valley Project, would be avail- able for all purposes within the portion of Sonoma County in the North Coastal Area. Central Valley Area Portions of two counties, Napa and San Benito County, within the Central Valley Area have limited water supplies, while portions of Solano and Contra Costa County have ample supplies at the present time aiul are in an ideal position for further diversion from the Delta. Local Water Supplies. Present local water devel- opments in Napa County are limited to small diver- sions from local streams. The combined yields from these sources are considered to be less than 1,000 acre- feet per year. Water is available in Solano County from the So- lano Project, ground water basins, and from the Delta. It is estimated that about 190,000 acre-feet will be available to the portion of Solano County in the Central Valley Area from the Solano Project. Under present operation practices, the diversions from the Delta for irrigation are relatively large, reflecting low pumping costs. This water is obtained from the Sacramento River. Water is diverted fi-om the Delta for irrigation of the portions of Contra Costa and Alameda Counties in the Central Valley Area. These supplies are used in conjunction with local ground water supplies. Data are not available on the quantities \jtilized from each source. The supplies are considered adequate to meet the requirements. Ground water is available in limited quantities in Panoche Valley in San Benito County. Imported Water Supplies. Although the intake of the Contra Costa Canal is located in Contra Costa County, it is an import system since the source of supply is from Central Valley Project storage facili- ties located in the Sacramento Valley. The yield of the Contra Costa Canal available to the portion of Contra Costa County within the Central Valley Area is de- pendent upon the demand schedules of the diverters. The demand schedules would be quite uniform since the water would be used primarily for industrial and municipal purposes. However, detailed schedules were not developed. Central Coastal Area Development in the portions of Santa Clara and San Benito Counties within the Central Coastal Area has thus far been limited to local supplies. The local supplies in Santa Clara County, wlien developed, will be adequate to meet the future water requirements while San Benito County will require imported sup- plemental water. 58 SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION Local Water Supplies. The water supplies of Santa Clara t-oiiiity aro described in detail in State Water Kesonrees Board Bidletin No. 7. The yield of the ground water basin is about 45,000 acre-feet, in- eludinfj 5,700 acre-feet from conjunctive operation of Chesbro Reservoir on Llaf^as Creek. The South Santa Clara Valley "Water Conservation District is currently constructing a dam and reservoir on TTvas Creek with storage capacity of 10,000 acre-feet. This reservoir and the pipeline to percolation areas on Llagas Creek will yield about 10,000 acre-feet anmially, if operated in conjunction with Chesbro Reservoir. The yield of the project could be increased to 16,300 acre-feet by en- larging the reservoir to 34,000 acre-feet of storage capacity. The present safe annual supply is 55,000 aere-feet, and this could be increased to about 61,000 acre-feet. The Ilolli.ster Irrigation District and the Pacheco Pass Water District in the IloUister area have con- structed works for supplementing the natural ground water recharge. These districts are shown on Plate 9. The Hollister Irrigation District has a diversion dam on the San Benito River which diverts water to the Paicines Reservoir which has a storage capacity of 3,000 acre-feet. The yield of this project is less than 1,000 acre-feet. The Pacheco Pass Water Di.strict op- erates the North Fork Reservoir which has a storage capacity of 6,000 acre-feet, for regulating flows for ground water recharge along Pacheco Creek. It is esti- mated that the increase in percolation due to releases from this reservoir has averaged 2,700 acre-feet an- nually. The safe annual yield of the ground water basin is 45,000 acre-feet, including the supplemental recharge from the above works. This yield was assumed to be available for both urban and irrigation purposes. The City of Hollister annually pumps about 400 acre-feet of ground water from Cienega Valley and conveys this water by pipeline to the city. Cienega Valley is located about six miles south of Hollister and is within the San Benito River Basin. Hollister is also supplied with about 400 acre-feet annuallj^ from the local ground water basin. It was estimated by the United States Bureau of Reclanuitioii that 47,000 acre-feet of the average annual runoff of San Benito River, Tres Pinos and Pacheco Creeks do not contribute to the present supply of the Hollister area. This water could be con- sidered for future development. Projects on San Benito River and Pacheco Creek studied by the Bii- reau of Reclamation would have a firm annual yield of about 14,000 aere-feet. In addition to providing water within the San Francisco Ba.y Area, the South Bay Aqueduct M'ould supply water to San Benito County. Studies are being conducted by local agencies to determine their esti- mates of water requirements from the aqueduct. SUPPLEMENTAL WATER REQUIREMENTS Supplemental water requirements are defined herein as the diiference between water requirements and available supplies. San Francisco Bay Area The supplemental urban and irrigation water re- quirements of the portions of the North Bay Coun- ties within the San Francisco Ba.v Area are shown in Table 21. As previously discussed, the Soiith Bay Aqueduct of the authorized Feather River Project would be designed to meet the requirements of Liver- more Valley in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, the southern bayside portion of Alameda County and northern Santa Clara Covmty which would not be met by local supplies or purchases from the San Francisco Water Department. Therefore, estimates of the sup- plemental water requirements only in the North Bay Counties within the San Francisco Bay Area are in- cluded in Table 21. North Coasial Area The siTpplemental water requirements of the por- tion of Sonoma Count.v within the North Coastal Area are shown in Table 22. TABLE 21 ESTIMATED SUPPLEMENTAL WATER REQUIREMENTS SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA (In thousands of acre-feet) County 1900 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Urban Irrigation Urban Irrigation Urban Irrigation Urban Irrigation Urban Irrigation Urban Irrigation Marin- 5 8 5 9 IG 11 34 27 14 IS 13 18 58 53 24 4 23 9 20 81 61 34 8 9 33 6 14 97 65 44 23 18 47 3 5 Solano 106 62 Totals 5 8 14 88 29 142 51 171 84 182 132 176 SAN FRANCISCO BAY COUNTIES WATER I'LAX 59 TABLE 22 ESTIMATED SUPPLEMENTAL WATER REQUIREMENTS SONOMA COUNTY, NORTH COASTAL AREA {In acre-feet) Year Amount I960- 1970... . . 1980 --• 1990 2000 2010 2,000 15,000 Cenfral Valley Area Based upon the analyses previously described, the portions of the counties within the Central Valley Area would not have water requirements beyond the capacity of the present sources of supply. Cenfral Coasial Area The portion of Santa Clara County within the Central Coastal Area has local supplies wliieh, if fully developed, would be sufficient to meet the ultimate requirements of the area. The portion of San Benito County within the Cen- tral Coastal Area will require imported water from the South Bay Aqueduct. Under present conditions, the average annual overdraft on the ground water basin in the Hollister area is about 7.000 acre-feet. About 10,000 acre-feet annually could be beneficially used to produce optimum yields on presently irri- gated land. The supplemental re(iuirement to meet full development is about 55,000 acre-feet annually. An annual yield of about 14,000 acre-feet from local supplies could be developed. The co.st, however, would be about the same as the cost of imported water and would supply only a jiortion of existing deficiencies. It appears reasonable to consider importation of about 40,000 acre-feet annually at this time, and when this supply is fully utilized, give further consideration to development of local supplies or additional imports. It is believed that the use of an imported sujiply would increase to about 20,000 acre-feet per year 10 years after the initial delivery, to about 30,000 acre- feet per year after 20 years, and to 40,000 acre-feet per year by the end of 30 years. WATER PLAN The San Francisco Bay System creates a natural division between the North Bay Counties and the South Bay Counties. From the viewpoint of water re- qitirements there is also a division between the North Bay Counties and the South Bay Counties. The de- velopment in the North Bay Counties is only starting as compared to the South Bay Counties. The existing local water supplies in all of the counties have largely been developed, and ina.jor import systems liavc iicen constructed and authorized for the South Bay Coun- ties. To permit continued development in the North Bay Counties, it will be necessary to provide imported water. North Bay Counfies Water Plan In foriiuilating a ])htn capable of developing and delivering sufficient water to meet the future demands of the North Bay Counties, it was necessary to con- sider not only the quantities of water which would be required, but also the location of those require- ments and the purpose for which the water would be used. It was found that entirely different conclusions could be drawn if plans were developed upon different assumptions. Recognizing the importance of the basic assumptions, those used in developing the North Bay Counties Water Plan are restated below : 1. Plan for 1960-2010 period. 2. Provide for both ui-ban and irrigation demands. 3. Protection to areas of origin. 4. Supplement existing facilities. 5. Need must be demonstrated. 6. Works are to be economically justified and fi- nancially feasible. 7. Desire for plan must be demonstrated. The influence of these assumptions will be apparent in the planning described in the following sections. It has been jiointed out that supplemental water will be required at an early date to meet the rapid growth in those portions of Marin, Sonoma, Napa and Solano Counties which drain directly to Suisuu and San Pablo Bays. Nearly all additional development in Petaluma and Sonoma Valleys, both municipal and agricultural, must be supplied with imported water. Without these supplies, the standstill, which develop- ment in the area appears to have reached, will con- tinue. The California Water Plan. The California Water Plan provides a means of conserving and conveying sufficient water to meet the demands of all areas of the State under iiltimate conditions of development. Under The Plan, this water would be provided by both local and import systems. The California Water Plan was designed as a long-ranged solution to water problems throughout California. The Plan, as presented in State Water Resources Board Bulletin No. 3, is intended to serve as a guide in selecting future water resources develop- ments, and is designed .so that future projects will fit into a logical pattern which Avill work for the benefit of all areas of the State. The California Water Plan is not a construction proposal, nor is it a hard and fast listing of individual projects whicli will be con- structed at some future date. Before a unit of The 60 SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION Plan could actually be proposed as a project for con- struction, detailed studies would be retpiired, includ- ing: the impact of projects on local areas, water rights, and all other matters affecting feasibility. The California Water Plan includes provisions for supplying water to the North Bay Counties through the development of runoff from local streams, and by in:])()rting water from the Eel River, from Putah Creek, and from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Both local and import projects were considered in develo])ing a North Bay Counties Water Plan which woidd be economically warranted during the next 50 years. Eel River projects include provisions for bringing additional water from the Eel River into the Russian River Basin and into the Putah Creek Basin. These projects were found to be too large and too expensive for consideration for the North Bay Counties alone. Insufficient data exist regarding the times and quan- tities of water needed elsewhere in the State to be assured of state-wide justification of these projects soon enough to provide the water needed for the North Bay Counties in the very near future. Nearly all of the water of the Putah Creek Basin has been assigned to the Solano Project, or to users within the drainage basin, by the State Water Rights Board. Before plans can be developed for exporting water from that basin, a means must be found of aiigmenting the natural supply. Under The California Water Plan, this would be accomplished by transfer- ring Eel River water through the Cache Creek Basin into the Putah Creek Basin. Therefore, the conclusion that Eel River supplies could not be depended upon during the 1960-2010 period precluded consideration of bringing water into Napa Valley from the Putah Creek Basin. This conclusion also raised doubts as to the desirability of exporting water from the Russian River Basin when it has been shown that an amount of water nearly equal to that which can be developed by all features of The California Water Plan in the Russian River Basin will be required to meet the ultimate demands, 311,000 acre-feet, within that area of origin. Studies of the cost of importing Russian River water to meet the supplemental water require- ments of the portions of Marin, Sonoma and Napa Counties within the San Francisco Bay Area, indi- cated that the water would be more expensive than water imported from the Sacramento River. The North Bay Counties Water Plan was, therefore, devel- oped primarily around local projects and an import system from the Central Valley Area. Plans for Local Water Resources Development. The California Water Plan proved to be a valuable guide in selecting projects which might be suited to serving water in localized areas. The Upper Napa Val- ley is such an area. Because of its long, narrow shape, works designed to convey water up Napa Valley would be expensive per unit of water delivered. It would, therefore, be advantageous to develop water within the valley for its use. Three possible projects are listed in The California Water Plan for conservation of water resources in Napa Valley. These projects are Wing Canyon on Dry Creek, Sulphur Springs on Sulphur Creek, and Spring Valley an offstream-pump-storage project near St. Helena. Of these three projects, the Spring Valley Project appears to be the most feasible. The Spring Valley Project would include a diver- sion structure across the Napa River and pumping facilities to divert winter flows into a reservoir cre- ated in the adjacent Spring Valley. The reservoir would have a storage capacity of 7,000 acre-feet and would be created by construction of three earthfill dams with crests at an elevation of 276 feet. The high- est dam would be 86 feet above natural ground. The main dams would have a total length of 1,660 feet and one saddle dam 10 feet in height would be re- quired. Topographic surveys were made of the dam and reservoir sites. The area and capacity of the reservoir determined from these surveys are presented in Table 23. TABLE 23 AREAS AND CAPACITIES OF SPRING VALLEY RESERVOIR Water Depth of water surface Water surface Storage at dam. elevation. area, capacity. in feet USGS datum, in feet in acres in acre-feet 10 200 19 20__. 210 44 310 30 - 220 71 890 40 230 104 1,760 50 240 12G 2.910 60 250 146 4,270 70 260 163 5,810 80 270 181 7,530 90 280 197 9,420 100 290 213 11,470 The site was found to be geologically satisfactory for earthfill dams up to 100 feet in height. There is only minor seismic activity in the general region. The sites would require about 15 to 20 feet of stripping under the impervious zones of the dams and about 10 feet under the pervious zones. Materials for the dams are available within the reservoir area. It is believed that there would be very little leakage from the res- ervoir. A pumping plant with capacity for 40 second-feet would be located along the river at a low diversion dam. A minimum flow of 10 second-feet would be per- mitted to pass the diversion dam and flows in excess of this minimum release would be available for diver- sion. Water from this project would be released back SAN FRANCISCO BAY COUNTIES WATER PLAN 61 into the Napa River and conveyed to downstream diverters. Tliis project would develop water for irrip-ation in the upper portion of Napa Valley more economically than an imported water supply. The yield of the proj- ect would be about 5,400 acre-feet per year, if a de- fieieuey of 35 ]ier cent is considered for a critically dry year. Records of runoff in the Napa River indicate that a firm supply of 5,400 acre-feet would be available under historical runoif conditions during every year except one. It ajipears that the Spring Valley Project, if con- structed by a local agency for irrigation purposes, could be financed under the "Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956," Public Law 984, 84th Con- gress, Chapter 972, 2nd Session. This law provides a method for financing such projects on an interest-free basis. The estimated capital and annual costs of the Spring Valle.v Project are presented in Table 24. TABLE 24 ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS OF SPRING VALLEY PROJECT It«ni Capital Cost! Earth dam embankment Spillway Diversion dam Pumping plant Lands, easements, and rights of way Total Capital Cost Annual Cost Repayment Replacement Operation and maintenance General expense Electrical energy Total Annual Cost Amount' 8950,000 53,000 54,000 147,000 125.000 $1,329,000 S2fi,fi00 2,500 7,900 3,900 10,200 851,100 ' Based on 195G construction costs. Th e Nicasio Project was authorized by the electorate of the Marin Municipal Water District in November 1956. Construction of the Nicasio Project would create a dam and reservoir near Nicasio in Marin County. The dam would be au earthfill structure with its crest 115 feet above stream bed. The reservoir would pro- vide 23,000 acre-feet of storage capacity. The Dis- trict estimates that the Nicasio Dam and Reservoir and the main conduit to the District will cost ap- proximately $3,920,000. The firm annual yield of the Nicasio Project was estimated by the Department of Water Resources to be about 12,000 acre-feet. The North Bay Aqueduct. It has been demon- strated that a need will exist in the North Bay Coun- ties for a system of works capable of supplying about 308,000 acre-feet of water annuallj- by year 2010, in addition to the full use of presently available water supplies. It ha.s also been shown that a very large portion of this water, if available at reasonable prices, would be used for irrigation of presently dry-farmed laud. It has further been stated that the plan to be developed for the North Bay Counties will include means of supplying water for the irrigation needs and be financially feasible, but it is not to interfere with existing projects. A .single plan which would meet all of these qualifications was not found. However, the North Bay Aqueduct feature of the Biemond Plan was found to conform more closely than its alterna- tives. The features of the North Bay Aqueduct necessary to convey water from the Sacramento River to areas re(|uiring imported water in Solano, Napa, Sonoma and JIarin Counties are described in Chapter II and shown on Plate 5. This system of works was designed specifically to meet the needs of the water-deficient areas, and because it would deliver untreated water in large quantities, the cost could be held to that which would make it attractive to agricultural, industrial and municipal users. The areas for which the North Bay Aqueduct would provide primary and supplemen- tal service are shown on Plate 9. With the aqueduct in operation, it might be possible to exchange water with the City of Napa, thereby making a portion of the Conn Reservoir water supply available for use in the upper reaches of Napa Valley. Studies for determination of economii- justification were made of the North Bay Aqueduct to compare the annual equivalent costs with the annual equivalent net benefits. The costs included debt service on the capital investment (including nonreimbursable costs), opera- tion and maintenance, power, general expense and a charge for water at the intake. The capital cost of the North Bay Aqueduct was estimated to be .$26,- 760,000, and the annual equivalent cost was estimated to be $1,593,000. (Detailed cost estimates are pi-e- sented in Appendix A.) The charge for water at the intake was the rate at which water conserved by the Biemond Plan would be sold to a.ssure financial feasibility of that plan. This rate would be about .$2.50 per acre-foot and is equivalent to an average annual cost of $384,000 to the North Bay Aqueduct. Direct benefits would result from the use of the water for municipal and industrial purposes, and for irrigation. The annual e(|uivalent direct benefit from municipal and industrial water was estimated to be $979,000. The annual equivalent direct benefit from agricultui-al water was estimated to be $1,148,000. The total direct benefits. $2,127,000, c()mi)ared to the total direct costs including cost of water at the intake, $1,977,000, results in a benefit-cost ratio of 1.1:1. Therefore, the North Bay Aqueduct was found to be economically justified at the present time. The financial feasibility of the North Bay Aqueduct was analyzed on the basis of assumed water sales rates, ^■■.^4'^ "^ City of Sonoma— The North Boy Aqueduct could serve this community California State Chamber of Commerce Photogrop/i Contra Costa Canal— Water from this canal is distributed by the Contra Costa County Water District U. S. Bureau of Reclamation Pfiotograpf} SAN FRANCISCO BAY COUNTIES WATER PLAN 63 and an allocation of costs between those features which wonld be reimbursable and those which would be nonreimbursable. The cost allocation shown in Table 25 would i)robably apply if the State of Cali- fornia bears the costs of land, easements and ri^rhts of way, relocation of utilities, and fish protection facilities. However, such allocations are only assump- tions, since the Legislature has not determined poliiy relating thereto. TABLE 25 COST ALLOCATION NORTH BAY AQUEDUCT Item Amount' Total estimated capital cost Non-reimbursabie cost 826,760.000 1,220.000 1,740.000 500.000 33.460,000 Estimated reimbursable cost §23,300.000 ^ Based on 1!156 construction costs. The repayment analysis, shown in Table 26, was based upon State construction and financing by gen- eral obligation bonds bearing interest at the rate of three per cent. Repayment of the reimbursable cost would be provided by a sinking fund bearing interest at three per cent and would begin in 1971. In addi- tion to the fixed annual operational costs and power, a charge of $2.50 was included for water in the Delta. An average water rate of about $10.50 per acre-foot would be required to meet the costs during the re])ay- ment period ; however, farmers could not afford to pay this amount. The repayment analysis was based on rates of $30.00 per acre-foot for municipal and industrial water and $3.50 per acre-foot for agricul- tural water. Based on these criteria, the aqueduct would require subsidies in the early years of opera- tion when the water sales wonld be low, but would produce surpluses in the later years when the sales would be greater. The total subsidy required during the repayment period, 1960-2010, would be $17,672,- 000, and the total surplus would be $21,558,000. Un- der this type of financing, with the State providing tlie subsidies and also receiving the surpluses, the North Bay Aqueduct wonld be financially feasible. It is pointed out that the economic justification and financial feasibility analyses of the North Bay Aqueduct were based on construction costs prevailing during 1956. It should be recognized that construc- tion costs are increasing and if construction of the North Bay Aqueduct were initiated even during the next two or three years the cost would probably be higher. If the current trend of increasing costs con- tinues, the capital cost of the aqueduct may be about 15 percent greater than tiie estimated cost based on 1956 construction costs. To assure financial feasibility slightly greater water rates would be required. An agricultural water rate of $3.50 per acre-foot is con- sidered as a reasonable maxiinum based u])on the an- ticipated crop patterns and, therefore, tlie urban water rate would have to he increased to between $30.00 and $35.00 per acre-foot. Based upon the method of analysis of direct benefits described herein, the North Bay Aqueduct would be economically .iusli- fied if its capital cost increases 15 per cent. Water rights applications No. 17514 and No. 17515 were filed by the State Department of Water Re- sources with the State Water Rights Board for water to be delivered to the North Bay Counties through the North Bay A(|ueduct, Aiiplication No. 17514 was for 900 second-feet of water for municipal and industrial use and application No. 17515 was for 900 second-feet for irrigation and domestic use. Russian River Development As shown in Table 22, the portion of Sonoma Count.y in the North Coastal Area will not require supplemental water until about the turn of the cen- tury, since the Coj-ote Valley Project will provide 55,000 acre-feet annuall.y in addition to local sup- plies. The primary service area in which this water will be used is shown on Plate 9. The Sonoma County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is permitted, under terms of its water rights permit, to sell Coyote Valley Project water to agencies in Marin Count.y. However, it is believed that it would not be in the best interest of Sonoma County to distribute this water outside of the Russian River Basin, since the ultimate water requirements of the basin will be almost as great as the developable supply. The Corps of Engineers has studied a multipurpose flood control and water conservation project on Dry Creek, a tributary to the Russian River. The Coyote Valley Dam is being constructed to permit later en- largement to provide additional flood control ami water conservation. The Dry Creek Project, as con- templated by the Corps of Engineers, wonld yield about 66,000 acre-feet annually, and the ultimate Coyote Project would yield about 135,000 acre-feet annually. It is possible that the requirement for flood control along Dry Creek will result in the construction of the Dry Creek Project prior to the need for supple- mental water in Sonoma County. Studies indicate that the Dry Creek Project would be the next logical development in the Russian River Basin. However, further studies will be necessary to make the final selection among several alternative projects. These studies shoidd be made when it be- comes more apparent as to when additional water will be needed. 64 SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION Reimbursable Cost— $23,300,000 Interest — 3 per ceut TABLE 26 REPAYMENT ANALYSIS OF NORTH BAY AQUEDUCT (Values in thousands) Cost of water in Delta at $2,.50 per acre- foot Total annual cost Water sales Defi- ciency Annual costs ot aqueduct Urban Agrici Itural Total Year Interest Amorti- zation Fixed opera- tion and main- tenance Power Acre- feet Revenue ^$30 per acre- foot Acre- feet Revenue @ $3..50 per acre- foot Acre- feet Revenue Surplus 1961 $699 $303 $20 29 39 49 58 68 78 87 97 107 114 121 129 136 143 150 157 164 170 177 182 187 191 194 198 199 205 208 213 217 220 225 228 233 236 241 244 248 251 255 258 263 264 270 274 279 282 287 290 293 $32 58 82 108 132 158 182 208 230 255 270 285 300 315 330 348 368 388 408 428 440 452 465 478 490 502 515 528 542 555 568 578 588 598 608 618 628 640 652 665 678 688 700 710 722 732 745 755 762 770 $1,054 1.089 1.123 1.159 1,192 1,228 1,262 1,297 1,329 1,364 1,695 1,717 1,740 1,762 1,784 1,809 1,836 1,863 1,889 1,916 1,933 1.950 1.967 1.983 1.999 2.012 2.031 2,047 2,066 2,083 2,099 2,114 2,127 2,142 2,155 2,170 2,183 2,199 2,214 2,231 2,247 2,262 2,275 2,291 2,307 2,322 2,338 2,353" 2,363 2,374 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 76 80 84 89 94 99 104 109 114 119 124 128 132 $150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 4,50 480 510 540 570 630 690 750 810 870 930 990 1,0.50 1,110 1,170 1,230 1,290 1,350 1,440 1,530 1.620 1.710 1.800 1.890 1,980 2,070 2,160 2,280 2,400 2„520 2,670 2,820 2,970 3,120 3,270 3,420 3,,570 3,720 3,840 3,960 8 17 26 35 44 53 62 71 79 88 93 98 103 108 113 118 124 130 136 142 145 148 151 154 157 160 163 166 169 171 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 182 181 181 180 180 179 179 178 177 176 $28 60 91 122 154 186 217 248 276 308 326 343 360 378 396 413 434 455 476 497 508 518 528 539 550 560 570 581 592 598 606 609 612 616 620 623 626 630 634 637 637 634 634 630 630 626 626 623 620 616 13 23 33 43 53 63 73 83 92 102 108 114 120 126 132 139 147 155 163 171 176 181 186 191 196 201 206 211 217 222 227 231 235 239 243 247 251 256 261 266 271 275 280 284 289 293 298 302 305 308 $178 240 301 362 424 486 547 608 666 728 776 823 870 918 966 1,043 1,124 1,205 1,286 1.367 1,438 1,508 1,578 1,649 1.720 1.790 1.860 1,931 2.032 2,128 2.226 2.319 2.412 2,506 2,600 2,693 2,786 2,910 3,034 3,1.57 3,307 3,454 3,604 3,750 3,900 4.046 4,196 4.343 4,460 4,576 $876 849 822 797 768 742 715 689 663 636 919 894 870 844 818 766 712 668 603 549 495 442 389 334 279 222 171 116 34 1962 ■J 1963 1964 1965 1966- 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 $309 1972 1973 1974.. 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984. 1985 1986 . 1987 1988 1989 1990 S4o 1991 127 1992 205 1993 285 1994 1995 364 445 1996 523 1997 603 1998 711 1999 820 2000 926 2001 1,060 2002 1.192 2003 1.329 2004 1.459 2005 1.693 2006 2007. 1.724 1.858 2008 1.990 2009 2.097 2010 2.202 Totals . 17,672 21.558 Solano Project The Solano Project will have a yield of 262,000 acre-feet annually, including the amount of water required for downstream releases to maintain ground water percolation from Putah Creek comparable to preproject conditions. This project will be able to meet all the requirements of the Solano Irrigation District and be capable of serving laud between the District and Reclamation District No. 2068, as shown on Plate 9. The I'emaining irrigable land in the portion of So- lano County in the Central \^alley Area is largely Class 2 and 3 land lying between the Solano Irriga- tion District and the Delta. It lies at relatively low elevations and could readily be served by direct diver- sions from the Delta, using surplus water therein, or SAN FRANCISCO BAY COUNTIES WATER PLAN 65 water available from either the Central Valley Proj- ect or Feather River Project. South Bay Counties Water Plan For the most part, the South Bay Counties are in a jiood position with respect to future water supplies as a result of farsighted planning. The service areas of the San Francisco Water Department, of the East Bay Municipal Utility District, and of the Contra Costa County Water District will have ample water to meet their respective requirements. The areas adja- cent to the Delta are in a position to increase their diversions. The local water resources in southern Santa Clara County will be adecjuate to meet the re- quirements of that area. The organized water service agencies in the South Bay Counties and the principal sources of supply are shown on Plate 9. Steps have already been taken to provide supple- mental water to most areas in Alanunla, southern Contra Costa, northern Santa Clara and San Benito Counties. The State Legislature has authorized, and provided funds for preparation of plans and specifi- cations and purchase of regulatory reservoir sites, for the Alameda-Contra Costa-Santa Clara-San Benito Branch of the Feather River Project Aqueduct. This bi-anch is commonly known as the South Bay Aque- duct. South Bay Aqueduct. The South Bay Aqueduct would divert water from the Feather River Project Aqueduct about two miles south of the Delta. Water would be pumped into a concrete-lined canal at an elevation of about 700 feet and be conveyed to a tunnel extending through the Coast Ranges into Livermore Valley. It would continue westward around the Valley in a lined canal and pass through tunnels and pipe- line into the southern portion of Alameda County near Mission San Jose. It would then follow the east- ern side of Santa Clara Valley passing east of Alum Rock, Evergreen and ^Morgan Hill into the Central Coastal Area. It would continue along the eastern edge of southern Santa Clara Valley to its terminus near San Felipe in the northeastern portion of the Hollister area. Regulatory storage would be included at Airpoint Reservoir east of Milpitas and Evergreen Reservoir near Evergreen. The alignment of the South Bay Aqiieduct is shown on Plate 9. Since the completion of the original planning on the South Bay A(iueduct, the South Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District has con.striicted local water resources projects and will not require supplemental water. The Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District contemplates further develop- ment of percolation areas to increase the yield of its local water conservation works. Also, the local water supplies in the free ground water section of northern Santa Clara Valley, between Evergreen and ]\Iorgan Hill, will be adequate to meet water requirements of the overlying area. In view of these cricumstances consideration is being given to alternative means of supplying supplemental water to San Benito Comity. In lieu of the section of the South Bay Aqueduct ex- tending southward from Evergreen, the feasibility of constructing a tiinnel through the Coast Ranges at Pacheco Pass is being investigated. The location of this tunnel is also shown on Plate 9. Water would be obtained fi-om the Feather River Project at San Luis Reservoir. These studies have not progressed suffi- ciently to determine whether this alternative should be recommended in conjunction with a shortened South Bay Aqueduct. i CHAPTER IV CONTINUING STUDIES Many of the studies directed by the Abshire-Kelly Salinity Control Barrier Act of 1955 will be continued for sometime into the future. Those studies which are important to tlie conclusions contained in this bulletin are i)resented in this chapter. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION The primary purpose of the exjiloration prop'ram is to acquire basic data for the design of project facilities. This program is described under the head- ings of field operations and laboratory anal.ysis. Field Operations In July, 1955, subsurface data, covering the 992 miles of levees in the Saeramento-Sau Joaquin Delta, were almost nonexistent. Some information was avail- able from the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclama- tion, California Division of Highways, East Bay Mu- nicipal Utility District, and private engineers. How- ever, these data were scanty and for disconnected areas. A work program was outlined for exploration of foundation conditions along the proposed master levee system alignment. This program was designed to be flexible so that it could be altered, as conditions might dictate. Where information was not available, the program called for drilling at approximately 1,000-foot intervals. The holes would extend through the peat and questionable materials, and far enough into an underlying stratum of firm clay or sand to be assured that the stratum was not a lense underlain by more questionable material. At approximately one-mile intervals, holes would be drilled at least 100 feet deep. All materials encountered at all locations would be carefully logged, and samples would be sub- mitted to the laboratory for analysis. The field opera- tions began in August, 1955, and are continviing. At this date, March, 1957, exploration is nearly complete along the alignment of the proposed master levee system north of the San Joaquin River. The drilling is being accomplished using two types of eciuipment : (1) a power-driven, truck-mounted, rotary drill, manned by a crew of four, and (2) a one-inch Porter Soil Sampler manned by a crew of three, and operated with the aid of power supplied from a "jeep." The power drill, operating from a barge, explored foundation conditions at the site of the proposed siphon and control structure near Little Venice Island and at the site of the proposed control structure on Holland Cut. A general summarv of the subsurface exploration comi)leted and the depths of peat encountered are presented in Table 27. Special drilling was conducted near Little Venice Island to obtain foundation data for the design of the siphon under the Stockton Deep Water Channel, the control structure on Little Venice Island, and the channel closures in connection with the Cro.ss-Delta Canal. A total of 16 holes, varying from 100 feet to 150 feet in depth, were drilled by means of equipment operating from a barge. The material encountered was predominantly fine to medium-grained sand, with relatively thin lenses of stiff clays. These materials would not cause any unusual foundation problems in the design of the structures. The repair of a partial levee failure on Twitchell Island provided an opportunity to acquire basic in- formation on the behavior of peat and organic silts under field conditions. Instruments were installed, in and adjacent to the levee, j)rior to its reconstruction, to provide a means of observing vertical and hori- zontal movement of subsurface materials, and changes in pressures. Periodic observations Avere taken prior to and during the construction, and are being con- tinued. TABLE 27 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM Length of levee explored. in miles Num- ber of lioles Thickness of organic material, in feet Average elevation of basement sand, in Island Range .\verage feet below mean sea level datum 2.7 2.5 3.8 2.7 5.7 2.3 5.5 3.0 6.8 18.9 13.3 5.3 6.1 7.6 21 12 21 9 25 « 29 12 20 91 05 26 32 39 5-45 10-22 10-40 5-15 10-25 2.5 15-30 1-4' 15-30 10-80 10-18 5-30 12-37 15-30 35 15 25 12 20 20 20 40 14 20 25 20 45 15 30 15 25 McCormack- Williamson- Medford 5 30 5 25 50 Staten 30 25 Twitchell 35 30 ' Isolated lenses. The tentative conclusion, based upon the explora- tions conducted to date, is that the portion of the Delta lying to the north of the Stockton Deep Water Channel is underlain by a nearly continuous blanket of sand at depths varying generally from 15 to 50 (67) 68 SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION feet below mean sea level. The foundation problems, associated with levees in the Delta, relate to the or- ganic deposits overlying this sand base. It is possible that the existence of this continuous sand base has a bearing on seepage problems, or wet spots, on some of the islands. Laboratory Analyses Trimarj' and secondary soil tests were conducted in the Department of Water Resources soils labora- tory on samples acquired during the field operations in the Delta area. Primary laboratory testing was principally to classify material and to determine soil bearing strengths. Samples were tested to determine composi- tion, dry and wet densities, percentage of organic material, moisture content, and imeonfined compres- sive strength. Samples containing a large proportion of silt and sand were subjected to mechanical analysis, specific gravity, and Atterburg limits tests. Secondary testing involves more intensive testing of fewer samples than the primary tests on a large mass of samples. Consolidation, triaxial compression and permeability tests are the principal secondary tests. Data obtained from the secondary testing are used to develop criteria for use in levee and founda- tion design. The results obtained from the secondary program provide a standard to be compared and cor- related with results obtained by the primarj^ testing. WATER QUALITY Studies have been conducted, and are being con- tinued, in three separate fields of water quality. These studies relate to (1) flows required to maintain the line of 1,000 parts of chlorides per 1,000,000 parts of water 0.6 mile below Antioch, (2) ground water un- derlying the Delta, and (3) water quality problems of the San Joaquin Valley. Salinity Control Flows The quantity of fresh water required to maintain the mean tidal cycle line of 1,000 parts of chlorides at a point near Antioch, under conditions which would exist with the Biemond Plan in operation, was esti- mated using two separate methods. The first method was developed during studies conducted by the Divi- sion of Water Resources, Department of Public Works, and iniblished in 19."U as Bulletin No. 27, "Variation and Control of Salinity." The second method used was developed during the present in- vestigation of salinity control barriers. The method presented in Bulletin No. 27 develops a relationship between streamflow, tidal diffusion, and advances of salinity. This relationship is expressed as net streamflow equals tidal diffusion. Tidal dift'usion is defined as the effect of tidal action on the total advance of salinity during a given time interval. Utilizing data presented in Bulletin No. 27, it was possible to construct a graphical relationship between tidal dift'usion and tidal prism volume, the quantity of water which flows past a given point due to tidal action. Prom this graphical relationship, it was pos- sible to determine the tidal diffusion for the tidal prism volume which would result from construction of the Biemond Plan. As the tidal diffusion is expressed as net streamflow, the quantity of fresh water required to control salinity could be estimated. The computed Delta tidal prism volume with the Biemond Plan in operation was based on the assumption that Franks Tract and Big Break would remain inundated, and that the Sacramento Deep Water Channel would be completed. It w-as further assumed that construction of the Biemond Plan woidd not alter the present tidal amplitude, and that the accretions within the Delta (500 second-feet), would remain constant. This method indicated that a flow of about 1,150 .second- feet into Suisun Bay would maintain the line of 1,000 parts of chlorides near Antioch with the Biemond Plan in operation. The second method used to determine the required outflow under the Biemond Plan established the rela- tion between the tidal prism volume above the line of 1,000 parts of chlorides and the outflow to Suisun Bay. Sufficient data were available to establish a curve through a range of tidal prism volumes and flows. By entering this curve with the computed mean tidal prism of the Biemond Plan above Antioch, it was pos- sible to obtain an estimate of the required outflow. This method indicated that about 1,250 second-feet would maintain the line of 1,000 parts of chlorides at the desired location with the Biemond Plan in opera- tion. The two methods gave results of 1,150 second-feet and 1,250 second-feet, a difference of less than 10 per cent. For study purposes, the average of the two, or 1,200 second-feet, was used as the required outflow to Suisuii Bay. It is pointed out that both methods used in these analyses assume that the Biemond Plan would not change the tidal amplitude. The electronic analog, being constructed by the University of California will disclose the validity of this assumption. When data become available from the analog, reanalysis of the required outflows from the Delta may be necessary. Ground Water in Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Concurrent with the subsurface exploration pro- gram to determine foundation conditions, observations were made to determine the depth, location and qual- ity of saline water known to underlie portions of the Delta. To date, observations have been limited to areas lying generally north of the Stockton Deep CONTINUING STUDIES 69 '\Vat(n- C'liaimol. Wliile this proy:rain has been of lim- ited scope, the data obtained are extremely valuable and warrant mention. Ground waters in the areas surrounding the Delta are frenerally of excellent quality with low dissolved mineral content. These waters vary from a caleium- magnesium-biearbonate water to a sodium-bicarbonate water with moderately low total dissolved solids. A relatively large area in the central portion of the Delta is uiulerlain by poor quality ground water at relatively shallow depths. This water is a saline water entrapped during geological formation (hereinafter referred to as connate water), which generally eon- tains high percentages of sodium and chloride and relatively low concentrations of calcium sulphate. This area is known to encompass the eastern portions of Twitchell and Brannan Islands, the southern portion of Staten and Andrus Islands, and practically all of Bouldiu Island. The westei'n portion of Terminous Tract and the central part of Rindge Tract, along with other areas not positively defined are included. The chloride content of water samples taken from under these islands was found to vary from 120 ppm to a high of 2,200 ppm. It is from this central area that rising waters of poor quality gain access to sur- face waters. Waier Qualify in fhe San Joaquin Valley ]\Iineral quality of surface waters in San Joaquin Valley is extremely variable. East-side streams, com- prising runoff from the granitic Sierra Nevada, are of high quality before their emergence on the valley floor. The qualitj' of the water deteriorates thereafter, due to degradation by sewage and industrial waste waters, and drainage from irrigated lauds which con- veys dissolved minerals leached from agricultural chemicals and the soil itself. West-side streams flow only during, and for a short time after the infrequent winter rains. Their runoff originates in watersheds composed largely of marine sediments, saturated in past ages with sea salts. These salts, redissolved and transported toward the valley floor, account for the high salinities observed in such streams as Panoehe, Little Panoehe, Silver and Los Gatos Creeks. Oil field brine discharges are also a factor in the high salinity of such streams as Sandy Creek, Buena Vista Creek, and Broad Creek in Kern County. In many cases, water in west-side creeks is unfit for irri- gation of salt-sensitive crops, but can be used success- full.y with such salt-tolerant crops as cotton, sugar beets and pasture grasses. Groiind waters as a rule reflect the mineral quality of the surface waters which recharge them. Accord- ingly, wells in the east side of the valley produce water of good quality, while those on the west side are poorer and often suitable onlj' for the most hardy crops. West-side ground waters are more saline, not only because inferior surface waters from local streams contribute to the ground water basin, but also because of high water table conditions resulting from poor drainage. When the water table stands at or near the ground surface, water is evaporated, but tlie dissolved salts are crystallized out of solution and are left be- hind. Salt content of the remaining water is thereby concentrated. A further source of mineral degradation of well waters is found in the connate brines which occur in many parts of the valley at depths of 400 feet or more. These are believed to have moved upward from the deep-seated marine sediments which underlie the val- ley alluvium, sometimes at depths of many thousands of feet. Extraction of overlying fresh waters tends to accelerate the rise of this saline water. The foregoing factors have caused the average qual- ity of water of the San Joaquin River to deteriorate at all points below Meudota by 30 per cent or more since 1951. The qiiality of the water between Mendota and Mossdale Bridge is now approaching the limit of tolerance for certain salt-sensitive crops. Studies made by the Water Quality Branch of the Department of Water Resources indicate that water quality problems of the San Joaquin Valley will worsen in the future unless provisions are made to collect, convey and dis- pose of the unusable waste waters. Based ixpon studies of water quality in the San Joaquin Valley, as prepared for The California Water Plan, it was estimated that it would be necessary, under ultimate conditions of development, to provide for the drainage and exportation from the valley of about 1,100.000 acre-feet of water per season. Provi- sions were included in The California Water Plan to accomplish this objective. The works, designated as the San Joaquin Waste Conduit, would originate near Buena Vista Lake in Kern Countj-, and terminate in the Delta. It is emphasized that the San Joaquin Waste Conduit, as presented in The California Water Plan, was a possible solution based soleh' upon very preliminary-type office studies. An intensive investi- gation of the San Joaquin Valley drainage problems has been recommended by the Department of Water Resources. It is pointed out that even under the Biemond Plan, the disposal of low qualitj- drainage water from the San Joaquin Valley into the San Joaquin River would pose a problem to the Delta landowners. Man.y crops in the Delta receive a portion of their water supply through sub-irrigation. This water enters sand strata which underlie the islands and the San Joaquin River. Thus, quality degradation of water in the river would be a threat to the agriculture. Solutions to this problem are still under studj'. However, two possible corrective measures are readily apparent. The first of these wo\ild be to carry the low 70 SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION qualitj- San Joatjuiii River drainage water in an iso- lated system and dispose of it at some downstream point. One possible alignment for this system is shown on Plate 3. This alignment has not been field cheeked, nor studied to determine its cost. The alignment would, however, eoincide with the location of a dis- posal conduit being planned by Contra Costa County. The introduction of large quantities of highly miner- alized water into the San Joaquin River near the An- tioch Bridge, would probably require a policy change regarding the location of the line of 1,000 parts of chlorides. The second alternative would be to dilute the low grade water with releases of high quality water from the Cro.ss-Delta Canal. It is conceivable that during the early years of operation of The Cali- fornia Water Plan, the latter solutioia could be used, and when water became more costl.y, the drainage canal constructed. Solutions to the water quality problems of the San Joaquin Valley are not within the scope of the Salin- ity Control Barrier Investigation. However, when solutions to those problems are being developed, con- sideration must be given to the rights of property owners in the Delta. HYDROLOGY During the course of the investigation that led to the March, 1955, report, a contract was executed with Dr. H. A. Einstein of the University of California to investigate the effects of barriers on the regimen of the tides. Dr. Einstein's investigation was limited to a study of the effect of barriers at Dillon Point and Point San Pablo. At the start of the current investi- gation, it was concluded that further examination of the effects of the Chipps Island Barrier Plan and the Biemond Plan would be required. A committee, composed of representatives of the Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of Engineers, Univer- sity of California, and the Department of Water Re- sources was formed to consider the problem. It was concluded that an electronic analog would produce the desired results within the shortest time, and at the lowest cost. An electronic analog would simulate hy- draulic characteristics of tidal channels with electrical components. A contract was awarded to the University of Cali- fornia for the construction of an electronic analog on April 1, 1956. It was stipulated that the University would construct and operate the analog to include analysis of tlie following problems: 1. Distribution of fresh water flow (both summer and flood flows) in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta under (1) present conditions, (2) condi- tions with a Sacramento Deep Water Channel, and (3) conditions with Feather River Project in operation without a barrier. 2. Tidal amplitudes after construction of the Bie- mond Plan. 3. Recommended sequence of closui'e of channels during construction of plan. To date, preliminary results from tlie analog indi- cate that a substantial increase in tidal amplitude would be experienced in Suisun Bay with a barrier at Chipps Island while the construction of the Biemond Plan would have very little effect on the tidal ampli- tude in the Delta. Studies with the electronic analog will be completed b,v June 30, 1957. FISH AND WILDLIFE Throughout this investigation, funds have been made available to the State Department of Fish and Game, through inter-agencj' service agreements, for .studies of the fish and wildlife aspects of salinity control plans. Further studies leading to the evalua- tion of the effect of the Biemond Plan on fisheries and wildlife, and the development of detailed plans to pro- tect these important resources, will be undertaken during the remaining years of the investigation. The major fisli and wildlife problems are those concerned with passing upstream migi-ant fish around the con- trol structures, and preventing the loss of young down- stream migrants at diversions. The principal species of fish involved are striped bass, salmon, steelhead, shad, and sturgeon. All of tliese species support im- portant recreational fisheries, and the salmon and shad are also taken commercially. A vertical baffle fishway (sometimes called a Hell's Gate-type fishway) was recommended by the Califor- nia Department of Fish and Game as a possible means of passing the fish around the control structures. The vertical baffle fishwa.v consists of a series of intercon- nected bays. The slots connecting these bays extend from the water surface to the floor and it is, there- fore, unnecessary for the fish to leap from pool to pool, as the.v do in the conventional fish ladder. It is only necessary for them to swim through a short dis- tance of swift water and then rest in the next bay. This type of fishway has been in operation for several years in Washington and Canada, and has proven to be highly successful when used for salmon and steel- head. However, it has not been tested with striped bass or shad, two of the principal species found in the Delta and river system. For this reason, a vertical baffle fishway, containing two bays, was constructed on the Grizzly Island Waterfowl Management Area and is being tested bv the Departments of Water Re- sources and Fish and Game. Tests have already been made of the velocities through the slots and head-losses and turbulence in the bays. Tests with fish are scheduled to be conducted during the early part of 1957. It is believed that this activity will provide much needed data to both the CONTINUING STUDIES 71 biolofjrists and the eiio:iiieers, with tlie final result that better fishinf; will be available to the sportsman. Another important consideration will be the eft'eet of the Biemond Plan on waterfowl wintering in the Suisnn marshlands. Possibilities exists for an over-all enhaneement of these waterfowl resources, due to the increases in food production made possible by fresh water from the North Bay Aqueduct. STAGING OF THE BIEMOND PLAN The Biemond Plan, lends itself to a variety of pos- sible construction stages. For example, early construc- tion of the Feather River Project Pumping Plant would require improvement of Holland Cut, and Old River between Franks Tract and Italian Slough. This construction should include provisions to make it readily amenable to later inclusion with the Biemond Plan. The channel improvement of the South Fork of the Mokelumne River, as called for under the Biemond Plan, even without severing connecting sloughs, would provide flood control benefits to both Delta and iip- stream landowners. Construction of this improvement would be highly desirable in the immediate future. As demonstrated by the floods of December, 1955, nearly every Delta island requires additional work on its levees. The continuing studies will develop a rec- ommended time-table for the construction of all ele- ments of the Biemond Plan. The electronic analog will provide valuable information in determining the proper sequence of closing the Delta channels. Un- doubtedly, many of these channels would remain open for many years, while others might be advantageously closed when the Feather River Project Pumping Plant is placed in operation. The staging of construction of the Biemond Plan will play an important role in the financial feasibility of the plan. These studies must be thorough and com- plete. WATER RIGHTS It was stated in Chapter II that studies leading to this bulletin were based upon the assumption that salinity would be controlled so as to maintain iisable water at points inland from a line approximately 0.6 mile west of Antioch. It was also indicated that an outflow of approximately 3,800 second-feet was as- sumed, for purposes of this bulletin, to be required for salinity control. Further study is necessary to verify the amounts of fresh water needed to accomplish this objective under existing conditions. The determina- tion of the party or parties responsible for providing salinity control will also be important, as this respon- sibility will be a basic consideration in the financial feasibility studies of the Biemond Plan. These matters are elements of the total picture of water rights along the Sacramento River and in the Sacramento-San Joacinin Delta, which will be the subject of negotia- tions planiU'd for the near future between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the water users. These pending negotiations are the outgrowth of a period of controversy ov<'r relative water rights which began in 1920. The Antioch suit, filed in that year by the City of Antioch against upstream water diverters, was the first manifestation of the differences between the interests of those in the Delta area and of the diverters upstream from Sacramento. While the con- struction of the Central Valley Project by the United States Bureau of Reclamation alleviated the water shortages by making available stored water in dry years, this complicated the water rights problems. The difl'erenees among the local water users, and between those water users and the United States Bureaii of Reclamation threatened at one point to result in wide- spread litigation. As a consecjuence, a joint legislative committee comprising representatives from the United States House of Representatives and the California Legislature met in 1951 in an attempt to pinpoint the problems and to reconnncnd a solution. This led to a series of conferences, called by the Governor, which resulted in an agreement among the United States Bureau of Reclamation, the water users, and the State to attempt to solve these problems by compromise, so as to avoid complicated and costly law suits. This agreement resulted in the so-called Trial Distribution Programs in the 1954 and 1955 irrigation seasons, which were designed to collect additional data on diversions, stream flows, and other matters, and to analyse these data in order to present necessary infor- mation to the parties of the program, including con- clusions as to the effectiveness of certain scheduled inflows to the Delta for salinity control purposes. In 1956, a Cooperative Study Program was under- taken by representatives of the three interested groups, and a report on the findings is in process of publication at this time. That report will indicate the degree of satisfaction of various water rights imder different assumptions, and the amounts of water that are required to supplement natural water supplies in order to provide firm water supplies and to provide effective salinity control. It is anticipated that this information, together with information being com- piled currently by other interested parties, will per- mit early commencement of actual negotiation of an agreement covering water rights, including those in the Delta, and provision of salinity control. It is anticipated that the first consideration with respect to salinity control will be an attempt to resolve the matter as to the actual extent of salinity control to be provided in the Delta area. The other question to be resolved is the financial responsibility for this salinity control as it may be distributed among the local water users and the governmental agencies. These are questions which are presently 72 SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION unresolved, and must of necessity await the results of the anticipated negotiations for definition. Obviously, no final conclusion may be drawn as to the financial aspects of the Biemond Plan until these questions are settled. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Prior to construction of the Biemond Plan, inten- sive studies would be necessary to determine the re- spective financial responsibilities of the Federal, State and local interests. While the existence of this prob- lem is recognized, little progress in its resolution has been accomplished to date. The Biemond Plan would provide a high degree of flood protection to lands situated in the Delta. Only a cursory examination of the flood control benefits of the plan has so far been made. Requests have been made to the President and the Congress for a Fed- eral evaluation of these flood control benefits, and it is believed that Federal participation at the investi- gational level can be expected in the near future. Allocation of costs related to the flood control benefits of the Biemond Plan is complicated, as the facilities which would provide the necessary protection would also result in conservation of water. The levees located along the Cross-Delta Canal would provide flood pro- tection, while aiding in the transfer of water. While these complications exist, real and very large flood control benefits would be realized fi-om construction of the Biemond Plan. These benefits must be evaluated and a proper allocation made to flood control. Just as the flood control and water conservation aspects of the plan are intermixed, so are the cross- Delta water transfer aspects. The Cross-Delta Canal of the Biemond Plan was designed to transfer water developed by the plan, and waters of both the Central Valley and Feather River Projects. As it is probable that the cross-Delta movement of water under these projects would be benefited by Biemond Plan facilities, an equitable allocation of costs must be made. It is anticipated that State policy will be forth- coming regarding nonreimbiirsable costs of State-con- structed water projects. lu the case of the Biemond Plan for purposes of this report, it was assumed that the costs of the following items would be nonreim- bursable and, therefore, would be borne by the State : land, easements and rights of way; fish pi-otection facilities; relocation of roads, railroads and bridges; and locks. Construction of the Biemond Plan would greatly improve accessibility to many of the Delta islands, thereby relieving the counties of the financial burden of maintaining ferries at numerous locations. The counties might find it to their advantage to contribute to and promote construction of certain channel clo- sures to gain this transportation benefit. DELTA IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE Since the very earliest reclamation of the Delta islands, water for surface irrigation has been taken from the adjacent channels. Excess irrigation water along with seepage, precipitation, and water applied for leaching purposes, has been returned to the same channels. Under operation of the Biemond Plan, some of the islands could siphon water directly from the isolated Cross-Delta Canal and dispose of their waste waters into tidal channels. However, the majority of the islands would continue to acquire their irrigation water from the same channels and in the same manner as they do today. Many of these channels would no longer be under tidal influence, nor would they be degraded by return flows of the San Joaciuin Valley, or invading saline water of the Bay system. High quality water would be released to the isolated in- terior channels from the Cross-Delta Canal and suffi- cient water would be removed therefrom to maintain necessary quality. A preliminary study of an irrigation and drainage plan to operate in conjunction with the Biemond Plan has been completed. This study disclosed that the quality of water applied in the Delta would be equal to or better than that which is presently used for irri- gation. It was further shown that in the southern portions of the Delta, the water would be of greatly improved quality, as, under the controlled condition, the poorer quality water would always flow toward a point of disposal. The irrigation and drainage features of the plan would be carried as project costs. The continuing studies of irrigation and drainage in the Delta will include interviews with the land- owners. The information obtained from these inter- views will be incorporated into the final layout and design of diversion and return facilities. It is emphasized that the Biemond Plan would in no way adversely affect the water rights of the Delta landowners. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The iiivestiy I'rojfct, on the East Braneli of the Russian River, operated conjunctively with ex- isting water supplies, could meet the water needs of the Russian River Basin until about the year 2000. When the Coyote Valley Project is no longer capable of meeting the water demands of the Russian River service area, the Dry Creek Project, and the second stage of the Coyote Valley Project, should be given thorough sti;dy, if not yet constructed for flood con- trol purpo.ses, to determine the most feasible plan. 4. The portion of Solano County within the So- lano Irrigation District can be supplied with suffi- cient water to meet its supplemental demands during the period 1960-2010 from the Solano Project and ground water basins. The area in Solano County lying east of the District can be .served by water taken from the Sacramento River and bj' use of ground water supplies. 5. The water demands of the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara, can be met by water supplied from the Delta and local developments, .supplemented by existing and authorized import systems. The import systems would include the Contra Costa Canal, the Mokelumne River development as planned by the East Baj-- Municipal Utility District, the Hetch Hetchy system as planned by the City of San Fran- cisco, and the State-autliorized South Bay Aqueduct. RECOMMENDATIONS As the result of the investigation leadi)ig to this bulletin, it is recommended that : 1. Future studies of salinity control barriers be limited to the Biemond Plan, and that the studies now in progress relating to the plan, be carried to comple- tion. 2. The North Bay Aqueduct, as described in this bulletin, be authorized for con.struction as a feature of The California Water Plan, since, under the as- sumed criteria, it is economically justified and finan- cially feasible, and the North Ba.v Counties arc ur- gently in need of a supplemental water supply. 3. Funds be appropriated for the following pur- poses in connection with the North Bay Afpieduct : a. Acquisition of land, easements, and rights of wa.v $1,220,000 b. Preparation of construction plans antl specifications 1,340,000 Total .?2,."p(>(l.000 4. Expenditure of funds for preparation of con- struction plans and specifications of the North Bay Aqueduct be made contingent upon reasonable as.sur- ance from the prospective water users of their will- ingness to assume the obligation for repa.vment of the reimbursable costs. 5. A policy relating to reimbursable and nonreim- bursable costs be establislied bv the Legislature. APPENDIX ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS-NORTH BAY AQUEDUCT It«m Unit Quantity Unit cost Item cost Amount CAPITAL COST Lindsay Slough to Calhoun Cut Pumping Plant (Mile to Mile 3.79. 900 c.f.s.) Excavation Trimming Bridge, county road Traffic control Subtotal, Field Cost. Calhoun Cut Pumping Plant (Mile 3.79, 900 c.f.s.) Structure Pumps, 225 c.f.s. (one standby unit). Motors, 450 horsepower Motor control equipment Valves Electrical accessories Mechanical accessories Discbarge pipes Crane Miscellaneous metal work Fish screen facility Subtotal, Field Cost. Calhoun Cut Pumping Plant to Denverton Creek (Mile 3.79 to Mile 7.00, 900 c.f.s.) Excavation Trimming Bridge, railroad Bridge, county road Traffic control Regulation structures and transitions Cross drainage control Service road Fence Subtotal. Field Cost. Denverton Creek to Cordelia Pumping Plant (Mile 7.00 to Mile 23.64, 680 c.f.s.) Excavation Trimming Suisun Slough siphon U. S. Highway 40 siphon Bridge, railroad, doubletrack Bridge, railroad, singletrack Bridge, State Highway 12 Bridge, county road Bridge, county road (5) Bridge, farm road (4) Traffic control Regulation structures and transitions Cross drainage control Drainage diversion channels Service road Fence Subtotal, Field Cost. Cordelia Pumping Plant (Mile 23.54, 500 c.f.s.) Structure Pumps, 1(X) c.f.s. (one standby unit). Motors, 1 ,500 horsepower Motor control equipment Valves Electrical accessories Mechanical accessories Crane M iscellaneous metal work cy If sf LS LS LS LS LS LS cy If If sf LS LS LS sy cy If LS LS If If sf sf sf sf LS LS LS cy sy LS LS LS 250,000 20,000 3,000 1,362,000 17,000 140 4,800 30,200 6.4 2,105,000 86,700 80 100 3,520 4,200 11,250 7,800 800,000 155,400 33.0 SO.. 30 2.00 12.00 $24,000 14,700 7,000 10,000 1,000 1,000 $0.25 2.00 750.00 12.00 0.50 1,000 $0.40 1.00 1,500 750.00 10.00 12.00 10.00 7.00 0.25 0.50 1,000 $35,000 40,500 12,000 7,200 6,000 7,500 $75,000 40,000 36,000 9,000 $186,000 120,000 73,500 35,000 50,000 5,000 5,000 44,500 40,000 15,000 380,000 $340,500 34,000 105,000 57,000 40,000 70,000 22,000 15,100 6,400 $842,000 86,700 300,000 120,000 120,000 75,000 35,200 50,400 112,500 54,600 142.000 50,000 178,000 200,000 77,700 33,000 $190,000 210,000 243,000 72,000 43,200 36,000 45.000 42,000 9,500 $160,000 $954,000 $690,600 $2,477,100 Subtotal, Field Cost. $890,700 (77) 78 SALINITY CONTKOL BARRIER INVESTIGATION ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS-NORTH BAY AQUEDUCT-Continued Item Unit Quantity L^nit cost Item cost Amount Cordelia Pumping Plant to Napa Siphon (Mile 23.54 to Mile 31.59, 500 c.f.s.) If If cy sy If If sf LS LS LS sy jni 1.300 22,100 368,000 42,000 18,900 200 7,080 $207.00 30.00 0.50 0..50 262.00 1.50.00 7.00 $269,100 663.000 184.000 21,000 4,951,800 30,000 49,600 25,000 210,000 20,000 17,000 8,400 34,000 8.4 0.50 1,000 Subtotal, Field Cost , - - $6,448,900 Napa Siphon (Mile 31.59 to Mile 34.03, 420 c.f.s.) If If 12..500 400 .?110.00 410.00 $1,375,000 164.000 $1 ..539,000 (Mile 34.03 to Mile 40.55, 400 c.f.s.) If If sf sf LS LS LS sv mi 31.800 2.600 1.800 2,640 .«2fi.0O 110.00 10.00 7.00 $826,800 286.000 18.000 18.500 9.000 80.000 15.000 25.000 12,200 50,000 12.2 0..50 1,000 $1,290,500 Sonoma Siphon (Mile 40.55 to Mile 43.50, 290 c.f.s.) If If 15.300 300 $100.00 400.00 $1,. 530.000 120.000 Subtotal, Field Cost - .. $1,650,000 Sonoma Siphon to Petaluma Siphon fMile 43.50 to Mile 54.07. 280 c.f.s.) If If If If sf LS LS LS sv mi 13,200 39,100 2,300 1.200 2,880 $24.00 22.00 100.00 100.00 7.00 $316,800 860.200 230.000 120.000 20.100 35.000 70.000 28.000 55,000 20.100 State HJKhway 37 siphon (4) __ 110.000 20.1 0.50 1.000 Subtotal, Field Cost . - - . - . ., $1,7.55,200 Petaluma Siphon to Novate Reservoir (Mile 54.07 to Mile 59.28, 100 c.f.s.) If If If LS sy mi 14.000 800 12.700 $.55.00 300.00 17.00 $770,000 240,000 215,900 4,000 8,100 4,900 Concrete pipe, 6-foot dia., underwater 16.200 4.9 O.SO 1.000 Fence . . - _-.--_ Subtotal. Field Cost $1,242,900 APPENDIX 79 ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS-NORTH BAY AQUEDUCT-Continued Item Unit Quantity Unit cost Item cost Amount Novato Dam and Reservoir Crest ele\ation: 40 feet, m.s.l. .Spillway crest elevation; 32 feet, m.s.l. Streambed elevation: 3 feet, m.s.l. Reservoir capacity: 570 acre-feet Dam cy cy cy cy cy lb LS LS LS If If 41,000 40,400 42,900 11,000 tiOo 53,200 $0.05 0.00 0.80 0.80 81.00 0.15 $27,000 24.200 34.300 8.800 53.800 8.000 L.MO 8..i(X) 9.900 33.800 15.000 Embankment Spillway 2,700 7,500 12.50 2.00 Fence - - - . - $224,800 Total. Field Cost $19,323,700 $2,890,300 Subtotal $22,220,000 $2,220,000 $24,440,000 $1,100,000 $25,540,000 Rights of Way None $23,000 108.000 70,500 42,800 19,500 91,000 1.000 15.000 80.500 19,000 150.800 70.000 40,000 280.000 ac ac ac ac ac ac ac ac ac ac ac ac ac ac 115 54 153 214 13 91 5 30 lis 38 224 35 40 70 $200.00 2.000 500.00 200.00 1,500 1,000 200.00 500.00 700.00 500.00 700.00 2,000 1,000 4,000 Subtotal, Rights of Way , . _ . .. $1,023,100 Total, Rights of Way .,_ .. . _ ... TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST _ $26,760,000 ANNUAL COSTS 237 200 Operation and maintenance . _ . _ _ .. . •'58 700 General expense.. __ . . __ _ 8^> 000 TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL EQUIVALENT COST $1,593,000 ' At 3 peifont fur one-half of a three-year construction period. printed in California state printing office 51344 2-57 2M PLATE I -^ -V iS N^ ^M .> ^ v\ '"i ,1 LEGEND BOUNDARY OF AREA OF I N VEST IGftT ION STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION AREA OF rNVESTIGATION MARCH 1957 SCALE OF MILES \ Sr*TE OF C«UFOnNI« DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF OESOUSCeS PLANNING SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION AREA OF INVESTIGATION MARCH 1957 PLATE 2 I STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION JUNCTION POINT BARRIER AND DELTA FLOOD CONTROL PLAN MARCH 1957 SCALE OF MILES 2 2 < f PLATE 2 H I o I STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION JUNCTION POINT BARRIER AND DELTA FLOOD CONTROL PLAN MARCH 1957 SCALE OF MILES I PLATE 2 + a / /I 4 ^,57^" LEGEND CHANNELS OPEN TO SAN FRAI YOLO BY - PASS HJI^H COMBINED FRESH WATER AND FLOOD CHANNELS ^^^H ISOLATED FRESH WATER CROSS-DELTA CANAL MASTER LEVEE SYSTEM BOUNDART OF DELTA LOWLANDS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION JUNCTION POINT BARRIER AND DELTA FLOOD CONTROL PLAN MARCH 1957 PLATE 3 kSTE CONDUIT STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION BIEMOND PLAN MARCH 1957 SCALE OF MILES PLATE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION ISTE CONDUIT BIEMOND PLAN MARCH 1957 SCALE OF MILES 2 LEGEND CHANNELS OPEN TO SUN FHANCISCO BAY rOLO BT-PflSS COMBINED FHESM WATIF AND FLOOO CHANNELS MASTER LEVEE SYSTEM POSSIBLE ALIGNMENT SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY WASTE CONDUIT BOUNDARY OF DELTA LOWLANDS STATE OF CALtFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION BIEMOND PLAN MARCH 1957 SC4LE OF MILES PLATE 4 Timbei- piles" SS- DELTA CANAL HEADWORKS MEAN SEA LEVEL-x El -30 0'--x iF FRESH WATER SIPHON -El 115' 30' Normol voter surfoce LITTLE CONNECTION SLOUGH (INTAKE) HON NOTE ELEVATIONS REFER TO SEA LEVEL DATUM OF 1929 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION LAYOUT OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES BIEMOND PLAN MARCH 1957 SCALE AS SHOWN PLATE 4 ,.EI 200' ..•Top ot lie El 22 Timber piles" SS- DELTA CANAL HEADWORKS SCALE OF FEET 40 60 ,-1 -< MEAN SEA LEVEL-^ E^O: ^. ^^^^ El -30 0'-., iF FRESH WATER SIPHON SCALE OF FEET 3 50 100 150 I III 1 30' Normol woler surfoce LITTLE CONNECTION SLOUGH (INTAKE) HON NOTE ELEVATIONS REFER TO SEA LEVEL DATUM OF 1929 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION LAYOUT OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES BIEMOND PLAN MARCH 1957 SCALE AS SHOWN PLAN OF CONTROL ST SECTION B-B OF CONTROL STRUCTURE SACRAMENTO RIVER AT RYDE SCALE OF FEET 40 60 i.Wtlgcfllfd _ Highway-, I ri ri 1 1 mb«r pil fender*-,^ 1 ^ ^^ ki ij Toe ol lie ei 22 0' PROFILE OF CROSS -DELTA CANAL HEADWORKS SCALE OF FEET 20 40 STRUCTURE , F 1 SHWAY AND LOCK PROFILE OF FRESH WATER SIPHON ''Apron pilinqi SECTION A-A OF CONTROL STRUCTURE SACRAMENTO RIVER AT RYDE SCALE OF fEET 50 100 SECTION A-A OF FRESH WATER SIPHON NOTE ELEVATIONS REFER TO SEA LEVEL OATuM OF (929 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION LAYOUT OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES BIEMOND PLAN MARCH 1957 SCALE AS SHOWN PLATE 5 50 CF.S 250 200 UJ 150 ^ 100 50 > LJ < UJ w z < UJ 5 I- UJ UJ z o < > ■50 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLJkNNING SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION NORTH BAY AQUEDUCT MARCH 1957 SCALE AS SHOWN 250 100 C F S 280 C F S n 290 C F S 400 C-F S 420 C F.S 500 C F S 1 o o o o ,. o o o o O u 1 D ;L '50 UJ z rO _] UJ (Tl UJ < z s cc UJ 1- co z q: < < 5 o z o I/) o < o o < o 2 o tn < a < / < Q. < Z 2 < O in \ en in u —1 1) UJ _J > Hi ro > < 5 -I o I >- i I o < 5 rO > < 1 o I HIGHWAY 37 ■=1 *: a. >- < 3 I o T / 1 1 1 ELKHORN PK TUNNEL \ 2 100 o < L < -1 ._, - A /. , ■ — — < 7 LJ d 50 -50 1 / i: 1 1 J V I ^ \ J « c 5 4 5 ■ 4 3 5 30 " DISTANCE IN MILES 680 C F S \ 900 C F.S _ a. CL ■* If) \ < n UJ < Q. 1 -1 ■ * \ q: O o s o < N =) O \1 1 > < s X O I >- < r It 3 O X -J < o UJ -I S to C -J I \ 1 1 ^-- ^ --HYDR AULIC GRADE LINE ^ ^^>r- ^ ^ r ^ "v 1 5 2 1 5 1 n 50 ^ STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION NORTH BAY AQUEDUCT MARCH 1957 SCALE AS SHOWN i1^\ PLATE 6 Top of Pier El 10' MS.L — Stop Log Guides , Fixed Wheel, verticol Lift Steel Gate 4e'x60' ^Gole S.M El -«0 ^ Floodwoy Chonnel Floor El -t3 ^— Grovel ~^ — Sond -Timber Piles )DWAY STRUCTURE NOTE ELEVATIONS fiEFER TO SEA LEVEL DATUM OF 1929 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION LAYOUT OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES CHIPPS ISLAND BARRIER PLANS MARCH 1957 SCALE AS SHOWN !3HBH i^— LOCATION MAP SCALE OF MILES llllllllll SECTION OF CONVENTIONAL SHIP LOCKS' CHIRPS ISLAND BARRIER PLAN Gonliy C one- ■tin °°" "°"'~^ . Hoill Gale Countwweigni Sarvice Bridge ? TOO of Gole El 8' W Li Gow Pitr aroKii ^ a Gala Sill Old Apron — -^ J iL-j^ Sta«l Shaet Piling Top of Pi»r El 10' M.S. L ~Sl0p Log Guides _ — Fued Wh»ei.v»fi Lifi 5'«ei Gota dB' > 60' TYPICAL SECTION OF FLOODWAY STRUCTURE SCALE OP FEET NOTE ELEV6TI0NS REFEB TO SEA LEVEL DATUM OF I9Z9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION LAYOUT OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES CHIPPS ISLAND BARRIER PLANS MARCH 1957 SCALE AS SHOWN PLATE 7 CJ1 H W I o Ki Q.^ \ £3 \ ^ Q: \ vl 'Olc / 'I w /s^^' LEGEND delta flood channels 1 volo by-pass chlpps island barrier and master levee 5vstem aOJNOARV or DELTA LOWLANDS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES OIVIStON OF RESOURCES PLANNING SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION CHIPPS ISLAND BARRIER AND DELTA FLOOD CONTROL PLAN MARCH 1957 PLATE 8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION MODIFIED CHIPPS ISLAND BARRIER AND DELTA FLOOD CONTROL PLAN MARCH 1957 SCALE OF MILES 2 2 PLATE 8 § ? STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION MODIFIED CHIPPS ISLAND BARRIER AND DELTA FLOOD CONTROL PLAN MARCH 1957 5C4LE OF MILES 7- V} w 5 < a en >- o (D LEGEND OELTfi FLOOD CHANNELS TOLO BY-PASS CHIPPS ISLAND BARRIER AND MASTEP LEVEE SYSTEM BOUNOAHV OF DELTA LOWLANDS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION MODIFIED CHIPPS ISLAND BARRIER AND DELTA FLOOD CONTROL PLAN MARCH 1957 PLATE 9 Roseville q Lodi ( Stockton ^ ^ PRIMARY WATER SERVICE NORTH BAY AQUEDUCT SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SERVICE NORTH BAY AQUEDUCT PRIMARY WATER SERVICE RUSSIAN RIVER PROJECTS RECLAMATION DISTRICT IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER ASSOCIATION WATER DISTRICT UTILITY DISTRICT EXISTING WATER CONSERVATION WORKS PROPOSED WATER CONSERVATION WORKS BOUNDARY OF HYDROGRAPHIC AREA STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION SAN FRANCISCO BAY COUNTIES WATER PLAN MARCH 1957 SHEET I OF 2 SHEETS SCALE OF MILES PLATE 9 Roseville q Lodi ( Stockton ^ ^ PRIMARY WATER SERVICE NORTH BAY AQUEDUCT SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SERVICE NORTH BAY AQUEDUCT PRIMARY WATER SERVICE RUSSIAN RIVER PROJECTS RECLAMATION DISTRICT IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER ASSOCIATION WATER DISTRICT UTILITY DISTRICT EXISTING WATER CONSERVATION WORKS PROPOSED WATER CONSERVATION WORKS BOUNDARY OF HYOROGRAPHIC AREA STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION SAN FRANCISCO BAY COUNTIES WATER PLAN MARCH 1957 SHEET I OF 2 SHEETS SCALE OF MILES ( " ' "■ I SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SERVICE I I NORTH BAT AQUEDUCT RECLAMATIOM DISTRICT iRfllGATlON DISTRICT WATER ASSOCIATION WATER DISTRICT ^/^y\ UTILITY DISTRICT - EXISTING WATER CONSERVATION WORKS ^ij_ PROPOSED WATER CONSERVATION WORKS _._ 80UN0ART OF HYOfiOGRAPMlC AREA STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION SAN FRANCISCO BAY COUNTIES WATER PLAN MARCH 1957 SHEET I OF 2 SHEETS SCALE OF MILES PLATE 9 (N) ^ LEGEND I IRRIGfiTION DISTRICT "1 WATER DISTRICT UTILITY DISTRICT WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT EXISTING WATER CONSERVATION WORKS PROPOSED WATER CONSERVATION WORKS •— BOUNDARY OF HYDROGRAPHIC AREA STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION SAN FRANCISCO BAY COUNTIES WATER PLAN MARCH 1957 SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS SCALE OF MILES S ® I PLATE 9 i LEGEND IRRIGATION DISTRICT [ I WATER DISTRICT YA///A UTILITY DISTRICT WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT EXISTING WATER CONSERVATION WORKS PROPOSED WATER CONSERVATION WORKS — — BOUNDARY OF HYDROGRAPHIC AREA STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION SAN FRANCISCO BAY COUNTIES WATER PLAN MARCH 1957 SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS SCALE OF MILES « 4 8 12 + ■® LEGEND iRHIGfiTlON DISTRICT WATER DISTRICT UTILITY DISTRICT WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT EXISTING WATER CONSERVATION WORKS PROPOSED WATER CONSERVATION WORKS eOUNOARY OF HYDROGRAPHIC AREA STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING SALINITY CONTROL BARRIER INVESTIGATION SAN FRANCISCO BAY COUNTIES WATER PLAN MARCH 1957 SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS SCALE OF MILES 0^ THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW RENEWED BOOKS ARE SUBJECT TO ••""FDIATE 7 S'^ ,i.-u6 jwie JAN 6 1969 Ml 1 . JUN15REC'D .JIJH 8 PET) Si lViAR22Rq LIBRARY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS Book Slip-20m-8,'61(01623B4)458 «i 2[iOli66 California, Dept. of [water resources. PHYS!C«. SCIENCES LIBRARY CaU Number: LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORWfA DAVIS 240486