Physical Sci.LiB. TC 321 C2 A2 NO. 9 'r-* "^ . ^ '*% CALIFORNIA. DEFT. OF WATER RESOURCES - BULLETIN. UCD LIBtlAHy f% ^^i * i G ¥ C82-4 n ot / wUtrt^ T^"''^ ^- STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND IRRIGATION BULLETIN No. 9 DEC 1 f MAR . . SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT JUU13«6 ON ^ l; lid WATER RESOURCES 6^ Ui^i CALIFORNIA JUN 13 By PAtJL bailey' A REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE OF 1925 CALrrOBNIA STATE PBINTINQ OFFICB JOHN E. KINO, SUte Printer 8ACBAKENT0. 1925 37577 itC'D II r !! PH/SICAL SCIENCES U3HARy s iJSaft- \ STATE OF CAI-IFOKMA DEPARTMENT OF PIBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF ENGINEERIN(; AND IRRIGATION BULLETIN No. 9 /( A '/ SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT ON WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA By PAUL BAILEY A REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE OF 1925 37577 CALIFORNIA STATE PRTNTING OFFICE JOHN E. KING, State Prtriter SACRAMENTO. 1925 c o c (3 O c n o (0 (0 CO E (Q Q v c c CONTENTS. Page Letter of Transinittal 5 Consultants Advising in tiie Preparation of tliis Repoit 6 Recommendations to the Legislature of 1925 7 CHAPTER I. Coordination of the Use of California's Waters 9 Preliminary Comprehensive Plan 9 A Great Problem of Irrigated Agriculture 11 The rjimit to Incoordinate Development of the State's Waters 13 CHAPTER II. First Unit of the Comprehensive Plan in San Joaquin Valley 15 Area to be Irrigated 15 Preliminary Plan of 1923 15 Plan for Conveying Water through San Joaquin Valley to the Mouth of Fresno Slough 15 Reduction of Pumping Lift by Exchange of waters 17 Proposals Dependent Upon Coordinating the Use of Water in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys 17 Description of First Unit of Comprehensive Plan in San Joaquin Valley 18 Estimate of Construction Cost of First Unit of Comprehensive Plan — 1000 second-feet capacity ., 20 Estimate of Annual Operating Cost of First Unit of Comprehensive Plan — 1000 second-feet capacity 22 Detail of Estimate of Construction Cost of First Unit of Comprehensive Plan — 1000 second-feet capacity 23 Detail of Estimate of Annual Operating Cost of First Unit of Comprehensive Plan — 1000 second-feet capacity ' 28 CHAPTER III. Second Unit of Comprehensive Plan in San Joaquin Valley 31 Description of Second Unit of Comprehensive Plan 31 Estimate of Construction Cost of Second Unit of Comprehensive Plan — 2000 second-feet additional capacity ; 31 Estimate of Annual Operating Cost of Second Unit of Comprehensive Plan — 2000 second-feet additional capacity 32 Detail Estimate of Construction Cost of Second Unit of Comprehensive Plan — 2000 second-feet additional capacity 33 Detail Estimate of Annual Operating Cost of Second Unit of Comprehensive Plan — 2000 second-feet additional capacity 40 CHAPTER IV. Controlling Features of the Comprehensive Plan 42 Investigations for Final Report on Comprehensive Plan 42 Foothill Reservoirs 43 Flood Control by Reservoirs 44 Work in Progress 45 Barrier Below Mouth of Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers 45 Reservoir Sites on Sacramento Drainage Area 46 Kennett Reservoir Site on Upper Sacramento River 46 Oroville Reservoir Site on Feather River 49 Narrows Reservoir Site on Yuba River 50 Folsom Reservoir Site on American River 50 2—37577 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. March 23, 1925. To the Members of the Legislotwe, Stafe of Calif oniia. Session of 1925. In September. 1924, the C'hambei-s of Commerce of San Francisco and Los Anp'oh^s pbiced a fund in the hands of the Division of Engi- neerintr and Irri;jation for the continuation of the Water Resources Inve.stio-ations. The appropriation in 1921, of $200,000, although inade- quate for tlie completion of the task, produced a preliminary compre- hensive plan for the maximum conservation of the state's veaters. As requested by the Chambers of Commerce, the additional money has largely been spent in studies of a first unit of this comprehensive plan for the relief of some needy section of the state. The report transmitted herewith describes an economic program of physical works for the' importation of water into Tulare County. Your attention is especially invited to the great conservation of water and the reasonable costs that this plan attains for proposals of such magni- tude. They are so interrelated with other developments, however, that thoy can not be successfully constructed and operated without complete coordination of the nse of water throughout the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. Extended studies are necessary to point out how this can be done. The state's water problems are becoming so complicated that economic progress in development can be assured only by working to some general plan based upon a complete assemblage and analysis of facts such as are under way in the Water Resources Investigations. For these reasons, the recommendations of the report are heartily endorsed. In addition to studies of the first unit of the comprehensive plan, considerable work has been undertaken in investigating the practica- bility of certain controlling features. The brief period between the receipt of funds and the printing of this report has not permitted com- pletion of this part of the work so that a progress report only is made on this phase. In presenting this report, I desire to emphasize the valuable assist- ance rendered by the engineering profession through its members serving as consultants to the investigations. They have given freely of their time and thought in service to the state. Resnectfullv submitted. Siate Engineer and Director of Public Works CONSULTANTS ADVISING WITH THE DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND IRRIGATION IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT. A. J. Cleaby G. A. Elliott B. A. Etcheverry F. C. Herrmann W. L. HUBER A. Kempkey William Mulholland RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE LEGISLATURE OF 1925. Plans have been completed and estimates made for relieving Tulare Connty in its reeding gromid-water plane through the construction of a first unit of the comprehensive plan. The studies reveal that only by completelj^ coordinating the development and use of water in both the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, can these plans be successfully and economically carried out. A reconnaissance shows that other areas in the San Joaquin Valley and in southern California are approaching conditions similar to those in Tulare County. They too, can have per- manent relief only through extensive works that require complete coordination of programs for constructing and distributing new supplies in order to make them practicable. Present information is inadequate to prepare advice" for so doing. It is urged that ample provision be made for developing additional facts and maturing sound recommendations. CHAPTER T. COORDINATION OF THE USE OF CALIFORNIA'S WATERS. THE PRELIMINARY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. In 1923. the Division of Einiineerinji' and Irri^-ation reported to the State Legislature upon the Water Resources of California. This work* assembled the first complete? inventory of the state's waters that has ever been prepared. It analyzed the needs of water for all purposes, and summarized the water requirements of the state's agricultural lands. • Comparison of these figures disclose that much of California's agricultural lands have less water in their vicinity than is required by them for maximum productivity and that the total supply, even Avith complete conservation, is barely adequate to meet the state's potential demands for water. In conclusion, a preliminary comprehen- sive plan was outlined for achieving the greatest service from the state's limited water supply. The 260 reservoirs and long supply canals of this preliminary plan are indicated on the map opposite page 10. AYithout such reservoirs and long supply canals, much of the state's water must floAv unused into the ocean while latent resources remain dormant for lack of water. These works are sufficient to equalize the erratic flow in California's streams and largely overcome the unequal geographic distribution of the state 's waters. The plan utilizes all existent reservoirs, main canals and distributing ditches. Waters from new sources would be turned into the systems already in use upon their arrival in that locality. In no instance does it contemplate the abandonment of local supplies but rather the importation of supplemental volumes to replete their deficiencies. The main constructive features of the plan largely revolve about the distribution of water for agriculture. This use predominates so greatly over all others, that, at the present time, domestic and indus- trial supply is only one-twenty -fifth of the total, while most of the waters that generate electric power and operate inines, being applied on elevated lands, are employed a second time at lower levels for irrigation. The studies demonstrate that a scientifically coordinated plan for developing the state's waters, will irrigate four-fifths of all the agricul- tural lands and still provide for the primary use in domestic supply and for industrial, mining, hydro-electric, navigation and all other needs. In diverting irrigation water below the twenty-five' hundred foot contour, the comprehensive plan leaves the great mountain area free for the generation of hydro-electric energy except for the irriga- tion of the mountain valleys, and thereby insures an undiminished yield of electric energy. Previous investigatious.f whose estimates were based upon a con- tinuation of the incoordinate devcloi)mcnt of the state's waters tliat is now in progress, limit the ultimate" area that may be irrigated, to one-half of all the agricultural lands, a third less than the accomplish- •Published as Bulletins of the Division of Engineering and Irrigation, State Department of Public Works : No. 4 "Water Resources of California," No. .5 "Flow in California Streams," No. 6 "Irrigation Requirements of California Lands." t Report of the State Conservation Commission of 1912. 10 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. iiu iits of tho conipi-olicnsivc plan. Wliilc tho current system by which each project secures an isolated supply as best it may, has enabled California arrricnltiire thron.Q'h the introduction of irrip:ation, to respond foi- many years to the ever increasing: demand for its products; the easily developed waters of the state are now in full use. The 1923 I'eport therefore concludes, "Areas greater than are now under irriga- tion may be Avatered without coordinated development and distribution, but a limit is beinn' approached whereby united endeavors almost state- wide in extent will be' neeessarv to secure greater service from the state's waters at reasonable costs." The cost for the ultimate irrigation development under the prelim- inary comprehensive plan of the 1923 report, would vary greatly in the different localities but averages eighty dollars per acre. This is the average cost for all lands whether they are now watered or not* and includes the cost of existing reservoirs and also of existing canals that form part of the plan. It comprises expenditures for construction and rights of Avay in storing water for a tirst-class irrigation supply and transporting it into the regions of use. It does not include the cost of constructing distributing canals, of acquiring water rights, of possible litigation over claims to Avater rights, or of damage suits. Neither have credit allowances bceli deducted for power that might be developed at or near the many dams for storing water that are part of the com- ju-ehensive plan. Quoting from the 1923 report, "To effect the watering of so large an area at these costs, it is necessary over- the bulk of California's lands to adopt a coordinated scheme of development and distribution of Avater, that comprise very large areas in interrelated works, * * * The plan herein set forth requires complete coordination of the dis- tril)ution of water over large areas, as well as in the construction of the works. This is necessary in order to utilize the inexpensive storage sites to the greatest advantage. Dam sites of low cost often have' limited catchment areas draining into their reservoirs that do not yield enough water to Avarrant the construction of high dams Avhen the draft on them is uniform. But under the coordinated scheme of operation of the comprehensive plan, these dams may be' erected to their full height and the cheap storage capacity thus created, utilized to the same advantage as the capacities behind other more expensive dams. To secure this advantage requires that the draft on all reservoirs be pooled so that in proportioning the total draft betAveen the reservoirs in each season, the largest amounts may be taken from the reservoirs that are filling the quickest. In this Avay, * * * reservoirs Avith Avatersheds of small yield may be left to fill Avith accumulating Avaters during the seasons of plenteous run-off and may be draAvn on only during the drier seasons. In so apportioning the draft, exactly the same results are attained in irrigating the land as by the customs in present use whereby the Avaters from each reservoir become attached to a particular tract of land and tlie reservoir is drawn on i-egularly each year at its maximum rate of j-ield. * * * In either case the same amount of •It was found to be impossible to separate the costs between areas now under water and tliose yet to be irrigated witliout a detail design of the plan in each locality, a worlv of too great a magnitude for the means at hand. The segregation is intricate because large areas, now classed as irrigated lands, have supplies that ar<^ delicient during the latter part of summer and many proietls nre shoi-t of water during the entire season in years of subnormal streamflow. There is still much work to be done in perfecting these supplies. PLATE IV « •o c S « 3 _o a < in »■ K :. ; s 52 i I M is s Ni 3SSHSSSS££S1- r^-, \VATKK HKSOIUCKS (»K ("AMKOUNIA. 11 water must be lield in stom^uv sonunvhei-c for the same lenp;th of time, hut a p'rent advaiitaii'e in eost is cheapest sites for stor- inj»' this water under the system of ])()oled draft. * * * ^pj^e coordiiuited scheme of pooling- the draft contained in the comprehensive phin would result in an avei-aiie construction cost of stora wealth is so larii'ely tak(Mi from the soil, that the way be not obstructed for ultimately irri^atin-ated areas but rather in the financial success of new projects as well. The 1928 report observes, "There are now perhaps, a million or more acre> in Califonna, fertile enough, and with water at hand, but which are failing- to produce adequately to pay for all the' costs including improvements on the land. Much of this is in large holdings and in new districts that have recently been brought under irrigation and, although it will undoubtedly be closely settled and produce to capacity within a few years, at present the'se lands are lacking in numbers of tillers of the soil to respond to the propitious agricultural environment of the state." The cause of the-e large areas being only partly occupied, does not emanate from sluggishness in the rate of settlement on California's lands, for California is outstripping all other states of the Union in the rate of its increasing agricultural production. On the contrary, the cause of the only partly occupied irrigated lands issues directly from the large size of new projects, that in a year or two, bring under irrigation in one community, an area of land greater than can be absorbed by normal growth within as many decades. During these years, many tracts, making little use of the available water supply, are heavily taxed to pay the costs of works unused by them. It has been suggested that state legulation should reduce the size of new projects or retard their initiation until lands already possessing a supply, become settled. Facts, however, prohibit the state from more than partially exercising such authority. The size of project proposals is ever expanding because of the increasing ditJiculties of obtaining new supplies in a state whose easily developed waters are already in use'. Only through the organization of larger areas does further progress become practicable. Therefore, the' cause for the increasing size of new ]u-ojects is physical aiul is not subject to legislative enactment or luunan regulation. Combinations may sometimes be discovered that permit a reduction in their area but usually an extensive change raises the unit cost beyond feasibility. On the other hand, for state authority to prohibit one community from initiating a feasible project because some other community has unsettled lands, is the exercise of power that decides which community shall prosper. New projects, in most instances, are initiatefl by eommnnities that feel the )iecessity of intro- ducing irrigation for the preservation of their continued prosj)erity. It is witnessed by the past twenty years, that the thriving communities are the ones enjoying irrigated agriculture, while ne'ighboring terri- tories without irritiation supplies, fail to maintain normal growth. 3—37577 WATKK RESOURCES OF CAMPORNIA. 11 watoi" must Ix' held in stcu'au'c sonu'whc'rc for the same lenatin<>' the maximum area of its farm lands, nevertheless, present concern does not altogether lie in the exten- sion of ii-rii>'ated arens but rather in the financial snccess of new projects as well. The 1923 report observes, "There are now perhaps, a million or more acres in California, fertile enough, and with water at hand, but which are failing to produce adeqnately to pay for all the" costs including improvements on the land. Much of this is in large holdings and in new districts that have recently been brought under irrigation and, although it wall undoubtedly be closely settled and produce to capacity wuthin a few* years, at present these lands are lacking in numbers of tillers of the soil to respond to the propitious agricultural environment of the state." The cause of the^e large areas being only partly occupied, does not (mianate from sluggishness in the rate of settlemelit on California's lands, for California is outstripping all other states of the Union in the rate of its increasing agricultural production. On the contrary, the cause of the only partly occupied irrigated lands issues directly from the large size of new projects, that in a year or two, bring under irrigation in one community, an area of land greater than can be absorbed by normal growth within as many decades. During these years, many tracts, making little use of the available water supply, are heavily taxed to pay the costs of works unused by them. It has been suggested that state regulation should reduce the size of new projects or retard their initiation until lands already possessing a supply, become settled. Facts, how-ever, prohibit the state from more than partially exercising such auth.oi'ity. The size of project proposals is ever expanding because of the increasing difificulties of obtaining new supplies in a state whose easily developed waters are already in use'. Only through the organization of larger areas does further progress become practicable. Therefore, the' cause for the increasing size of new lU'ojeets is })hysical and is not subject to legislative enactment or luiman regulation. Combinations may sometimes be discovered that permit a reduction in their area but usually an extensive change raises the unit cost beyoiul feasibility. On the other hand, for state authority to prohibit one community fi'om initialing a feasible project because some other community has unsettled lands, is the exercise of power that decides which community shall prosper. New projects, in most instances, are initiated by communities that feel the necessity of intro- ducing iri-igation for the presei-vation of their continued i)ros])erity. It is Avitnessed by the past twenty years, that the thriving communities are the ones enjoying irrigated agriculture, while neighboring terri- tories without irrigation supplies, fail to nuiintain normal growth. 3—37577 12 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. With complete utilization of the easily developed waters in the state', of necessity, new projei-ts are bee(»ininlies to,i,'ether with those approacliing a similar situation, approximate a half million acres as feftile as any in the state. Adjacent to these lands, also, are several million more acres of rich agricultural soil, unproductive without water, that will forever remain so unless an out- side source of supply is obtained. Therefore, a very large quantity of imported water will'eventually be needed in the' southern San Joaquin Valley. In southern California, there are also extensive irrigated areas draw- ing on gi'ound water for their supply. Measurements of depth to water in a large number of wells in 1922 and again in 1924, show a general decline over practically the entire region with great variation in the dit¥erent parts. In one section, the water plane dropped 100 feet during the two years. The recession over considerable areas was as much as 20 to 40 feet. Unlike Tulare County, however, there are some flood waters that pass off into the ocean, unused. Since reservoir sites are few in number and their dams are generally expensive, flood waters from several streams are being spread over gravel areas to artificially replenish the underground supply. The practice can be extended to advantage but the limit of relief from local sources is near at hand. The investigations of 1921-23 indicate that hardly half of the 2,300,000 acres of agricultural land on the Pacific slope of southern California south of Santa Barbara Channel, can receive a full supply of water even under a completely coordinated development of all local sources. The rapid transition of much of this area from rural to urban com- munities does not lessen the total quantity of water needed, for cities of fair maturity use w^ater about equal to former agricultural needs. These studies show that in total, not more than 2.50,000 acres of new lands can ever be w'atered from Ipcal sources. A further survey of southern California conditions in the fall of 1924 corroborates the findings of the 1923 report and also indicates, that, instead of expansion being limited to 250,000 acres, about a million acres of new lands may be furnished domestic, irrigation or industrial supplies by coordinating local development with the importation of Avater. Thf(ie thousand cubic feet per second would eventually have to be ol)tain('d. There being no nearby source of additional supply, great works to bring in water from a distant source will be necessary. Pre- liminary ret'onnoissance indicates that such a supply may be had from the Colorado Kiver. Because of the time refpiired to evolve the com- pletion of such large enterprises, the approach to the limit of incoordi- nate development in many localities, and the exceptionally rapid growth enjoyed by this territory, it is important for the uninterrupted expansion and continued prosperity of southern California that plans for the coordination and development of additional supplies from distant sources proceed at once. WATKR RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. 15 CHAPTER IT. FIRST UNIT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY. AREA TO BE IRRIGATED. Tlio donors of tlio fund raisod for the continuation of the Water Resources Investigation, reijuested that a first nnit of the comprehen- sive plan he devised for the relief of a needy section of the state. Sub- sequent field examination indicated that certain areas in Tulare County on which the pumpin"- from the unders-ronnd basins has exceeded replenishment, are in immediate need of importations. Without other local sources of supply, parts of this most prosperous agricultural sec- tion face the recession of their Avell levels to depths that will force the abandonment of irrigation on many farms. Measurements show that alreadv the well levels over 200,000 acres are from 30 to 100 feet below the trround surface. Tliere are also other areas in Tulare and Kern counties that are approaching like conditions. Normal growth of these communities will entail additional drafts on their underground waters and examination shows that but little additional is available. These areas in Tulare County are only the first to feel the press of an overdraft on their water supply. Proposals to bring in water from a distant source', there- fore, should be capable of expansion for a large quantity of imported water will eventually be needed in order that normal growth may be maintained in the communities of the southern San Joaquin valley. PRELIMINARY PLAN OF 1923. The Water Resources Investigation of 1921-23 determined that, dis- tributed by 3/ coordinated plan, there is enough water in the Sacramento- San Joaquin drainage basin for all its agricultural lands. The plan evolved provides for taking the surplus water of the Sacramento River to areas of deficient supply in the San Joaquin Valley. It would collect the surplus in the river channel and divert it at sea level into the mouth of the San Joaquin River by a barrier across the bay below the con- fluence of the two rivers. From here it would be boosted by pumps into a grand canal running southerly along the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. Pumping plants at intervals along this canal would raise the water again.st the grade of the valley floor. PLAN FOR CONVEYING WATER THROUGH SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY TO MOUTH OF FRESNO SLOUGH. The more detailed studies pi'epai-atory to this report have determined upon means for conveying the importations into the San Joaquin Valley, superior to those of the preliminary comprehensive plan. Instead of excavating a huge canal on the west side of the valley, the present river channel Avould be utilized bj' placing low dams with pumping plants, at intervals along it. Tlie dams would form a series 16 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. of ponds in the river channel, each successivelj'^ about ten feet higher than the* onp before. The pnmps at each dam would boost the water from the lower to the higher level. An arrangement of this kind would cost less than half as much as a grand canal ; would promote the con- servation of water, for none could flow by these dams to the sea; would furnish a more flexible system of works for progressive development and liave a lower maintenance and operating cost than a grand canal; and Avould create no new obstacles to communication and traffic on the land. As structures in a stream of the naviirable class, plans for the dams would require the approval of federal authorities. However, such a series of dams could be adapted to tlie improvement of navigation should this be found desirable. In 1917, the Federal Board of Engi- neers for Rivers and Harbors reported upon a project to make the San Joaquin River navigable the year round by the construction of dams equipped with locks for passing vessels. They concluded that the cost of these facilities exceeded the benefit that might be derived from their use for navigation alone. Preparatory to this report, fi(^ld surveys were made for a se'ries of dams for irrigation purposes. Fourteen dams were located, spaced 9 to 18 miles apart. A pumping plant at the side of each dam would boost the imported water 154 miles soutliAvard against the grade of the valley floor to the mouth of Fresno Slough. The avel-age static lift at each dam would be 11.3 feet. The series would raise the water 159 feet above sea level. The survey shows the channel of the San Joaquin River, upstream to the confluence of the Tuolumne, to average 320 feet wide with high banks. Southward from the Tuolumne, the channel becomes shallow and beyond the Merced the banks in many places are not more than seven or eight feet above the bottom of the channel. The first two dams which are downstream from the Tuolumne', would be less than bank height, but the other twelve would extend seven or eight feet above ground level. Levees would have to be constructed along the banks to confine the water to the river channel. However, the height of levees required for this purpose wonld be less than that needed to reclaim the adjacent lands from flood inundation. A levee syste'm, designed for the re'clamation of the overflow lands, would therefore answer all purposes for pumping irrigation water. Wings would have to be constructed on either side of the dams upstream from the Tuolumne River, to join them with the flood control levees. These wings, as also the dams themselves, would have to be removed to pass floods during the high water season. The flow in the lower reaches of the river may become as great as 150,000 second-feet. The diversion weir of the San Joa(iuin and Kings River Canal and Irrigation Company, near the mouth of Fresno Slough, fulfills the requirements and has stood the test of several years. Its main features are permanent piers with removable flashboards and a gate opening for passing small boats. This type of dam was adopted for the estimates. In holding the water behind the' dams south of the Tuolumne River above ground level, the low land upstream from each dam on either side of the river will be affected by seepage. The maximum height above ground of the water level behind any dam, is eight feet. This would become' progressively less until at the dam next upstream, it would be several feet below ground surface. These conditions, although WATER RESOTRCES OF CALIFORNIA. 17 more protraetod, are less severe than during flood stafre in the river, so that, for the most part, it is probable that drainage works adequate for the reclamation from floods will be sufficient. The pumping plant at the side of each dam would lift the water directly from one' pond into the other. Tli(> ]iumps would be installed in oOO second-foot units. The plants would consist of vertical, direct- ('onnei'ted. electric-driven. sercAv pumps. These pumps have good eflUciencie-; at low heads. For the conditions here outlined, a plant efficiency of 70 per cent should be obtained. The plants would be con- structed with the motors above the high-water level. REDUCTION OF PUMPING LIFT BY EXCHANGE OF WATERS. The lands in Tulare C'ounty in need of an outside supply lie at eleva- tions of 250 to 350 feet above sea level. To pump the Sacramento River water from sea level would place a heavy charge against these lands, more than Ihey could atford to pay at the present time. This can only be avoided by an exchange in supply with the lands of low elevation that are now irrigated from the San Joaquin River. By serving these lower lands from the Sacramento River, the equivalent amount of water served them could be conveyed southward by gravity from a high elevation on the upper San Joaquin River. Irrigation on the lower lands, in receiving the equivalent to their customary supply, would not be affected by the exchange. lender an arrangement of this kind, the San Joaquin River could be diverted southward from Friant at eleva- tion 420 feet above sea level, while the lands receiving exchange water lie at elevations less than 160 feet. There are 320,000 acres now irrigating from the San Joaquin River with which such an exchange might be effected. The canal conveying water southward from the San Joaquin River would meet the Kings, the next large river southerly from the upper San Joaquin, at elevation 340 feet. A second exchange of waters on the Kinsrs River would make possil)le a gravity canal leading from the Kings River southward through the heart of the Tulare County lands in need of an outside supply. In this exchange, San Joaquin River water would be delivered to lands now irrigated from the Kings River, and an equivalent amount would be diverted southward from the Kings River at the highest possible elevation. Altogether, there are lands under water from the Kings River below crossings of the suggested canal from San Joaquin River whose full supply equals 8700 second- feet. As on the loAver San Joaquin, such an exchange would not affect the irrigation now dependent upon Kings River, for these lands would receive their customary sup|)ly in time and in quantity, as usual. If these two exchanges in supply could be effected, a total pumping head of 340 feet could be saved in providing an outside source of supply for Tulare County without in any way impairing either the present or future supplies of other lands in the San Joaquin Valley. PROPOSALS DEPENDENT UPON COORDINATING THE USE OF WATER IN SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN VALLEYS. It is improbable that the cxehangc of waters here described eould be effected under the current system of isolated supplies for individual projects, e^ch secured and maintained as best it may. If they were, 18 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. the piotet'tion of the rijjhts ]>ossesse(l l)y lands with Avhich exchanges were inacU^ wouhl become so coni})licated that the risk of their loss would be o-reat. Also, these exehaufres would aj^g'ravate the complaint refrarding: incursions of salt water into the channels of the island region on thv> lower Sacramento and San -Joaiiuin Rivers, that is now the sub- ject of court action against all u])stream diversions. Further, while the 1921-28 studies demonstrated that there is more than enough water in the Sacramento Valley for its oAvn use, they also show that the sui"i)lus of easily developed water, is not so great but that its residents would be gravely concerned that the cost of their own water develop- ment might not be increased by exportations. Expensive reservoirs for impounding flood water will have to be constructed before much more Sacramento River water can be utilized. Again, the transportation of export water past the diversions along the main channel of the Sacra- mento River, especially during seasons of low flow, would be replete with strife and contention. Only as the development of surplus water for exportation is completely coordinated with local use in the Sacra- mento Valley, could its i-esidents be expected to acquiesce. In fact, the whole discussion of the diversion of surplus waters from the Sacramento River into the San Joacjuin Valley, must be predicated upon the institu- tion of a coordinated development in both valleys that gives full pro- tection against present oi- future loss to the owners of vested rights and to preiCnt users of water as well as to those potential users whose lands lie tributary to streams from which exportations of water are proposed. For these reasoiis, the proposals for the tirst unit of the comprehen- sive plan, can at this time be presented only as a mark of progress in the solution of the great problem, as a solution of its physical aspects and illustrative of the possibilities of attainment through coordination of e'Tort. At present, it can be declared feasible only as to the physical works required in its execution. There are still important problems to be solved in the protection of property rights and arrangement for guarantees before the plan can be declared feasible in all respects. An equitable solution retiuires the assemblage of more information than is now at hand aiul much further study. DESCRIPTION OF FIRST UNIT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY. The locations of the suggested dams and ])umpi)ig i)lants along the San Joaquin River for boosting imported water southward, are indi- cated on the accompanying map, opposite this page. For the first unit of the comprehensive ])lan, a ])i'o,iect of 1000 second-feet capacity, only six of the fourteen dams on the main riv(M- chaniu'l are required. These six, with one dam and pumping plant on Salt Slough, a tributary to the San Joaciuin extending westerly towards Los Banos. and three pum])ing ])lants on a cut extending from Salt Slough, would lift the water to elevation 119 on the main canal of the San Joacpiin and Kings River Canal and Irrigation ('om])any near Los Banos. There is a sufficiently lai-ge area served from this canal below elevation 119 for an exchange of a 1000 second-foot supply. Tile second unit of the comj)reliensive ])lan would use all 14 of the sugi:e>ted dams along the nuiin channel of the San Joatjuin River which would lift the water to elevation 159 at the mouth of Fresno Slough. Thert' ai'e areas irrigated from the San Joaquin, below this ^ ^ , /-^ Z • ^^^^"-^^^ -~-~>^ V t i \ N <- / i \ K^ o - 1 i / / /^ kf 5\ I j1 O 1 .-A k ^ <»• 1 / t \ \ /'^'^ tn ^ q: UJ z z < Q. 1- < 1- 2 g 2 U (fl ■< 2 2 < f- < z > cn z u I Ui Q. _l < U in CvJ d: q: Q < Li > 2 o u. _i < 0. 5 li. O -1 < u ll. o o z >• z < Q_ < 1- Z U. o z o (/) ifl LU o 1/1 _j n D n. k. z < u z q: UJ LJ U a. h u J 2 ^ s u i O ^ u 5 z o U u) Z UJ q: 2 i o u u UJ > < z o z It UJ < J < U o;' 3 I < UJ h- u g Q. 1- < 1- _l < -1 Q u. O z g < 2 1 < 2 UJ z 1- Q. Q. D lij a: UJ < Z or. u. J. < < z in q: > < u 111 5 UJ U a. (T h- (fl o - IE a. CO CO >- ^ CQ < O o ^~\ WATER RESOURCES OP^ CALIFORNIA. l9 elevation sufticieiit for a tolal excliaime ,su])ply of 3000 second-feet. Sacramento Kiver water conld he carried still further up the San Joaquin Valley by continuinu' the series of dams and pumping plants in Fresno Slough. A tield survey was run for the canal conveying San Joaquin Rivef water southwai-d in exchange for which Sacramento River water would be imported to the lower lands along the San Joaquin. This line leaves Friant on tlie upjier San Joacpiin. at elevation 420 and passes through rolling foothills for a distanee of nine miles. The first five miles of this are sidehill construction. It then emerges on the valley floor. Here it passes 4000 acres of first-class lands now farmed principally to grain or pasture and without a water supply. The Ihie then crosses the P'rcsno and Consolidated Irrigation Districts and meets the Kings River at elevation 340. The total length of line from Friant to the Kings River is 32i miles. It crosses the main canals of the Fresno and Consolidated Irrigation Districts that divert from the Kings River, above lands whose full irrigation supply is 3000 second-feet. It meets the Kings River above other diversions whose full supply is 5700 second-feet. There is, therefore, a supply of 8700 second-feet available on the Kings in exchange for San Joaquin River water. Kings River water, to the amount of San Joaquin River water given in exchange, would be diverted at elevation 420, the head of the Alta Irrigation District main canal. The first 32 miles of the line south- ward from the Kings, would be an eidargement of the main canal of the Alta Irrigation District. This canal now has a maximum capacity of 1200 second-feet. It would have to be enlarged to carry both sup- plies. In diverting at elevation 420, the Alta canal flows along the base of the SieiTa foothills, terminating at Seville. Its location is as high as can be obtained without runinng into verv costlv sidehill work. From the end of the Alta canal, the line takes oft in a southerly direc- tion through Tulare County as shown on the map opposite page 18. lender this scheme of Avorks, the actual water distributed in Tulare County would come from the Kings River. To supply this in the required volumes during the summer and fall months, necessitates storage. Without storage on the Kings River, an exchange would be limited to a few hundred second-feet during the latter part of the irrigation season except in years of large run-oft', for the flow drops as low as 300 to 500 second-feet during the month of September. The Kings River Water Conservation District proposes to construct the Pine Flat reservoir on the Kings River that will serve an equalized sujiply to about 1,000,000 acres. This would furnish ample stored water for the Tulare County diversion. In order to compensate Kings River divei'sions for stored water diverted into Tulare County, a reservoij- would have to be constructed on the upper San Joaquin River. The San Joaquin River Water Storage District contemplates the construction of a large reservoir on the San Joaquin near Friant. On fruition of these plans, stored water would be available for comj)ensation to the Kings River diversions. It would then have to be replaced in the San Joaquin diversions by water from the Sacramento drainage area. These exchanges would all be made by delivering an equivalent supply, both in time and in volume, to the lands receiving other watei- in place of their customary and rightful supply. 4—37577 ' 18 the prot were m; would b rofrardii oil tlU' l< jeet of the 1921 in the t surplus woukl b ment mi impoun( Sacrame export \" mento I with str for expc mento \ whole di River in tion of ; tection a to presei lie tiibu For tl sive plai the solu and illu; of eTort works r( be solve guarant( equitabl now at 1 DESCRIF IN SAN The 1( San Joa cated on of the c( six of th six, witl the San p urn pint water to River C suffieicnl an exchj The s. suprueste' whi<'li w Slouyli. VVATKK UKSUrUCKS OK CALIFORNIA. l9 elevation sufficient for h totfil exchange supply of 3000 second-feet. Sacramento Kiver water eould ])e carried still further up the San Joaquin N'alley by continuing' the series of dams and pumping plants in Fresno Slough. A field survey was run for the canal conveying San Joaquin River water southwai-d in exchange for Avhieh Sacramento Kiver water would be imjiorted to tlu' lower lands along tlie San .Ioa(iuin. This line leaves Friant on the upper San Joa(iuin, at elevation 420 and passes through rolling foothills for a distance of nine miles. The first five miles of this are sidehill construction. It then emerges on the valley floor. Here it passes 4()()() acres of first-class lands now farmed principally to grain or pasture and without a water supply. The line then crosses the Fresno and Consolidated Irrigation Districts and meets the Kings Kiv(>r at elevation 840. The total length of line from Friant to the Kings Kiver is 32h miles. It crosses the main canals of the PVesno and Consolidated Irrigation Districts that divert from the Kings River, above lands whose full irrigation supply is 3000 second-feet. It meets the Kings River above other diversions whose full supply is 5700 second-feet. There is, therefore, a supply of 8700 second-feet available on the Kings in exchange for San Joaquin River water. Kings River water, to the amount of San Joaquin River water given in exciiange. would be diverted at elevation 420, the head of the Alta Irrigation District main canal. The first 32 miles of the line south- ward from the Kings, would be an enlargement of the main canal of the Alta Irrigation District. This canal now has a maximum capacity of 1200 secoiul-feet. It would have to be enlarged to carry both sup- plies. In diverting at elevation 420, the Alta canal flows along the base of the SieiTa foothills, terminating at Seville. Its location is as high as can be o])taiued without running into very costly sidehill work. From the end of the Alta canal, the line takes off in a southerly direc- tion through Tulare (*ouiity as shown on the map opposite page 18. Under this scheme of works, the actual water distributed in Tulare County Avould come from the Kings River. To supply this in the required volumes during the summer and fall months, necessitates storage. Without storage on the Kings River, an exchange would be limited to a few hundred second-feet during the latter part of the irrigation season except in years of large run-oft', for the flow drops as low as 300 to 500 second-feet during the month of September. The Kings River Water Conservation District proposes to construct the Pine Flat reservoir on the Kings River that will serve an equalized supply to about 1,000.000 acres. This would furnish ample stored water for the Tulare County diversion. In order to compensate Kings River diversions for stored water diverted into Tulare County, a reservoir would have to be constructed on the upper San Joa<|uin River. The San Joaquin River Water Storage District contemplat(»s the construction of a large reservoir on the San Joaquin near Fi-iant. On fi-uition of these plans, stored water would be available for comi)ensation to the Kings River divel'sions. It would then have to be leplaced in the San Joaquin diversions by water from the Sacramento drainage area. These exchanges would all be made by delivering an e(|uivalent supply, both in time and in volume, to the lands receiving other water in place of their customary and rightful supplv. 4—37577 •_>(l SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. Wrre a project of this character constructed under the comprehensive plan, tlie dams in the channel of the San Joaquin River would stop much unused water from running into the ocean. Mingled with the mountain run-off, would he a certain amount of return flow or water draining hack into the channel after use on the land. Samples were taken at the mouth of each tributary during the fall of 1924, when all mountain water was being diverted and only return water was flowing in the channels. Chemical analyses of these samples indicate its suitability for irrigation use. The total amount of water intercepted by these dams would probably be enough for several years, to furnish a' full supply to the first unit of the comprehensive plan without Sacramento River Avater. Although most of this water would be' subject to claim by owners of riparian and progressive appropriation rights, under the pooled system of distribution of the comprehensive plan, it would be temporarily available to the Tulare County project during the period in which the claimants failed to use it. The construction of works for developing Sacramento River water in the first unit of the comprehensive plan, therefore, might be deferred for a period after the initiation of the project. After a time, however, Sacramento River water would be required by the first unit of the comprehensive plan. Except for possible legal entanglements, it could be developed either by the construction of a mountain reservoir in the Sacramento Basin or by the construction of the barrier below the mouth of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. If the equivalent to the water released from storage into the Sacramento River were pumped from the lower San Joaquin, it would not particularly disturb the conditions of low water flow in the two rivers. Thus, although the' barrier is not a physical necessity to the first unit of the comprehensive plan in the San Joaquin Valley, it is an essential feature of the ultimate diversion of Sacramento River water into the San Joaquin, for without it, there can not be the com- plete conservation necessary to develop the large volumes of surplus Sacramento water for exportation ; but unless its construction were assured, undoubtedly the first unit of the comprehensive plan would become embroiled in the water-right controversies surrounding the incursion of salt water into the delta region of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, and be subjected to court injunction. If the barrier were constructed, the first unit of the comprehensive plan in the San Joaquin Valley would not need storage works in the Sacramento basin. The barrier would conserve the entire low flow of both the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, more than sufficient for the fir.st unit of the San Joaquin diversion. ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COST OF FIRST UNIT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ONE THOUSAND SECOND-FEET CAPACITY. The following is the estimated cost of constructing the first unit of the comprehensive plan in the San Joaquin Valley. Assuming the completed construction of the reservoirs of the Kings River Conserva- tion District and of the San Joacjuin River Water Storage District, Water resottrcks of California. 21 it contains llu' costs oi" all ])hysii'al works necessary for its ultimate execution. It does not, liowever, contain a proportional charge for the barrier across the bay below the mouth of the two rivers but instead, contains the cost of storing flood water for release into the Sacramento River during- the months of low flow. It is estimated that the charge for storing water in the Sacramento basin is a substantial equivalent to a proportional charge for the barrier, because, by constructing this storage, except for legal entanglements, the first unit could proceed without partieulai-l\- disturbing the liow of the Sacramento or San Joaquin Rivers. In entering a cost for storage on the Sacramento drainage area, no attempt was made to designate a particular reservoir since this need not be constructed for several years, but an amount was estimated that should not be exceeded if one were selected. The storage capacity needed could be' most cheaply obtained in combination with some other reservoir project. Any storage in the Sacramento basin offering an advantageous combination is adaptable to the first unit of the compre- hensive plan. The entire cost of the dams in the channel of the San Joaquin River is entered although part of their expense should be a deferred charge to other units of the comprehensive plan for conveying surplus Sacra- mento River water into the San Joaquin Valley. Placing these dams in the river channel furnishes a conduit of adequate capacity for any quantity of water that may ultimately be pumped up the grade of the valley. The capacity of the pumping plants only, would have to be increased as additional units are added to the comprehensive plan. Also, it may prove desirable to plan these dams for combination with a navigation project. In such an event, the charge to the irrigation project may be less than the entire cost of the dams. The full cost is entered of the levees that are required to confine the water behind the dams to the river channel, although levees of greater dimension would have to be constructed in reclaiming adjacent over- flow lands; however, no charge is made for draining low lands along the river, for the drainage works required for reclamation against floods, would probably exceed those needed for this project and drain- age would be of doubtful value to the lands unless reclaimed. Summary of Construction Cost One Thousand Second-Foot Project. Annual gross supply 330,000 acre-feet. Gross duty 2.7 acre-feet per acre. Net duty 2.0 acre-feet per acre. Area to be irrigated 120,000 acres. Storage capacity required 140,(X)0 acre-feet. Required G dams and pumping plants on San Joaquin River. Required 1 dam and pumping jilant on Salt Slough. Required 3 pumping plants and connecting canal on Salt Slough extension. Required 40 miles levee of variable height on each bank of San Joaquin River and Salt Slough. Exchange water delivered into main canal of San Joaquin and Kings River Canal and Irrigation Company near Los Banos at elevation 119. Required 112 miles of canal — Friant to Earlimart. (ist pri r (t acre-feet storage capacity at $25 3,500.000 Total cost, immediate and deferred $12,876,8(K) $107 30 ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL OPERATING COST FIRST UNIT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ONE THOUSAND SECOND-FEET CAPACITY. In estimating' the annnal costs of operation of the first 1000 second- foot unit of the comprehensive plan, it is thought that the dams in the channel of the San Joaquin River for many years, would intercept water sufficient that not more than the equivalent of one-half of the season's supply Avould have to be pumped from sea level. The amount of water intercepted by the several dams would vary from season to season and the cost of energy would vary accordingly. Attendance at the dams the year round is included in the costs so that the only increase in the total for pumping a greater amount of water would be in the energy charge. It would be a number of years before the power consumption in any season would exceed the cost entered as immediate. If tlie entire supply were pumped from sea level in any season, the total charge would l)e $4.60 per acre. Summary — Annual Operating Cost One Thousand Second-Foot Project. Anniuil Immediate expense — Annual cost cost per acre Energy cost $278,000 $2 30 Interest, maintenance, operation and depreciation — - Dams and pumping plants on San Joaquin River and Salt Slough 407.60 Concrete cut-off walls, SIO cubic yards at $25.00 20.400 Concrete base, 1.360 cubic yards at $25.00 34.000 Concrete piers. 816 cubic yards at $25.00 20.40<"i Concrete deck and superstructure, 567 cubic yards at $30.00 17.00O Piles, 10,200 lineal feet at $2.00 20.400 (iates and hoisting apparatus 32,300 Navigation gate aud drawbridge 17,000 Construction cost L $202,300 Interest during construction at 6% 12,100 Contingencies at 15% 30,300 Engineering and administration at 10% 20,200 Total cost $264,900 24 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. Dam No. 3— Length 200 Feet. Coat Excavation, dry, 1000 cubic yards at $1.00 $1,000 Excavation, wet, 2000 cubic yards at $1.50 3,000 Concrete retaining walls, 800 cubic .vards at $25.00 20,000 Concrete cut-off walls. 480 cubic yards at $25.00 12.00O Concrete base, 800 cubic yards at $25.00 , 20,000 Concrete piers, 480 cubic yards at $25.00 12,000 Concrete deck and superstructure, 333 cubic yards at $30.00 10,00(» Piles, 0000 lineal feet at $2.00 12.000 Gates and hoisting apparatus 10.000 Navigation gate and drawbridge 10,00<^^) Construction cost $119,000 Interest during construction at 6% 7,100 Contingencies at 15% 17,900 Engineering and administration at 10% 11,900 Total cost $155,900 Dam No. A — Length 340 Feet. Excavation, dry, 1700 cubic yards at $1.00 $1,700 Excavation, wet, 3400 cubic yards at $1.50 5,100 Concrete retaining walls, 1360 cubic yards at $25.00 34.000 Concrete cut-off walls, 81G cubic yards at $25.00 20,400 Concrete base, 1300 cubic yards at $25.00 34,000 Concrete piers, 816 cubic yards at $25.00 20,400 Concrete deck and superstructure, 567 cubic yards at $30.00 17,000 Piles, 10,200 lineal feet at $2.00 20,400 Gates and hoisting apparatus 32,300 Navigation gate and drawbridge 17.000 Construction cost $202,300 Interest during construction at 6% 12,10(> Contingencies at 15% 30,300 Engineering and administration at 10% 20,200 Total cost $264,900 Dam No. 5 — Length 240 Feet. Excavation, dry, 1200 cubic yards at $1.00 $1,20^1 Excavation, wet, 2400 cubic yards at $1.50 3,600 Concrete retaining walls. 960 cubic yards at $25.00 24,000 Concrete cut-off walls, 570 cubic yards at $25.00 14,400 Concrete base, 960 cubic yards at $25.00 24,000 Concrete piers, 576 cubic yards at $25.00 14,400 Concrete deck and superstructure, 400 cubic yards at $30.00 12.000 Piles, 7200 lineal feet at $2.00 , 14,400 Gates and hoisting apparatus 22,800 Navigation gate and drawbridge 12,000 Construction cost $142,800 Interest during construction at 6% 8,600 Contingencies at 15% 21,400 Engineering and administration at 10% 14,300 Total cost $187,100 Dam No. 6 — Length 200 Feet. Excavation, dry, 1000 cubic .vards at $1.00 $1,000 Excavation, wet, 2000 cubic yards at $1.50 3,000 Concrete retaining walls. 800 cubic yards at $25.00 20,000 Concrete cut-off walls, 480 cubic yards at $25.00 12,0 Concrete base, 800 cubic yards at $2.5.00 20,000 Concrete piers, 480 cubic yards at $25.00 12,000 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. 25 Cost Concrete deck and superstructure, 333 cubic yards at $30.00 $10,0 Engineering and administration at 10% 11,900 Total cost $15o,90(J Dam No. 7A — In Salt Slough — Length 150 Feet. Excavation, dr.v. 7.nO cubic yards at $1.00 $750 Excavation, wet. 1500 cubic yards at $1.50 2,250 Concrete retaininir walls, 000 cubic yards at $2.5.00 15,000 Concrete cut-off walls, 360 cubic yards at $2.5.00 9,000 Concrete base, GOO cubic yards at $25.00 1.5.000 Concrete piers, 3(50 cubic yards at $25.00 9,000 Concrete deck and superstructure, 250 cubic yards at $30.00 7,50<") Piles. 450<3 lineal feet at .$2.00 9.000 Gates and hoisting apparatus 14,300 Navigation gate and drawbridge 7,.500 Construction cost $S9.30O Interest during construction at 6% .5,400 Contingencies at 15% . 1.3,40<1 Engineering and administration at 10% 8,900 Total cost - .$117,000 Summary of Dams. Dam No. 1 .$218,300 Dam No. 2 2M,900 Dam No. 3 15-5,900 Dam No. 4 204.900 Dam No. 5 1S7.100 Dam No. 6 1.55.900 Dam No. 7A 117,000 Total cost of dams .$1,364,000 Pumping Plants. T apical Plant- — 1000 second-feet capacity. Excavation, dry, 1800 cubic yards at $0.50 $900 Excavation, wet, 1600 cubic yards at .$2..50 4,000 Concrete in retaining walls, 420 cubic yards at $25.00 10,-500 Concrete in intakes and pump sumps, 275 cubic yards at $30.00 8,250 Concrete in Venturi tubes, 200 cubic yards at -$3-5.00 7.000 Concrete in buildings and extras, 255 cubic yards at $35.00 9,000 Lining outlet canal, 5000 square feet at $0.25 1,250 Pumps and electi-ical equipment. 2 units at $42,870 85,750 Transformers, 4 at $-5.000 20.000 Operators' houses, 3 with water supply 13,500 Roads. 2 miles at $2.500 5,000 Side levees. 62-50 cubic yards at -$0.20 -_— 1,2.V,' Construction cost . $166,400 Interest during construction at 6% 10,000 Contingencies at 1.5% ^- 25,000 Enginoering and administration at 10% 16,600 Total cost of typical pumping plant $218,000 26 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. Summary of Pumping Plants. Coat On San Joaquin Kivor and Salt Slough, 7 plants at $218,000 $1,526,000 On Salt Slough Extension, 3 plants at $218,000 654,000 Total cost of pumping plants $2,180,000 Salt Slough Extension — Length 3 Miles. Kxcavation. 250,4(10 cubic yards at $0.25 $62,600 Concrete lining, 72S,&40 square feet at $0.12 87,400 Construction cost $150,000 Tiitt-iest during construction at 6% , 9,000 Contingencies at 15% 22,500 Engineering and administration at 10% 15,000 Total cost of Salt Slough Extension $196,500 40 Miles Levee on San Joaquin River and Salt Slough. Dredge Imiik. 4.8C)O,0o0 cvd)ic yards at $0.20 $960,000 Interest during construction at 6% 57,600 Contingencies at 157o 144,000 Kni;ineering and administration at 10% 96,000 Total cost of levees $1,257,600 Friant-Kings River Canal. Fire miles sidehill construction — Intake structure at dam $30,000 Excavation, broken schist, 96,900 cubic yards at $0.85 82,400 Excavation, loose rock and hardpau, 165,100 cubic yards at $0.75_ 123,800 Concrete lining, 1,082,300 square feet at $0.15 162,300 Flume or siphon, 1499 feet at $50 75,000 Two road siphons, 100 feet at $50 5,000 Right of way, 100 feet wide, 60 acres at $50 3,000 Construction cost $481,500 Interest during construction at 6% 28,900 Coniingencies at 15% 72,300 Engineering and administration at 10% 48,100 Total cost $630,800 I'linr miles rolling c/round — Excavation, hardpau, 33,400 cubic yards at $0.60 $20,000 Excavation, hardpau, 40,600 cubic yards at $0.50 20,300 Excavation, sand, 39,300 cubic yards at $0.30 11,800 Excavation, earth. 32.000 culiic yards at $0.20 6.400 Concrete lining, 38.5.5(X) square feet at $0.15 57,800 Concrete lining. 434.700 square feet at ,$0.12 52,200 Dry Creek siphon, 180^) feet at $50 90,000 Uoad and railroad siphon, 60 feet at $50 3,000 Right of way, 100 feet wide, 24 acres at $50 1,200 Right of way, 100 feet wide, 12 acres at $100 1,200 Right of way, 100 feet wide, 12 acres at $322.84>0 culiic ynnls at $0.18 $112,100 Excavalioii, Iwttoin land. tJD.LMK) ciihic yards at $0.20 13,800 Conorete liuing, 5,00'.»,!)UO square feel at $0.12 608,400 32 )-oad siphous, 950 feet at $50 47,500 3 railroad siphons, 300 feet at $50 lo,000 5 large eaual crossiiiRs. 50O ft>et at $50 25,000 5 small canal erossinss, 250 feet at $50 12,500 1 wasteway at Kinss River 9,700 Right of way, 100 feet wide, 24 acres at $300 7,200 Right of way. KIO feet wide, 258 acres at $750 193,500 Construction cost $1,044,700 Interest during construction at 6% 62,700 Contingencies at 15% 156,700 Engineering and adininistralioii at 10% 104,500 Total cost $1,368,600 Summary of Friant-Klngs River Canal. Total, 5 miles sidehill construction $630,800 Total, 4 miles on rolling ground 350,400 Total, 23* miles on flat ground 1,368,600 Total cost of Friant-Kings River Canal $2,349,800 Kings River- Earlimart Canal. Enlargement Alia Canal, *32.3 miles — Excavation, earth, 1,355,000 cubic yards at $0.30 .$406,500 Excavation, hardpan, 169,000 cubic yards at $0.50 84,500 Intake structure 25,000 4 railroad siphons, 300 feet at $50 15,000 23 road siphons, 690 feet at $50 34,500 Right of way, 100 feet wide, 60 acres at $100 6,000 Right of way, 100 feet wide, 157 acres at $300 47,100 Right of way, 100 feet wide, 140 acres at $700 98,000 Right of way, 100 feet Avide, 60 acres at $1,000 60,000 Construction cost ' $776,600 Interest during construction at 6% 46,600 Contingencies at 15% 116,500 Engineering and administration at 10% 77,700 Total cost $1,017,400 Seville to Earlimart, ^7 miles, flat (jround — Excavation, earth, 2,040,500 cubic yards at $0.18 $367,300 48 road siphons. 1,570 feet at $50 78,500 4 railroad .siphons, 280 feet at $50 14,000 12 small canal siphons, 480 feet at $50 24,000 8 creek siphons, 700 feet at $50 35,000 Right of way, 100 feet wide, 216 acres at $200 43,200 Right of way, 100 feet wide, 108 .icres at $350 37,800 Right of way, 100 feet wide, 212 acres at $700 148,400 Right of way, 100 feet wide, 24 acres at $1,000 24,000 Construction cost $772,200 Interest during construction at 6% " 46,300 Contingencies at 15% 115,800 Engineering and administration at 10% 77,200 Total cost $1,011,500 •Enlarged to carry supply for Tulare County Project in addition to supply for Alta Irrigation District. 28 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT, Summary of Kings River-Earlimart Canal. Cost Total, enlarffoment of Alta caual $1,017,400 Total. Seville to Karlimart section 1,011,-^00 Total cost of Kiugs Rivor-Eai-liment canal $2,028,900 Summary of Construction Cost, One Thousand Second-Foot Project. Immediate Expense — Total Coat per acre 7 Dams in San Joaquin River and Salt Slough $1,364,000 $11.40 10 rumpins paints 2,180.000 18.20 Salt Slough Extension lOfi.oOO 1.60 lievees on hanks of San Joaquin River and Salt Slough 1,2.57,600 10.50 Friant-Kings River canal 2,349,800 19.60 Kings River-Earlimart canal 2,028,900 16.90 Total immediate cost $9,376,800 $78.20 Deferred Expense — 140,000 acre-feet storage capacity at $25 3,500,000 29.10 Total cost, immediate and deferred $12,876,800 $107.30 DETAIL ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FIRST UNIT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. One Thousand Second-feet Capacity. Annual gross supply 330,000 acre-feet. Gross duty 2.7 acre-feet per acre. Net duty 2.0 acre-feet per acre. Area to be irrigated 120,000 acres. Storage capacity required 140,000 acre-feet. Required 6 dams and pumping plants on San Joaquin River. Required 1 dam and pumping plant on Salt Slough. Required 3 pumping plants and connecting canal on Salt Slough extension. Required 40 miles levee of variable height on each bank of San Joaquin River and Salt Slough. Exchange water delivered into main canal of San Joaquin and Kings River Canal and Irrigation Company near Los Banos at elevation 119. Requires 112 miles of Canal — Friant to Earlimart. Dams and Pumping Plants on San Joaquin River and Salt Slough. Energy cost — Annual cost Static head 119 feet Friction head 33 feet Total pumping head 152 feet Required 17,300 horsepower. Pumping 90 days, power consumption is 27,800,000 kilowatt hours. 27,800,000 kilowatt hourts at Ip $278,000 Labor for operating pumping plants — One chief operator $3,000 Permanent operators, 10 at $1,200 per year 12,000 Temporary operators, 10 for 90 days at $4.00 3,600 Laborers, 10 for 90 days at $3.00 2,700 21,300 Interest, total cost of pumping plants and d.-ims $3,.544.000. at 6% __ 212,600 Carried forward $511,900 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. 29 Depreciation of itumping plants and dams — Annual cost Brought forward $511,900 10 Pumping Plants, construction cost |!l.fiG4,000, at 5% ii:s3,200 7 Dams, construction cost $1,041,200, at 1% 10,400 03,(X)0 Maintenance and repair of pumping plants and dams — 10 pumping plants, construction cost $1,664,000, at 3% $49,900 7 Dams, construction cost, $1,041,200, at 1% 10,400 ^Miscellaneous, incidentals and insurance 5,000 65,300 Total dams and pumping plants $670,800 Salt Slough Extension. Interest, total cost $196,500, at G% $11,800 Depreciation, contruction cost $150,000, at 1% 1,500 Maintenance, construction cost $150,000, at 1% 1,500 Total Salt Slough Extension $14,800 Levees on Banks of San Joaquin River and Salt Slough. Interest, total cost $1,257,600, at 6% $75,500 Depreciation, construction cost $960,000, at 1% 9,600 Maintenance, construction cost $960,000, at 1% 38,400 Total levees - $123,500 Storage Reservoir. Interest, total cost $3..500.000, at 6% $210,000 Depreciation, construction cost $2,700,000, at 1% 27,000 One watchman at reservoir 1,500 Total reservoir $238,500 Friant-Earlimart Canal. Interest, total cost $4,378,300, at G% $262,700 Depreciation on structures, construction cost $538,700, at 2% 10,800 Maintenance and repair- Canal and structures, construction cost $3,342,100, at 1% 33,400 Labor for operation — I Superintendent $4,000 II Patrolmen, 6 months at $150 9,900 13,900 Miscellaneous, incidentals and insurance 5,000 Total Friant-Earlimart canal $325,800 30 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. Summary of Annual Operating Cost, First Unit of Comprehensive Plan. One Thousand Second-Feet Capacity. Annual I inincdiiitc diniisc — Annual cost cost per acre Knerjry cost $278,000 ,$2 30 Interest, maintenance, operation and depreciation — Dams and pum])inii plants on San Joaquin River and Salt Sloiifrh 392,800 3 30 Salt Slouch extension 14,800 10 Levees on San Joaquin River and Salt Slough 123,500 1 0<) Friant-Earlimart canal 325,800 2 70 Total cost, immediate $1,134,900 $9 40 Deferred expense — Interest, maintenance, operation and depreciation Energy cost $278,000 $2 30 on reservoir 238,500 2 00 Total annual cost, deferred $516,500 $4 30 Total annual cost, immediate and deferred $1,651,400 $13 70 WATER KKSOTiRCKS OK OAt-IFORNFA. 31 CHAl^TER ill. SECOND UNIT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY. DESCRIPTION OF SECOND UNIT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Aloiii*: witli otluT works, tlu' tir.st unit of the coniprehensive {)lan iu the San .Joaquin Valley would construct six dams in the channel of tlie San Joaquin River and equip the plants at each dam with pumps of 1000 second-feet capacity. These would hoost the imported water from sea level to the mouth of Salt Sloug'h. Tlie second unit of the comjirehensive plan would enlarge the pumping plants at these six dams from 1000 to 3000 second-feet total capacity. The additional supply of 2000 second-feet would he carried from the mouth of Salt Shiu^h up the channel of the San Joacpiin Kiver hy a continuation of the series of dams and pumping plants, while the 1000 second-feet of the first luiit wnidd he taken up Salt Slough. Eight more dams and pumping plants in addition to the six of the first unit. Avould be necessary' to boost the water to points where it might be delivered as exchange supplies. The last plant of unit number two would raise the water to elevation 159 at the mouth of Fresno Slough. The pumping plants at the first four dams of the second unit would have a capacity of 2000 second-feet. The delivery of exchange supplies would permit a reduction in the capacity of the plants at the four dams farthest upstream to 1500 second-feet. Tlie additional supply developed by Unit No. 2, would be carried into Tulare County liy enlarging the eapacitj' of the Friant-Earlimart canal from 1000 to 3000 second-feet principally by lining the canal section. ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COST SECOND UNIT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2000 SECOND-FEET ADDITIONAL CAPACITY. The cost of constructing the second unit of the comprehensive plan is estimated on the same l)asis as the first unit. It assumes that the reservoirs of the Kings River Conservation District and of the San Joaquin River Water Storage District are constructed. Likewis'^, instead of a proportional charge for the barrier below the mouth of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, a charge is entered for construct- ing storage in the Sacramento basin that would augment the low flow of the Sacramento River by as nuich water as would be taken out at the mouth of the San Joa([uin River. It is thougiit that this is a sub- stantial equivalent to a proportioiuil charge for the l)arrier, because, by constructing this storage, except for legal entanglements, the second unit could proceed without particularly disturbing the low flow of the Sacramento or San Joacpiin Rivers. The reservoir charge in the Sacram,ento basin is entered without selection of a particular site, for the storage capacity needed could be most cheaply obtained in combination with some other reservoir project 32 SUt'PLEMENTAL RfePORf. and any one offering an advantageous combination is adaptable. The estimated entry should not ho, exceeded if a selection were made. The entire cost of the eight additional dams in the channel of the San Joa(iuin Kiver, together with the cost of levees along the river banks to confine' the water behind them to the river channel, is included, although part of their tirst cost should be a deferred charge to future units of the comprehensive plan for conveying surplus Sacramento River water into the San Joaquin Valley. No part of the cost of the first six dams nor of their levees along the river banks, is entered, how- ever, because this entire cost was included in the cost of the first unit of the comprehensive plan. As in the estimate for the first unit, there is no inclusion for costs of draining low lands adjacent to the river. Summary of Construction Cost — Second Unit of Comprehensive Plan 2000 Second- Feet Additional Capacity. Annual gross supply 660,000 acre-feet additional to Unit No. 1. Annual saving in seepage loss of unit number one water by lining canal. 60,000 acre-feet. Total available supply, 720,000 acre- feet. Gross duty 2.2 acre-feet per acre. Net duty 2.0 acre-feet per acre. Area to be irrigated 330,000 acres additional to Unit No. 1. Storage capacity required 060,000 acre-feet. Required additional pumping units of 2000 second-feet capacity at the 6 dams of Unit No. 1 in San Joaquin River. Required 8 dams and pumping plants- on San Joaquin River in addition to the 6 dams of Unit No. 1. Required 63 miles of levee of variable height on each bank of San Joa- quin River adjacent to the 8 new dams. Exchange water delivered at the head gates of diversions from the San Joaquin River between elevations 117 and 159. Required the enlargement of Friant-Earlimart canal, 112 miles in length, from 1000 to 3000 second-feet capacity. Immediate expense — Annual cost 8 dams in San Joaquin River $1,656,500 4 pumping plants, 2000 second-feet capacity 1,482,400 4 pumping plants, 1500 second-feet capacity 1,179,000 6 pumping plants, enlarged from lOOO to 3000 second-feet capacity 1,828,800 63 miles levee on banks of San Joaquin River 1,980,700 Friant-Kings River canal, enlargement 1,700.400 Kings River-Earlimart canal, enlargmeent 4.837,800 560,n mediate expense — Annual cost cost per acre Energy cost $1,190,700 $3 60 Interest, maintenance, operation and depreciation — 8 dams and pumping plants on San Joaquin River 094,600 2 10 63 miles levees on banks of San Joaquin River — 194,400 01) Friant-Earlimart canal, enlargement 467,500 1 40 Storage reservoir 759,000 2 30 Total annual cost, immediate $3,306,200 $10 00 Deferred expense — Energy cost 446,500 1 40 Total annual cost, immediate and deferred $3,752,700 $11 40 DETAIL ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COST SECOND UNIT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 200C SECOND-FEET ADDITIONAL CAPACITY. Annual gross supply 660,000 acre-feet additional to Unit No. 1. Annual saving in seepage loss of unit number one water by lining canal, 60,000 acre-feet. Total available supply, 720,000 acre-feet. (Jross duty 2.2 acre-feet per acre. Net duty 2.0 acre-feet per acre. Area to be irrigated ;i.SO,000 acres additional to Unit No. 1. Storage capacity required 5<50,000 acre-feet. Required additional pumping units of 2000 second-feet capacity at the 6 dams of Unit No. 1 in San .Toaquin River. Required 8 dams and pumping plants on San Joaquin River in addition to the 6 dams of Unit No. 1. Required (v> miles of levee of variable height on each bank of San Joaquin River adjacent to the 8 new dams. Exchange water delivered at tiie head gates of diversions from tlie San Joaquin River between elevations 117 and 159. Heiiuired the enlargement of Friant-Earlimart I'sinal. 112 miles in length. from 1 second-feel capacity. .'{4 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORf. Dam No. 7— Length 200 Feet. Vo8t Excavatiou, dry, UlOl) cubic .vanls at $1.(10- _ $1,000 Excavation, wet, 2000 cubic yards at $l.r)0 3,000 Concrete retaining walls, S culiic yards at $2.">.CM) 20,0)X) Concrete piers, 4S0 cul)ic yards at $2."..00 12.000 Concrete deck and superstructure, 83.3 cubic yards at $30.00 lO.tXJO Piles, r.COO lineal feet at $2.00 12,000 Gates and lioistina- apparatus 10.000 Navigation sates and drawbridge 10,000 Construction cost $119,00l> Interest during construction at 0% 7,100 Continsencies at 1.")% 17,900 Engineering and administration at 10% 11,900 Total cost $155,900 Dam No. 8— Length 160 Feet. Excavation, dry, 800 cubic yards at $1.00 $800 Excavation, wet. 1000 cubic yards at .$1.50 2,400 Concrete retaining walls, 640 cubic yards at $25.00 16,000 Concrete cut-off walls, 384 cubic yards at $25.00 9,600 ("oucrete base, 640 cubic yards at $25.00 16,000 Concrete piers, 3.S4 cubic yards at .$25.00 9,600 Concrete deck and superstructure, 267 cubic yards at $30.00 8,000 riles, 480O lineal feet at $2.00 9,600 Gates and hoisting apparatus 15,200 Navigation gate and drawbridge 8,000 Construction co.st $95,200 Interest during construction at 6% 5,700 Contingencies at 15% 14,300 Engineering and administration at 10% 9,500 Total cost $124-, 700 Dam No. 9— Length 200 Feet. Excavation, dry, l,tJ00 cubic yards at $1.00 $1,000 Excavation, wet, 2,000 cubic yards at $1.50 3,000 Concrete retaining walls. 800 cubic yards at .$25.00 20,000 Concrete cut-off walls. 4.SiO cubic yards at .$25.(M) 12.000 Concrete base, 800 cubic yards at .$25.00 20,000 Concrete piers, 480 cubic yards at $25.00 12,000 Concrete deck and superstructure, 333 cubic yards at $30.00 10,000 Piles, 6000 lineal feet at $2.00 12.(X)0 Gates and hoisting apparatus 19,000 Navigation gate and drawlu-idge 10,000 Construction cost $119,000 Interest during cou.struction at 6% 7,100 Contingencies at 15% 17,900 Engineering and administration at 10% 11,900 Total cost $1.55,900 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. 35 Dam No. 10 — Length 240 Feet. Cost E.\c-:iv;iti..u, div, 12W ciihir vards at $1.00 $1,200 Excavation, wet. 2400 oiibie yards at $1."<» cubic yards at ."ft2.").00 14.400 Concrete deck and suiierstructure, 400 cubic yards at .$30.00 12,000 Piles. 7200 lineal feet at $2.IH> 14,400 Gates and hoisting: apparatus 22,800 Navigation sates and drawbridge -. 12,000 Construction cost $142,800 Interest durina- construction at 6% 8.600 Contingencies at 15% 21,400 Engineering and administration at 109r 14.300 Total cost $187,100 Dam No. 11 — Length 280 Feet. Excavation, dry, 140;> cubic yards at $1.00 $1,400 Excavation, wet. 2800 cubic yards at $1.50 4,200 Concrete in retaining walls. 1120 cubic yards at $2o.00_^ 28.000 Concrete cut-off walls. t>72 cubic .vards at $25.00 16,800 Concrete base, 1120 cubic yards at $25.00 28.000 Concrete piers, 672 cubic yards at $25.00 16.800 Concrete deck and superstructure, 467 cubic yards at $30.00 14,000 Piles, 8400 lineal feet at $2.00 16.800 Gates and hoisting apparatus 26.600 Navigation gate and drawbridge 14,000 Construction cost $166,600 Interest during construction at 6% 10,000 Contingencies at 15% 25.000 Engineering and administration at 10% 16,700 Total cost $218,300 Dam No. 12— Length 380 Feet. Excavation, dry, 1900 cubic .vards at $1.00 $1,900 Excavation, wet. 3800 cubic yards at $1.50 5.700 Concrete in retaining walls, 1520 cubic yards at $25.00 38,000 Concrete cut-off walls. 012 cubic yards at $25.00 22,800 Concrete base. 1520 cubic yards at $25.00 38,000 Concrete piers. 912 cubic yards at $25.00 22,800 Concrete deck and superstructure. 633 cubic yards at $30.00 19,000 Piles, 11.400 lineal feet at $2.0a__ 22,800 Gates and hoisting apparatus 36,100 Navigation gate and drawbridge 19,000 Construction cost $226,100 Interest during construction at 6% 13,600 Contingencies at 15% 33,900 Engineering and administration at 10% 22,600 Total cost $296,200 36 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. Dam No. 13 — Length 280 Feet. Cost Excavation, dry, 1400 cubic yards at $1.00 $1,400 Excavatiou, wet, 2800 cubic yards at $1.50 4,200 Concrete in retaininjr walls, 1120 cubic yards at $25.00 2S.00O Concrete cut-off walls. (572 cubic yards at $25.00 16,800 Concrete base, 1120 cubic yards at $25.00 28,000 Concrete piers, (>72 cubic yards at $25.00 16,800 Concrete deck and superstructure, 467 cubic yards at $30.00 14,000 Piles, 84O0 lineal feet at $2.00 16,800 Gates and hoisting apparatus 26,()00 Navigation gates and drawbridge 14,000 Construction cost $166,600 Interest during construction at 6% 10,000 Contingencies at 15% 25.0f(O Engineering and administration at 10% 16,700 Total cost $218,300 Dam No. 14 — Length 385 Feet. Excavation, dry, 1925 cubic yards at $1.00 $1,900 Excavation, wet, 3850 cubic yards at $1.50 5,8 171,500 (Construction cost $232,600 WATER RESOURCE.S OF CALIFORNIA. 37 Cost Rrought forward .'?232.000 Interest chirinp const ruttion at 6% 14,00't Contingencies at 1~^% 34.0O<» Engineering and administration at 10% 23.300 Total cost $304,800 Ti/picul piimpiiKj plant — 2000 secojid-feef cupiicHn. Excavation, dry. 3fiOO cubic yards at $0.oO $1.S00 Excavation, wet. 3200 cubic yards at $2.50 8,000 Concrete in retaining walls, 030 cubic yards at $2.5.00 15,800 Concrete in intakes and sumps, 550 cubic yards at $30.00 10..")00 Concrete in Venturi tubes, 400 cubic yards at $:55.00 14.000 Concrete in buildings and extras. 400 cubic yards at $35.00 14,000 Lining outlet canal. G400 square feet at $0.25 ],C0;» Pumps and electrical equipment, 4 units at $42,870.00 171.500 Transformers, 4 at $5,000.00 20,000 Operators houses with water supply, 3 13,500 Roads. 2 miles at $2500.00 5,000 Side levees, 6250 cubic yards at $0.20 1,200 Construction cost $282,900 Interest during construction at 6% 17.000 Contingencies at 15% 42,400 Engineering and administration at 10% 28,300 Total cost $370,600 Typical pumping plant — 1500 second-feet capacity. Excavation, dry, 2800 cubic yards at $0.50 $1,400 Excavation, wet, 2400 cubic yards at $2..50 6.00O Concrete in retaining' walls, 532 cubic yards at $25.00 13.300 Concrete in intakes axid sumps, 420 cubic yards at $30.00 12,600 Concrete in Veuturi tubes. 300 cubic yards at $35.00 10.500 Concrete in buildings and extras, 330 cubic yards at $35.00 11,600 Lining outlet canal. 5600 square feet at $0.25 1,400 Pumps and electrical equipment. 3 units at $42,870.00 128.600 Transformers, 4 at .$5.000.00 20,000 Operators houses with water supplv. 3 13,500 Roads, 2 miles at $2500.00 I_ 5.0O0 Side levees, 6250 cubic yards at $0.20 1.200 Construction cost $225,100 Interest during construction at 6% 13.500 Contingencies at 15% 33.800 Engineering and administration at 10% 22,500 Total cost $2^.900 Summary of Pumping Plants. Pumping plants increased in capacitv from 1000 to 3000 second-feet, 6 at $30i,.800 $1,828,800 Pumping plants. 2000 second-feet capacity. 4 at $370,600 1,482,400 Pumping plants, 1500 second-feet capacity, 4 at $294,900 1,179,600 Total cost of pumping plants $4,490,800 63 Miles of Levee of Variable Height on Each Bank of San Joaquin River. Dredge banks, 7,560,000 cubic yards at $0.20 $1,512,000 Interest during construction at iV/o 90,700 Contingencies at 15% ^■_ 226,800 Engineering and administration at 10% 151,200 Total cost levees $1,980,700 38 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. Friant-Kings River Canal. Enlarr/emetit to hivreuse vupacity from Kind to MlOO xecoiitl-fcrt : Fire miles sidchill construction — Intake stnictiiro (const ructod in unit No. 1 ) Cost Excavation, broken schist. 1(M>..")0(> cubic yards at $0.85 $85,400 Excavation, loose rock and lianlpau. 144.(lO() cubic yards at $0.75_ 108,0(X> ("oncrctc lininir .~>77.70 feet wide (purchased for Unit No. 1) Construction cost $408,000 Interest dnrins construction at 6% 24.500 Contingencies at 157^. 61,200 Enxineerins and administration at 10% 40,800 Total cost $534,500 Four mi^rs rolliiifi ground — Excavation, hardpan, ,35.300 cubic yards at $0.00 $21,200 Excavation, hardpan. 40.600 square feet at $0.12 27.700 I>ry Creek si))hon. ]S lineal feet at $80 144,0 Road and railroad siphon. 00 lineal feet at $80 4,850 Right of way (purchased for Unit Xo. 1) Construction cost $271,700 Interest during construction at 6% . 16.300 Contingencies at 15% 40.800 Engineering and administration at 10% 27,200 Total cost $356,000 2Si miles flat p round — ■ Excavation, .■arlii. 702.400 cubic yards a) $0.18 $126,400 Excavntiou. river bottom. 04,000 cubic yards at $0.20 18,900 Concreii" lining, 2.5(«;.im squar(> feet at $0.12 307,900 32 road .sii.hons. OOO lineal feet at $80 76.800 3 railroad siphons. 30<:) lineal feet at $80 24.000 5 large canal crossings, 500 lineal feet at $80 40,000 5 small canal crossings. 2.50 lineal feet at $80 20,000 Wasteway at Kings River 4,300 Right of way (purchased for Unit No. 1) Construction cost $018,300 Interest during construction at 6% 37.100 Contingencies at 15% 92,7(-K) Engineering and administration at 10%, 61,800 Total cost $809,900 Summary of Friant-Kings River Canal. JJnlarycnunt to increase eujiaeiti/ from WOO to .WOO second-feet — Total 5 miles of sidehill construction $534,5(X) Total 4 miles of rolling ground 356,(X)0 Total 23i miles, flat ground 809,900 n<. I'otal cost Friant-Kings River canal , $1,700,400 WATER RKi^OrRCKS OF CAlilFORNIA. 39 Kings River- Earlimart Canal. Kiilaryemcitt to imiinxt mixu-itii fnim 1000 to 4000 mcaiid feet — Nnliin/oticnl Altn coiinl. .li.-l iiiihs, loiixt nnti il hi t-n n ij Mhi mnJ Tulare nupph/. Intake structure ( const riuicd for I'liil No. 1) Cost Concrete lining. 10.(M ;•_'..-)(«) square feet at $0.12 $1,207,500 4 railroad siphons, 3U0 lineal feet at .$M> _ 24,000 23 road siphons. t«X> lineal feet at .$80 --. 55,200 Right of way (purchased for Unit No. 1) — Construction cost $1,286,700 Interest during construction at 0% 77,200 Contin.ffencie.s at 159^ 193,000 Kngineerins and administration at 10% 128,700 Total cost $1,OS.J,GOO Scrillc to Earlimart, ^7 miles flat ground — Excavation, earth. n37.400 cubic .vards at $0.18 $168,700 Con,-rete linins. 16.()2."i.7(MJ square feet at $0.12_i 1,995.100 48 road siphons. 1570 lineal feet at $S0 125.600 4 railroad siphons, 280 lineal feet at $80 22,400 12 small canal siphons. 480 lineal feet at $80 38,400 8 creek siphons. 700 lineal feet at $80 56,000 Right of way (purchased for Unit No. ) Construction cost $2,406,200 Interest during construction at 6% 144,400 Contingencies at 15% -_ .3(10.90*) Engineering and administration at 10% 240,600 Total cost $3,152,100 Summary of Kings River- Earlimart Canal. JJiilarijenieiit in cainiciti/ from 1000 to 3000 second-feet — 32i miles enlargement of Alta canal $1,685,600 47 miles Seville to Earlimart , 3,152,100 Total cost Kings River-Earlimart canal , $4,837,700 Summary Construction Cost — Second Unit of Comprehensive Plan, 2000 Second-Feet Additional Capacity. Total cost 8 dams in San Joaquin river $1.6.'i6,5<^>0 4 i»umping plants, 2(^"K1 second-feet capacity 1.482.4(M» 4 pumping plants. 15(M> second-feet capacity 1.179.r>(M> <■> pumping plants, enlarged IrDin 1000 to 3000 second-feet capacity 1.828.S(X) G3 miles levee on banks of San Joaquin River 1.980.700 Friant-Kings River canal, enlargement 1.7(X),-100 Kings River-Earlimart canal, enlargement 4.837,S(K) 560,(KX> acre-feet storage capacity at $20 11,200.(X)0 Grand total cost $25,866,200 $78 30 Cost pel !• acre $5 10 4 50 • > 60 n 50 6 OO 5 10 14 (50 33 90 40 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. DETAIL ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL OPERATING COST- SECOND UNIT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 2000 Second-Feet Additional Capacity. Annual gioss supply, (KJO.dUO ac-re-fcot additional to Unit No. 1. Annual savinjj in scopasc loss of unit number one water by lining canal, 60,000 acre-feet. Total available supply, 720,000 acro-feet. Gross duty 2.2 acre-feet per acre. Net duty 2.0 acre-feet per acre. Area to be irrigated ^80.000 acres additional to Unit No. 1. Storage capacity required ."((VKOrK* acre-feet. Required additional pumping units of 2000 second-feet caitacity at the 6 dams of Unit No. 1 in San Joaquin Rivei-. Required 8 dams and pumping plants on San Joaquin River in addition to the dams of Unit No. 1. Required 015 miles of levee of variable height on each bank of San Joaquin River ad.iacent to the 8 new dams. Exchange water delivered at the head gates of diversions from the San Joaquin River between elevations 117 and 159. Required the enlargement of Friant-Earlimart canal, 112 miles in length. from 1000 to 3000 second-feet capacity. Dams and Pumping Plants On San Joaquin River, Energy cost — Static head sea level to Dam No. 10 117 feet Friction head sea level to Dam No. 10 27 feet Total pumping head 144 feet Required 43,600 horsepower to pump 2000 second-feet against a 144-foot head. Power required for 120 days pumping is 93,672,000 kilowatt hours. Static head Dam No. 10 to Dam No. 14 42 feet Friction head Dam No. 10 to Dam. No. 14 10 feet Total pumping head 52 feet Required 11,800 horsepower to pump 1500 second-feet against a 52-foot head. Power required for 120 days pumping is 25,4, at \'/,. %Vl.mi\ S 1)11111 iiiiiii' iilauts, c'Oiistriiclioii cust !t;2.0;ilMKX). at 3% ()1, Misc't'llaiH'oiis, iiicidontals and insurance 10,000 Total (lams and iniiiipiuj; plants i);l,.S85,300 63 Miles Levee on Each Bank of San Joaquin Rivei liiten-st, total cost .$l,!>S0,70O, at KS'/o $118,800 Depreciation, eonstruetion cost $1,012,000, at 1% 15,100 AEaiutenauce and repair, construction cost $1,512,000, at 4% 60,50«) Total levees — $11)4,400 Storage Reservoir — Interest, total cost $11.200,(K«>, at (1% $672,000 Depreciation, construction cost $8,549,600, at 1% 85,500 One watchman 1,500 Total reservoir $759,000 Friant-Earlimart Canal. Interest, total cost $6.5:18,200, at 0% $392,300 Depreciation on structure, construction cost $763,400, at 2% 15,300 Maintenance and repair, canal and structures, construction cost $4,991,000, at 19c 49,900 Miscellaneous, incidentals and insurance 10,000 Total canals $407,500 Summary of Annual Operating Cost — Second Unit of Comprehensive Plan, 2000 Second- Feet Additional Capacity. J ,. Annual immeaiute cost Anniial cost cost per acre Energy cost $1,190,700 $3 60 Interest, maintenance, operation and depreciation — 8 dams and pumping plants on San Joaquin River 694,600 2 10 ()3 miles of levees on hanks of San .loaquin River 194,400 60 Friant-Earlimart canal, enlargement 467,500 1 40 Storage reservoir 759,000 2 30 Total annual cost, immediate $3,306,200 $10 00 Deferred cost — Energy cost 446,500 1 40 Total annual cost, immediate and deferred $3,752,700 $11 40 42 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. CHAPTER IV; CONTROLLING FEATURES OF THE COMPREHEN??IVE PLAN. INVESTIGATIONS FOR FINAL REPORT ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Prior to the Water Resources Investigation of 1921-23. but little kno'\vledo:e of resei'voir sites had ever been assembled. It was not com- nioidy known that many sites existed. In 1912, the State Water Com- mission published summary information on twenty-three site's in the Sacramento ])asin from the records of the United States Geological Survey and Reclamation Service. Since that time, engineers have dis- covered many potential reservoirs. Largely through the courtesy of the engineel'ing profession engaged in private practice, with public utilities, and in state and federal offices, more or less complete informa- tion has been assembled on 1270 sites located in all parts of the state. One hundred and seventy-six of these were reconnoitered by field parties of the Division of Engineering and Irrigation. The preliminary comprehensive plan was evolved from this great mass of information. Neither time nor funds has peTmitted a complete examination of the many dam sites nor of the lines of long supply canals that are part of the plan. However, before this plan, with its accomplishments, can be declared wholly practicable, examination in considerable detail must be made of its principal elemelits. It is not necessary to include in detail study, all the sites for reser- voirs nor the entire length of the canal lines. Many of the reservoirs, if later found impracticable or more expensive than cursory examina- tion indicates, could be supplanted in the plan by others. Similarly, the terrain through which parts of the canal extend, is flat and unob- structed. Reconnoissance examination will determine their feasibility and future changes in alignment would not particularly atfect their cost. However, other features of the plan that are essential to its success, are' not easily replaced by alternate devices or are involved in such complicated problems that complete studies are essential to deter- mine Avith certainty that they are practicable. It is with such features of the comprehensive plan tliat the continuance of the investigation is concerned. Close study should also be made of the advantages to be gained in the construction and operation of these works in various combinations. In order to minimize tlie large expenditures that would be entailed in the construction of the comprehensive plan, it is essential that maximum service be obtained from all its component parts. To arrive at the combinations of fundamental importance to maximum service from the state's waters and the groups that will form practical construction units, is a heavy task. Wliile much lias already been accomplished, the multitude of considerations in working with a territory as large as the whole state, still leaves a great deal to be done in arriving at the desired goal. WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. 43 FOOTHILL RESERVOIRS. In froneral. the plan relinquishes the ^rreat mountain area for the generation of power, operation of mines and other pursuits of these i-efrions Avithout interference by the requirements of industries on the lower levels that Avill later nse the same water. The flows emercrinfr from their mountainous sources onto the valley floors, would be rereirulated by reservoirs at the canyon months for dometsic, irrigation, industrial, navisration. and flood control purposes on the plains bolow. These foothill reservoirs are important features in avoidiner complica- tion of development that mi.o-lit hamper the efficient and advantageous operation of the works for both mountain and valley use of the water. They are consequently important factors in ultimately securing the hiirhest use of the state's waters. Unfortunately for low co^t in < oiKtructini). the foothill reservoir sites are usually situated along the easiest lines of communication between the plains and the high mountains. Consequently railways and highways are found traversing many of them. The moving of those to other satisfactory locations will be large items in their cost. The more reason, therefore, that these structures be utilized to the greatest advantaire and for as many purposes as possible. To secure the highest use from the state's waters, the foothill reservoirs should be primarily allotted to storing water for domestic, irrigation or industrial supplies on the plains below-. Incidental to this, some power may be generated and a measure of flood control be effected without impairiuG: their value for the essential purposes. Examination of these combined values has been initiated by the investigations of 1924. It is found that there is a large' amount of potential power available while drawing water from the foothill reser- voirs for use on the plains below. To secure the greatest conservation of water, this power must be generated at the time the water is with- drawn from the reservoirs for other purposes. Ultimately, therefore, the power generated at the foothill reservoirs will be seasonal power, varying in output with the level of the water surface in the reservoir, the amount of water released, and the load factor of the generating plant at the time of release. For many years, however, the water yield of these reservoirs would be greater than the immature demands for domestic, irrigation, uidustrial or other purposes on the lower areas. Through this period, withdrawals could be made to suit the particular needs of power generation, and still serve all other then existing demands. Therefore, public economy can best be served by coordinat- ing these growing demands for water with the generation of power, so that, through the period of their immaturity, power can be generated to its full advantage, but ultimately, will be subservient to the primary u.<-'e.s of the foothill reservoirs. FLOOD CONTROL BY RESERVOIRS. The foothill reservoirs, having the entire drainage areas of their streams tributary to them, are the most favorabh- situated of all reservoirs to have flood control value. A complete analysis of their utility for this purpose has never been made. It has generally been conceived that reservoirs are useful for controlling floods by absorbing 44 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. a larjre volnnie of tlie water. Tlie report of the California Debris Com- mission of June 29, 1911, on tiood control in the Sacramento Valley, states, "While favorinjz the use of reservoirs as far as possible, and considerinjr that one of the advantages of the project herein proposed is that it lends itself to future storage possibilities, the commission believes that it is not economical to construct reservoirs for flood control, but that such construction should be deferred until these reservoirs prove desirable for power and irrigation purposes." California is now entered upon the period of reservoir construction for power and irrigation purposes. Therefore, it is opportune' at this time to ascertain the value of reservoirs for flood control. The possi- bilities of coordinating the use of reservoirs for flood control with that for other purposes, are not apparent at first sight, because for flood control, reservoires should be held empty during the' seasons of heavy run-ofl" while for other purposes they should be allowed to fill. The investigations of 1924, however, show that it is practicable to utilize the flood control feature of reservoirs in harmony with their other functions. The Division of Engineering and Irrigation has undertaken to estab- lish the principles by which reservoirs may be operated for controlling floods and still maintain their full value as storage enterprises. Studies are now in progress that are expected to result in a statement of the necessary rules. It appears practical, in many instances at least, to cut the volume of maximum floods in half by operation of foothill reservoirs for flood control, without detracting from their other values. The studies are not yet sutficiently advanced to show what bearing this may have on flood control plans. The storage capacity required for flood control is large. On streams of heavy run-off, it is so large that economic considerations will probably prevent the construction of reservoirs for flood control purposes alone except in special instances. However, the possibility of operating reservoirs to control floods and also to secure their full value in storing water for domestic, industrial and irrigation supplies, generating power, or spreading water on gravel beds in the replenishment of ground water basins, may make combina- tions of values that will advance the' use of reservoirs for flood control. Completion of the investigation alone can determine this. In the preparation of this report, particular attention has been placed on a study of the foothill reservoirs in the Sacramento Valley, including an analysis of their flood control values. Reservoirs at the edge of the valley floor on the upper Sacramento, Feather, Yuba, and American Rivers are being investigated. The studies have not yet progressed to the point of drawing conclusions. It will undoubtedly be some! time before as much storage capacity will be needed in the Sacramento Valley foi- ii-rigation supply as exists in these reservoirs. The potential power, however, is large. With 4()0-foot dams on the upper Sacramento, the Feather, and Yuba Rivers and a 300-foot dam on the American, three l)illion kilowatt hours of electric energy coidd be generated annually prioi- to the full use of these reservoirs for domestic, irrigation or industrial supply. This is equal to more than one-half of the total electric energy, both hydro-electric and steam, generated in all of California during the past year. Although it Avould take a num])er of years for the mai-ket to absorb such a large amount of hydro-electric power, fvu-ther stud}' may demonstrate that certain WATER HESOIRCKS OK ("ArJFORNlA. 45 combination of nnits nH.i;ht form a pro<:ressive profrram that would have dofinito flood control values ineide'ntal to servinfr tlie demands for domestic and industrial supply, irrijration and i)o\ver. To make these features of the comprehensive plan applicable to current development, requires study of many possible combinations. WORK IN PROGRESS. There" are still many such studies to be made before a final report upon the comprehensive plan can be submitted. Pursuit to completion will mould the comprehensive plan into a practical form indicating the progressive steps that may serve as a general guide in the develop- ment of the state's water for the greatest public economy and to their maximum utility. Examination in some detail of the' practicability of salient features of the comprehensive plan has been undertaken with the funds raised for the preparation of this report. Time has not been sufficient for their completion, at this writing. The work is being continued with unspent funds. The features selected for examination in 1924. largely concern the conversion of the surplus waters of the Sacramento Valley to the purposes of the comprehensive plan. They are the barrier below the mouth of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, the Kennett reservoir on the upper Sacramento River, the Oroville reservoir on the Feather River, the Narrows reservoir on the Yuba River, and the Folsom reservoir on the American River. BARRIER BELOW MOUTH OF SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN RIVERS. The barrier is an integral unit of the comprehensive plan for ulti- mately consel'ving the waters of the Great Central Valley. Without it, there will always be waste of water at the mouth of the two rivers, together with the attendant incursions of salt water into the lower reaches of the rivers during periods of low flow. In addition to acting as a dam diverting Sacramento River waters into the lower San Joaquin River, it would maintain a large fresh water pond in the bay above it and make practical the reclamation of the marsh lands along its margin, it would furnish unlimited quantities of fresh water to the manufac- turing centers arising along the bay shore, together with many minor advantages. Bj^ constructing locks of adequate dimensions, the barrier would offer no particular obstruction to navigation. It would of necessity be designed with ample water way to pass the floods of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers without raising flood heights on the lower rivers over those of the past. The phj'sical possibility of locating and constructing such a dam below the mouth of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, was investi- gated in 1921-23 as far as possible without exploration borings at the various possible sites for its location. Exploration borings are now being conducted at the three most promising locations, commonly kno^^^l as the Army Point and the Dillon Point sites in the vicinity of Carquinez Straits and the San Pablo Point site near Richmond. Wash borings and diamond drill holes have been sunk along the cross-section of the channel at each one of these sites. Test holes are being drilled in 46 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. the areas topofrrapliically snital)le for the locks and flood ?ates. This •work is beiiip: done in cooperation Avith the United States Reclamation Service. To date, the explorations show that it is physically possible to construct a barrier at any one of the three locations. The costs have not yet been determined. Studies of the effect of such a dam on silt deposits in Suisun and San Pablo Bays, and on the flood hei^jhts in the lower river region are being conducted by the Division of Enfrineering and Irrigation, with funds raised for this report. Additional money will be necessary to complete them, however. RESERVOIR SITES ON SACRAMENTO DRAINAGE AREA. One-third of all the waters in the state are on the Sacramento drain- age area. Therefore, plans for maximum use of the state's waters, of necessity, are associated with the conservation of the waters of this area. The bulk of the waters of the Sacramento drainage basin pass off into the ocean during the flood period of the winter and spring months. On an average, three-fourths of the entire run-off occurs during the months from December to May, inclusive. Immense reser- voir capacity will be required to catch this water and hold it over for use during the summer months as well as to equalize, as much as possible, the variable flow from year to year. The 1921-23 investiga- tions developed the fact that there are sufficient reservoir sites to accomplish this. Some of these sites occupy strategic locations for ultimate economic development. Proof of their practicability is necessary before final conclusions may be drawn concerning the comprehensive plan. The 192-t investigations have undertaken the studies of four reservoir sites of strategic location on the Sacramento drainage area, one at the edge of the valley floor on each of the upper Sacramento, Feather, Yuba and American Rivers. KENNETT RESERVOIR ON UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. The Sacramento River upstream from the mouth of the Feather River, is the most important of all the streams tributary to the Great Central Valley. Its mean seasonal run-off is 12,400,000 acre-feet, one- half the run-off of the entire Sacramento drainage area and one-third of all the waters of the Great Central Valley. The bulk of the surplus waters of the Sacramento Valley are in this stream. Without large storage reservoirs to equalize the flow, only a small fraction of the mean seasonal run-off can be put to use. Therefore, a major conservation project is contingent upon the feasibility of storing a large part of these waters. WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. 47 A recounoissaiiee survey has been rim the entire length of the main channel of the Sacramento River in search of possible reservoir sites. Only one such site has been found at low enough elevation to catch a large part of the water and of sufficient potential capacity to equalize its erratic tlow. This is the Kennett reservoir with its dam in the Sacramento Canyon five miles downstream from the contiuence with the Pit. Two other dam sites were found in the Sacramento Canyon but the cost of storage exceeds that at Kennett and their reservoirs overlap the larger Kennett reservoir. Next in size to the Kennett reservoir, is that in Iron Canyon on the main channel of the Sacra- mento, fifty miles downstream from the Kennett site. It, however, is limited in capacity by the dam foundations and valuable improvements flooded. Large storage sites exist on the Pit River and quite a number of smaller ones on the lesser tributaries. These will be useful and neces- sary in the full development of the Sacramento River, however, the volume of water controlled by them is too small to make possible the use of a big fraction of the entire run-off without a very large reser- voir on the main channel. The Kennett reservoir is the only site lying upstream from the Feather River adequate to control a large fraction of the run-off. The dam site lies on the main channel of the Sacramento five miles below the confluence Avith the Pit. It backs water up the upper Sacramento, the Pit, the ^IcCloud. Squaw Creek, and numerous small streams and gulches so that, although the reservoir is comparatively narrow, it has large capacity. A four hundred foot dam would back the water for 32 miles up the Sacramento and Pit Rivers. The reservoir site is traversed by the main line of the Southern Pacific Railroad and a branch line running up the Pit River to Copper City. A four hundred foot dam would flood twenty miles of the main Southern Pacific line and require the relocation of at least 35 miles of track. Fourteen and one-half miles of the branch line along the Pit River would also be submerged. Nine miiles of the State Highway would also have to be reconstructed. Besides, the towns of Kennett, Antler, Copper City and Pollock would be submerged, along with two smelters, one mine, the State Fish Hatchery on the ]\IeCloud River, and other minor improvements The flooding of all these makes a very heavy charge in the estimate? of cost of the Kennett reserA'oir. Con- sequently, the unit cost of storage for low dam heights is high, but the physiography is so favorable for a large reservoir, that even includ- ing the cost of flooding improvements, the unit storage cost for high dams is moderate. Surveys of the part of the Kennett reservoir lying in the Sacramento Canyon were made up to the 400-foot level during the investigations of 1921-23 while .searching for possible reservoir sites. The field survey of the entire reservoir was completed in the fall of 1924. The capacity for several dam heights is as follows : 48 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. Capacity of Kennett Reservoir On Sacramento River. Height oj Aria of Capacity of dam 5 feet water surface reservoir m freeboard in acres acre-feet 100 feet 900 30.000 12.-. foot 1.400 58,000 l.W feet 2,100 102.000 175 feet 3.000 IC.5,000 200 feet 4.200 257,000 225 feet 5,800 381,000 2,50 foet 7.200 .54.'',.(tr)0 275 feet 8,700 740.()(M> :i00 feet - 10,.500 0S3,0(X) 325 feet 12,800 1,270,000 3.50 feet 1,5.100 I,(i20.0;j0 .375 feet 17.700 2.0:',(t.ono 41K) feet 2<),.5(X) 2.51(l.(tlHl 425 feet 23,7fK) 3.()57.(t00 6.100.(MM:» .5.50 feet 42..500 7,171,0m) ,575 feet 40,500 8,280. feet 26,400,000 983,000 27 00 3.-.0 feet ,34,000,000 1,620,000 21 00 400 feet 44,100,000 2,510,000 18 00 A dam 400 feet high at Kennett will yield an irrigation supply for 700,000 acres of land after passing sufficient water to satisfy the claims of rights now vested on the Sacramento River. The delivery of this into tlie river channel at the rates required for irrigation would aug- ment the flow during August by 6000 second-feet even in vears of small run-off like 1920 and 3924. A dam ,320 feet high would afford sufficient capacity, if operated for flood control, to cut the maximum flood flows in two. on the Sacramento above the mouth of the Feather River. If this were done it would make possible the reclamation of 100,000 acres of land in Butte Basin at a cost for levees and rights of way. but with- out a reservoir charore, of about $,S0 per acre. This basin lies on the i WATKR KKSOl'RCHS OK CAMFORNIA. 49 easterly l)aiik of the Sacramento Kiver \vesterly aiicl northwesterly from the IMarysville Bnttes. It is snl)ject to overtlovv from the Sacra- mento River. The cost of constructing levees to reclaim against the maximum flood without reservoir control, would be very much greater than $80 per acre. OROVILLE RESERVOIR SITE. 'Pile Feather River is the second most important stream of the Sacramento system. It has a mean sea.sonal run-off of 5,280,000 acre- feet. The canyon of the Feather River has a nnich steeper grade than ^that of the main channel of the Sacramento and is consecjuently less favorable for reservoir sites. Reconnoissance during the fall of 1924 located two dam sites on the main channel below the confluence of the 'four branches and a short distance npsti'eam from Oroville. A survey of the reservoir cai)acities yield the following: I Capacity Of Oroville Reservoir. Upper dam site Lower dam site Height of Area of Capacity of Area of Capacity of dam 5 feet v:ater surface reservoir water surface reservoir freeboard acres acre-feet acres a<;re-feet w IW 300 12,000 300— 12.0fMt : 125 500 21.000 500 22.(t0O 150 700 36.000 800 :!T).OOC» } 175 900 54,000 1,200 W.OOO i i 200 1,100 78.000 1,500 97.000 ' ■ 225 1.400 109.000 2,000 140.000 W^ 250 1,700 146.0 2,400 195.000 H 275 2.000 194,000 3,000 264,000 ■ 300 2.400 248.000 3.500 345,000 ^^ 325 2.800 314.000 4.100 440.000 35(J 3.300 390.000 4.700 549,000 V 375 3,800 480,000 5.300 676.000 V 2 400 4,400 582.000 425 5,000 tJ-Og.OOO I.-jO 5,700 832.000 475 6,300 982.000 kThe Oroville dam sites have not been drilled. The oflfice studies are only partly completed. Preliminary estimate of cost on the one dam 1 investigated to date, a 400-foot dam at the upper site, is $75 per acre- ' foot of capacit.v. This includes the cost of relocating 27.3 miles of ■' main line track of the "Western Pacific Railroad as its enters the ' Feather River Canyon, 2.3 miles or broad gage track of the Hutchinson ■; Lumber Company, and 8.5 miles of the narrow gage road of the Swayne I Lumber Company, and other improvements. Four miles of the Oroville- MQuiney county road would be flooded requiring relocation of 6.4 miles of road. The town of Bidwell Bar would be submerged, as would also 8 miles of canal of the Oroville "Wyandotte Irrigation District. The Las Plumas plant of the Great Western Power Company, a 65,000 . K. V. A. installation, w^ould have to be rebuilt at an elevation 160 feet higher than its present location with consequent loss of power. The , ei^timated cost of flooding all these improvements totals 40 pei- cent of ■ the cost of the reservoir. 50 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. It may be that a dam of lower height, that will not require the reconstruction of the Las Plumas power plant, or one located at the lower dam site, will have a smaller cost than $75 per acre-foot of capacity. There are no agricultural lands of any extent on the reservoir site. The surface is mostly steep and rocky and in use for grazing. NARROWS RESERVOIR SITE. The Yuba River is the fourth most important tributary of the Sacra- mento system. Its mean seasonal run-off is 2,650,000 acre-feet. The only dam site below the junction of the forks is at the Narrows, near the town of Smartsville. Information on the dam site was obtained from borings made by the' California Debris Commission and the Yuba River Power Company. A survey of the reservoir has not been made. Preliminary estimates of cost have been made as follows : Preliminary Cost Estimate Of Narrows Reservoir On Yuba River. Height of fofal cost of Capacity in <^°^t P^/ , dam 5 feet . ^ j. acre-foot of freeboard reservoir acre-feet capacity 3.50 $16,750,000 247,000 $68.00 400 20,.500,0€0 353,000 58.00 The lands flooded in this reservoir site are of little value and the only improvement of importance is the Colgate power plant of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a 15,575 k.v.a. installation. This plant would have to be rebuilt at a higher elevation with a consequent loss of power. FOLSOM RESERVOIR SITE ON AMERICAN RIVER. The third largest stream of the Sacramento system is the American River. It has a mean seasonal run-off of 3,180,000 acre-feet. The canyon of this stream rising from the valley floor is steep and narrow. A dam site was found below the confluence of the' North, Middle and South Forks. It is a short distance upstream from Folsom. The topog- raphy limits a dam to 300 feet in height. The crest length is long for this height and there are four auxiliary dams. The water backs up both the North and South Forks of the American River. Survevs of 1 924 determined the capacity as follows : Folsom Reservoir On American River. Height of Area of Capacity of dam 5 feet water surface reservoir freeboard acres acre-feet 100 1,200 51.000 125 1,800. 89,000 150 2,800 147,000 175 4,200 234,000 200 6,500 366,000 225 8,400 552.000 250 10,000 ^ 782,000 275 11,600- 1,053,000 300 13,100 1,361,000 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. 51 Tht? P'olsom reservoir would submerge 19 miles of the main canal of tlie North Fork Ditch Company and 14 miles of that of the Natomas Company. About one-third of the lands are under cultivation, the rest is used for irraziiiii- purposes. A preliminary estimate of the cost of this reservoir has been made for three heights of dam although the dam site liMs not liecn explored l)y llic di;inioii(l drill. Preliminary Estimate Of Cost Of Folsom Reservoir On American River. Height of Total cost of Capacity of Cost per acre- dam 5 feet rp^prvnir reservoir in foot of storage freeboard leservoti acre-feet capacity 200 .$11,(162.000 3(tU,000 $32.00 250 21.S(r..(XX) 7.S2.0(K> 28 00 300 47,370,000 1,301,000 ^5.00 The Folsom reservoir is in a position to have considerable flood con- trol value. The maximum flood flow on the American River, estimated by the California Debris Commission, is 120.000 cubic feet per second. This may be much reduced by a large reservoir at the Folsom site. A reduction in the maximum flood flow would lessen the cost of reclaim- ing 12.000 acres of overflow lands along the American River, would decrease the flood hazard in the city of Sacramento and would permit the construction of the levee along the northerly bank of the American River close to the present chanjiel. This would bring North Sacramento much closer to the city of Sacramento on the south bank and so eliminate awkward traffic crossings on the area between the river channel and the present northerly levee that is set back from the river to afford sufficient room in the river channel to pass the maximum floods. The present separation hinders the expansion of Sacramento in a northerlv direction. 37577 3-25 20M THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW , MAi; ao Ijf BOOKS REQUESTED BY ANOTHER BORROWER ARE SUBJECT TO RECALL AFTER ONE WEEK. RENEWED BOOKS ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RECALL JUN 4 -sa APR 1 9 1983 PH YS SC! LIBRARY ftUG 2 1986 AliR i« 1^ ■ tS SCI LIBRARY OCT "^IS 1986 PHYS SCI LIBRARY LIBRARY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS D4613 (12/76) 3 1175 00574 5586 '^\\ Cv