TC 824 no. ex LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS ■X IVERSITY OF G»LIFOK»IA LIBRARY ■AVIS " . COPY! UPPER TULE RIVER RECONNAISSANCE INVESTIGATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING BULLETIN NO. 82 ^'j^. EDMUND G. BROWN Governor HARVEY O. BANKS Dire££Qr-«3l4V:fttefrR^iQu3fc^'"^'^ NOVEMBER 1960 I ! STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING BULLETIN NO. 82 UPPER TULE RIVER RECONNAISSANCE INVESTIGATION EDMUND G. BROWN /«Z^-wiP\ HARVEY O. BANKS Governor fe V mAJj^lS^i Director of Water Resources NOVEMBER 1960 LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL v ORGANIZATION, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES vi ORGANIZATION, CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION vii ORGANIZATION, TULARE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS viii ACKNOWLEDGMENT ix CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 Related Investigations and Reports 2 Area Under Investigation 3 CHAPTER II. WATER SUPPLY 7 Precipitation 7 Runoff 8 Water Quality . 10 CHAPTER III. WATER UTILIZATION AKD REQUIREMENTS 13 Land Use 13 Present Land Use 13 Potential Land Use 15 Present Water Supply Development . 17 Tule River Water Rights ..... 17 Applications . 17 Surface Diversions Within the Upper Tule River Basin 19 Irrigation Use 19 Urban Use 20 Recreational Use 20 Hydroelectric Power Use 20 TABLE OF COI'ITENTS Page Downstream Users • 21 Success Reservoir 25 Water Requirements 26 Irrigation Water Requirements 26 Urban Water Requirements ........... 28 Recreational Water Requirements .......... 29 Supplemental Water Requirements .......... 29 Monthly Demands for Water .... ........... 30 CHAPTER IV. AVAILABILITY OF WATER ...... 31 Existence of Water Available for Development in the Upper Tule River Basin ............ 3I Exchange Possibilities ........ 33 Existing Ditch Companies ..................... 3^ Friant-Kern Canal ....... 3^ Success Reservoir 36 San Joaquin Valley- Southern California Aqueduct .... 37 East Side Division of the Central Valley Project 37 CHAPTER V. PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF BASIN STORAGE ....... 39 North Fork Project kl Middle Fork Project ^4 South Fork Project U7 Pumping From Success Reservoir 50 Land Management 50 Distribution System 52 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Repayment Capacities ..,,<,.. o..» .,,0 .o oo «.o.» <■ f'2 Service Ai'eas ......,,«»..,.„,„,,.„„„.,«„, 53 Summary of Plans foi" Development ... 00 00 ,0. o <.,.,.,, . '-^k CHAPTER VI, CONCLUSIONS AM) RECOMMENIDATIONS ,.««,..,,, 57 Conclusions .«,,,, o., o, o ... , o .. o »,,.., o . 57 Recommendations ..«,,« ,.,..,.„, o , c »,,, o ... . 60 TABLES Table Number 1 Precipitation Stations In or Near the Upper- Tule Ri'Ter Basin »», o ,,.,,,,,„, , 7 2 Stream Gaging Stations in the Tule River Basin ,,,,„ „o ,.„,„„„,».., , 9 3 Average Monthly Distribution of Ri;inoff at the Gaging Station on the Tule River Near Porte.r'/ille . « , 9 h Classification of Irrigation Waters .=.•..,,..,„, 10 5 Mineral Q-jality of the Tale River Near Porterville 00,.. 11 6 Land Use in the Upper Tule River Ms in, 19!^ 7 . « <. . . » , , 1^+ 7 Water Utilization in the Upper Tule River Basin in 1957 . c ,,. o » ....,,,. , 21 8 Tule River Diversions (Mouth of South Fork to Oettle Bridge) . . , . o . . , 22 9 Water Imported Into the Tule River Ms in Via the Friant-Kern Canal., 1950-58 ......... o , 2k 10 Pi'esent and Probable Ultimate Seasonal Irrigation Water Requirements in the Upper Tule River Basin o . . . 28 11 Supplemental Seasonal Water Requirements for the Upper Tule River Basin . « « o , . . . . . . » 29 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Table Number 12 Monthly Distribution of Ann^oal Water Demands . , , o „ . , , . 30 13 Runoff of the Tule River at Worth Bridge and T\irnbull Gaging Stations o « o , , . . . . . . 32 ik Areas and Capacities of Worth Fork Reservoir « , o » . . . . . k2 15 Areas and Capacities of Mahogany Flat Reservoir . o « , . o . ^5 16 Areas and Capacities of Indian Gate Reservoir . . , . , , , , k"J 17 Comparison of Potential Water Development Fr-ojects for the Upper Tule River Ms in , , , » , . « o . f6 PLATES (Plates are bound at end of bulletin) Plate Number 1 Lines of Equal Mean Seasona.l Precipitation 2 Tule River Sein^'ice Areas Below Success Dam 3 Possible Development APPENDICES Cooperative Agreement Between the State of California,;,, Department of Water Resoirrces, and Tulare County » o » o ,,,.... .o<, <..»o. . A-1 Applications to Appropriate Water From the Ttile River .« ,,„„., o,,. o,. o,.,,, o ,» . B-1 Surface Water Diversions in the Upper Tule River Basin .„,„» o,, <.,,., oo, o o , o ,« = C-1 Comments of Tulare County., prepared by Tulare County Water Commission » » « o o . » » « » o . o . . o . o . « D-1 EDMUND G. BROWN EY O. BANKS Covmnoh addkess reply to DIRECTOR ''■ °- BOX 3BB SACRAMENTO 2 II20N STREET HI CKORV B-47II STATE OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO Hovember 1^ 19bO Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Governor, and Members of the Legislatiire of the State of California Gentlemen: I have the honor to transmit herewith Bulletin No. 82 of the Department of Water Resources, entitled "Upper Tule River Reconnaissance Investigation", as authorized by Articles h and 5 of Chapter 1, Part 6, Division 6, of the Water Code of the State of California. Bulletin No. 82 includes estimates of present and probable loltlmate water requirements of the Upper Tule River Basin. It con- tains an inventoi'y of the water resoirrces of the basin and considers availability of water for further development . Preliminary plans and cost estimates are presented for storage and distribution of supplemental water in the Upper Tule River Basin, and consideration is given to availability and cost of water for exchange between the valley floor and the upper basin. Very truly yours, ORGANIZATION DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Harvey 0. Banks . Director of Water Resources Ralph M. Brody ..... Deputy Director of Water Resources James F. Wright Deputy Director of Water Resources William L. Berry Chief Engineer, Division of Resources Planning John M. Haley . Assistant Division Engineer This report v/as prepared under the direction of William L. Horn Principal Hydraulic Engineer and Carl L. Stetson Supervising Hydraulic Engineer Eugene F. Serr Senior Hydraulic Engineer Eugene H. Gunderson Associate Civil Engineer Assisted by Leland R. Illingworth ..... Supervising Hydraulic Engineer Charles F. Kleine ......... Senior Hydraulic Engineer H. Duane Woods Senior Engineering Geologist Stanley A. Feingold ....... Assistant Hydraulic Engineer C. Dale Spaulding , , Assistant Civil Engineer Kenneth R. Quinn Civil Engineering Technician Carl J. Busse , . Civil Engineering Technician John L. James Supervisor, Drafting Services Porter A. Towner Chief Ccunsel Paul L. Barnes Chief, .uivJs:io/i of /Vjr.iinistration Isabel C. Nessler . Coordinator of Reports ORGANIZATION CALIFORNIA WATER CCMMISSION JAMES K. CARR^ Chairman, Sacramento WILLIAM H. JENNINGS, Vice Chairman, La Mesa JOHN W. BRYANT, Riverside GEORGE C, FLEHARTY, Redding JOHN P. BUNKER, Gustine JOHN J. KING, Petaluma IRA J. CHRISMAN, Visalia KENNETH Q. VOLK, Los Angeles MARION R. WALKER, Ventura WILLIAM M. CARAH, Executive Secretary GEORGE B. GLEASON, Chief Engineer ORGANIZATION TULARE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HARRY W. PERRY, Chairman CHARLES J. CUMMINGS J. MALCOLM CRAWFORD HALVER J, HADDOCK JOHN R. LONGLEY ACKNOWLEDGMENT Valuable assistance and data used in this investigation were con- tributed by agencies of the State and Federal Governments, Tulare County, public districts, and by private companies and individuals. This cooperation is gratefully acknowledged. Special mention is also made of the helpful cooperation of the Tule River Soil Conservation District and the Sacramento District, United States Army Corps of Engineers . CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION The unregtilated flow of the Tule River and its tributaries has proven insiofficient to meet the increasing demands for water in the upper Tule River Basin. The development of additional water supplies for all hene- ficial uses is necessary if the upper basin is to achieve its agricultural and recreational potential. Representatives of the Tule River Soil Conservation District appeared in February 1957 before the former State Water Resources Board (now the California Water Commission) and requested that a comprehensive survey be conducted of the water resources of the upper Tule River area. Subse- quent negotiations with the County of Tulare culminated in cooperative agreement No. 160005, dated June 30, 1958 ^ for an investigation and report by the Department of Water Resources. The broad objective of the investigation was to evaluate on a reconnaissance scale the possibilities for a plan of development for the upper Tule River area. The work program to accomplish this broad objective included the review of previously published pertinent reports; the determination of present and probable xiltimate water requirements in the upper basin; the collection, compilation, and analysis of pertinent water resource and water rights data; the determination of the amount of water available for development; a study of possible plans for development; and a determination of the practicability of obtaining additional water for the upstream area by effecting an exchange with present users of Tule River water on the San Joaquin Valley floor. The agreement entered into by the State of California and the Covmty of Tulare on June 30, 1958^ an<3. the detailed work program are included as Appendix A. Related Investigations and Reports The following reports of prior investigations containing pertinent information were reviewed in connection with the current investigation. Althouse, Irvin W., Consulting Engineer j, "Water Requirements of Tulare County". January I9U2. California State Department of Public Works, Division of Engineering and Irrigation, "Water Resoxirces of Tulare County and Their Utilization". Bulletin No. 3- 1922. California State Department of Public Works, Division of Water Resources, "Report on Irrigation Districts in California, 19l^U-50". Bulletin No. 21-P. 1951. . "Office Report on Tule River Soil Conservation District". December 1955 • California State Department of Water Resources, "The California Water Plan". Bulletin No. 3- May 1957- , "Ground Water Conditions in Central and Northern California, 1957-58". October 1959- California State Water Project Authority, "Tule River-Deer Creek Area in Tulare Cotinty". Office Report No. 2 (b). August I9I1O. California State Water Resources Board, "Water Resources of California". Bulletin No. 1. 1951. California State Water Resources Board, "Water Utilization and Requirements of California". Bulletin No. 2. June 1955- Sorenson, James F., Consulting Engineer, "Report on Water Resources and Water Needs of Tulare County" . August 1959 • United States Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, "Success Project, Part 1, Hydrology". December 19^9- . "Success Project, Report on Preliminary Cost Allocation Studies". June 195^. . "Preliminary Definite Project Report, Success Dam and Reservoir, Tule River, California". June 1959* United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, "Report to the Federal Power Commission on the Water Powers of California". 1928. In addition to these reports, data were utilized from the Inventory of Water Resources and Requirements of California currently being conducted -2- by the Department of Water Resources as authorized by Section 232 of the Water Code. For the purposes of this inventory, the State has been divided into a large niomber of hydrographic units. The inventory of the Tule River hydro- graphic unit, covering the Tule River watershed above Success Dam, has been completed, and the data, pertaining essentially to stream diversions, land use, and land classification, were available and utilized in the current in- vestigation. The complete data are in the process of being published in a report of that investigation. Area Under Investigation The area under investigation comprises the 392 square-mile drainage basin of the Tule River above Success Dam. This area is hereinafter referred to as the upper Tule River Basin. Location of the area is shown on Plate 1. Water utilization and development in the Tule River drainage basin below Success Dam were studied in order to ascertain the availability of Tule River water for use in the upper basin. The upper Tule River Basin is a mountainous fan- shaped area sit- uated on the western slope of the southern Sierra Nevada. Elevations in the upper basin range from about 550 feet at Success Dam to about 10,000 feet in the headwater area. The basin is drained by three main forks of the Tule River which flow in a westerly or southwesterly direction and join near the foothill line. The North and Middle Forks of the Tule River join at Springville; the South Fork joins the main river about one mile above Success Dam. The main forks of the Tule River have an average slope of about 350 feet per mile. They are fed by numerous short, steep streams with slopes ranging from about ij-OO feet per mile to almost 1,000 feet per mile. About four miles west of Success Dam, the river reaches the Saji Joaquin Valley floor and divides into numerous distributary channels. These channels pass through a rich agricultural area and eventually reach Tulare Lake, located approximately k6 miles west of Success Dam. The climate in the upper Tula River Basin varies considerably, princi- pally bec9,use of large differences in elevation. In the vicinity of Success Reservoir the climate is typical of that in the San Joaq.uin Valley, being characterized by fairly mild winters and hot dry summers. Recorded temperatures at Porterville show a minimum of 18° F. and a maximum of llU° F. for the 56- year period from I896 to 1952. At Porterville, the average frost-free period is approximately 250 days, extending from the first part of March to the latter part of November. Short periods of freezing temperatures are experienced at infrequent intervals. In the upper regions of the basin, winter precipitation usually falls as snow. The upper Tule River watershed consists of rugged mountains. The granitic rocks of the mountains extend westward to within a few miles of Porterville. The Tule River has built an alluvial fan extending westward in the San Joaquin Valley from an apex in the vicinity of Porterville. The remnants of older alluvial fans occur both north and south of this present Tule River fan. The most recent alluvial deposits occur along the active channel of the river and reach considerable depths nesir the mouth of the stream canyon. Pleasant Valley, the largest area of flat land in the upper basin, is located just above Success Reservoir. The surface of this valley is partially alluviated. The bedrock of the region consists largely of granitic rocks, although some metamorphic rocks are present. The area is considered only moderately active seismically. The only recently recorded earthquake epicenter in the area was a small shock near Springville in 19^8. The soils of the upper Tule River Basin have been derived from rocks of the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. These soils may be segregated into three broad groups: residual soils^ Recent alluvial soils, and older flood plain soils. The residual soils of the rolling and the mountainous portions of the area were formed in place from the weathering of parent rock. Most of these soils are coarse-textured and well-drained. Soil depth varies from very shallow in the western portion of the basin to relatively deep on the flatter portions of the timbered, mountainous areas. Recent alluvial soils occur in relatively small and irregular bodies of deep, well-drained, coarse-textured alluvial fans along the existing stream channels. Agric\iltural development in these areas has been limited due to the hazards of erosion and flooding by the adjacent streams. Older alluvial flood plain soils occur at lower ele- vations on the smooth to gently undiilating land southwest of Springville. These soils, characteristically fine-textured, are underlain by moderately dense clay deposits. The present population of the upper basin, excluding the area to be inundated by Success Reservoir, is approximately 2,250. This figure includes about 250 patients of Tulare and Kings County Hospital and about 160 residents of Tule River Indian Reservation. About 1,000 people reside in Springville, exclusive of the hospital patients. Fifty percent or more of the people working in Springville are reportedly nonresidents. Two local public agencies in the upper basin are concerned with development and use of water and land. The Springville Public Utility District operates a municipal water supply system for residents of the Springville area. The Tule River Soil Conservation District was formed in 1955 "to promote control of erosion, to foster good irrigation practices, and to generally aid agri- culture by utilizing the services of the United States Soil Conservation Service. The district comprises over 237^000 acres, essentially the entire upper basin. The district performs no direct water development functions, but has assisted farmers in obtaining planning and financial assistance from the Soil Conservation Service in the construction of many small water conservation reservoirs. In addition to the above local agencies, the United States Array Corps of Engineers is presently constructing Success Dam for flood control and con- servation puorposes. The United States Bureau of Reclamation will negotiate a contract with present users for repayment of conservation benefits. CHAPTER II. WATER SUPPLY Present water supplies in the upper Tule River Basin are derived from direct precipitation, natural runoff, and to a minor extent, by pumping from ground water storage. This chapter describes the water supply phase of the investigation under the principal headings "Precipitation", "Runoff", and "Water Quality". Opportunity for ground water development is limited in the upper basin and is not given further consideration in this report. Precipitation Precipitation data collected at Porterville have been published con- tinuously since 1893 by the United States Weather Biireau. Shorter records of precipitation are available for six stations in the upper basin above Success Dam. The names of the stations, the periods of record, and the seasonal pre- cipitation, adjusted to a 51-year base period, 190l+-55^ are shown in Table 1. The locations of these stations are shown on Plate 1, "Lines of Equal Mean Seasonal Precipitation". TABLE 1 PRECIPITATION STATIONS IN OR WEAR THE UPPER TULE RIVER BASIN Plate 1 Me an seasonal reference Precipitation station Period of record pre cipitation, in number in ches of depth 1 Springville-Tule Headworks 1907 to date 37.0 2 Camp Wishon 19i^0 to date 33.0 3 Camp Nelson 1959 to date - k Tule River Intake 1910-23 30.5 5 Springville 7 ENE 1953-55 25.2 6 Springville Ranger Station 1940 to date 17.6 7 Porterville 1893 to date 10.7 About 80 percent of the seasonal precipitation occurs during the five- month period from December through April. During late fall and springy precipi- tation usually occurs as scattered intermittent showers or as thunderstorms. These storms are usually characterized by a high rate of precipitation and are confined to areas of about 50 sq.uare miles or less. Precipitation during sum- mer and early fall months is negligible. During the winter, precipitation usually falls as snow above the 5,000-foot elevation. However, some extremely warm winter storms have produced rain as high as 9^000 feet. The areas above 5^000 feet are usually covered to a considerable depth with snow by the end of February. Mean seasonal depth of precipitation on the entire drainage basin above Success Dam averages about 31 inches, ranging from about 15 inches at the dam to about 50 inches in the mountains near the northern border of the watershed. Lines of eq,ual mean seasonal precipitation in the basin are shown on Plate 1. Runoff Runoff records have been collected for a number of years at several stations in and downstream from the upper Tule River Basin. The location, drainage, area, period of record, and average runoff for pertinent gaging stations are shown in Table 2. The locations of these stations are shown on Plate 1. The gaging station, Tule River near Porterville, located just above the confluence of the south fork and the main stem has the longest continuous record in the basin. The average seasonal runoff measured at this station for the 56-year period from 190I-O2 through I956-57 was about 102,000 acre-feet. Maximum and minimum seasonal runoff recorded at this station was 335^000 acre- feet (1905-06) and l!+,000 acre-feet ( 1930-31)^ respectively. The average monthly distribution of runoff is shown in Table 3. TABLE 2 STREAM GAGING STATIONS IN THE TULE RIVER BASIN Plate 1 reference number Gaging station Drainage area^ in square miles Period of record Average seasonal runoff for period of record, in acre-feet 1 North Fork of Middle Fork Tule River near Springville 2 South Fork of Middle Fork Tule River near Springville 3 Bear Creek near Springville h North Fork Tule River near Springville 5 Tule River near Springville 6 Tule River near Porterville 7 Tule River at Worth Bridge, near Porterville 8 South Fork Tule River near Success 9 South Fork Tule River near Porterville 39 5 1909-12 1939-56 26,kOO kk 1 1909-12 27,900 13. 1 1911-16 5,200 98 1957 - 229 1957 - 261 1901-57 102,200 395 l9iiU_57 111,600 105 1930-5^^ 1956-57 30,000 79- 7 1910-25 1927-32 22,900 TABLE 3 AVERAGE MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF RUNOFF AT THE GAGING STATION ON THE TULE RIVER NEAR PORTERVILLE Month 1 Acre -feet 1 Percent 1 Month 1 Acre -feet 1 Percent October 500 0.5 i^ril 23,100 22.6 November 2,800 2.7 May 21,U00 20.9 December 5,500 5A Junft 9,300 9.1 January- 6,500 6.k July 1,300 1.3 February 15,500 15.2 August 100 0.1 March 16,100 15.7 September 100 0.1 TOTALS 102,200 100.0 A gaging station on the South Fork of the Tula River near Success has been maintained from 193O to 195^ and from I956 to date. The average seasonal runoff, adjusted to the 56-year period 1901-02 through 195^-57^ was about 30,000 acre-feet, ranging from a maximum of about 95; 000 acre-feet to a minimum of about 4,000 acre-feet. The unimpaired runoff of the entire Tule River above Porterville for the period 1895 to 19^7 vas estimated as 1^0,000 acre-feet per season. A portion of the winter precipitation which falls in the upper Tule River Basin is retained in the snowpack which accumulates in the high mountain area. During March, April, and May, increasing temperatures cause the snowpack to melt, with resulting heavy runoff during these months. About 88 percent of the seasonal runoff occurs during the period from January tlirough June. Water Quality Because of diverse cliroatological conditions and variations in crops and soils in California, only general limits of quality for irrigation waters can be considered for purposes of water quality determination. Irrigation waters can be divided into three broad classes, as listed in Table h. TABLE k CLASSIFICATION OF IRRIGATION WATERS Class I Class II Class III Chemical properties Excellent to Good to Injurious to good injurious unsatisfactory Total dissolved solids: Parts per million Conductance, in microrahos per centimeter at 25° C, Chloride, in parts per million Sodium, in per cent of base constituents Boron, in parts per million Less than 700 Less than 1,000 Less than 175 Less than 60 Less than O.5 700-2,000 1,000-3,000 175-350 60-75 0.5-2.0 More than 2,000 More than 3,000 More than 35 More than 75 More than 2.0 -10- A water sampling station is operated on the Tula River near Porterville by the Department of Water Resources. Average values and ranges of pertinent chemical properties of 2k monthly samples taken at this station during 1955 and 195^ are shown in Table 5« TABLE 5 MINERAL QUALITY OF THE TULE RIVER NEAR P0RTERVIL1£ Chemical property Ave rage of 2U samples collected dijring 195^ and I956 Range Total dissolved solids, in parts per million Chloride ion concentration, in parts per million Sodium, in percent of base constituents Boron, in parts per million 15U 8.6 22 0.12 87-265 2.U-20.0 19-25 0.03-0.22 A comparison of these averages with the limits shown in Table U indicates that the Tule River contains excellent Class I water, suitable for most plants under any condition of soil and climate. ■11- •12- CHAPTER III. WATER UTILIZATION AM) REQUIREMENTS This chapter contains information on land use, on the nature and magnitude of water utilization, and on present water requirements in the upper Tule River Basin. In addition, estimates of ultimate water requirements for the upper Tule River Basin are included. The data for the studies were derived largely from the Department of Water Resources investigation, "Inventory of Water Resources and Requirements". Land Use Lands in the upper "basin were first developed for agricultural pur- poses in the 1850' s. Springville, the only town in the upper basin, was settled in the 1890' s. Lands within the upper basin have since been developed for agricultura, urban, and recreational purposes. Present Land Use A detailed study of land use in the upper basin was conducted by the Department of Water Resources in 1957' Table 6 presents the results of this study. ■13- TABLE 6 LMD USE IN THE UPPER TULE RIVER BASIN, 1957 Land use Area, in acres Irrigated lands Mixed pasture Native pasture Meadow pasture Field crops Citrus crops Deciduous Idle in 1957 Subtotal Dry-farmed Naturally irrigated meadow lands Recreational Residential Parks Urban Native vegetation TOTAL l.i^30 1,262 129 I7U 780 115 736 h,626* 1,013 206 275 3,52if 2lt2 2^0, 8OU 250,690 * Success Reservoir will inundate ^^4-8 acres of irrigated land. -Ik- Irrigated lands include all agricultural lands v?hich use applied water in addition to that supplied by direct precipitation. Dry-farmed lands are cultivated areas which receive their entire water supply from natural precipitation. This includes lands which were tilled but not planted at time of the 1957 survey^ as well as idle lands formerly dry- farmed . Naturally irrigated meadow lands vtilize water from a naturally high water table. Mountain meadows adjacent to streams fall into this category. Recreational lands include camp and trailer sites, resorts, and permanent and summer home developments in predominantly recreational areas. Also included are motels and other commercial developments which are necessary to service recreational areas. Urban lands include the total areas of cities, towns, small com- munities, and industrial areas. These areas were not necessarily fully developed at the time of the survey. The limiting density used to determine community boundaries was approximately one residence for every two acres. Land use indicated as native vegetation includes all lands in the upper basin which do not fall into one of the above categories. This use includes range land, commercial timberland, and forest land. Potential Land Use For purposes of this report, lands in the upper Tule River Basin have been separated into three general classes: Irrigable, urban, and recreational. Irrigable lands were further segregated into valley lands, gently sloping hill lands, and steeply sloping and rolling hill lands. Valley lands have an aver- age gradient of less than four percent and are suited for all climatically adapted crops. Gently sloping and steeply sloping hill lands have maximum -15- slopes of 20 per cent and 30 percent, respectively, and aside from topo- graphic limitations, are suitable for all climatically adapted crops. The survey indicates that there are approximately 17,500 acres of irrigable lands in the upper basin. Of the 17,500 acres, 3,000 are classed as valley lands, 11,800 are classed as gently sloping hill lands, and 2,700 are classed as steeply sloping hill lands. These gross acreages are reduced by considerations, such as the size, shape, and location of various parcels, which preclude their development, and the fact that some portion of the land will lie fallow or idle each year. In addition, lands devoted to rights of way and farmsteads are included in the gross figures. Due to these consider- ations, the approximate area of net irrigable land in each class was estimated as follows: valley lands, 2,700 acres; gently sloping hill lands, 10,000 acres; and steeply sloping hill lands, 2,200 acres. The total net irrigable area is approximately lU,900 acres. Continued urban development in the upper basin is anticipated in the vicinity of Springville. Based on an anticipated population of nearly 2,500 and the present density of about five persons per acre, it is estimated that about 550 acres may ultimately be used for urban development. The mountains and streams in the upper Tule River Basin provide good recreational potential for hunting, fishing, and similar outdoor activi- ties. Rapidly increasing demands for outdoor recreational facilities make it evident that considerable areas would be devoted to these purposes in the future. The department has estimated that about 9,i<-00 acres would be devoted to recreational use in the upper basin under conditions of ultimate development . -16- Present Water Supply Development The nature and extent of present water supply development in the Tule River Basin are defined by present rights to, and surface diversions of, Tule River water. Although comprehensive adjudication has not been made of the rights to the use of water from the Tule River, tentative diversion schedules have been adopted based on appropriation and actual use, court decrees and stip\ilations, agreements, and compromises. Tule River Water Rights Litigation concerning water rights in Tule River has been con- centrated largely in four major lawsuits. In addition, there have been many minor lawsuits to quiet disputes between individual parties. Since the four major decrees above resulted from suits between different parties, the water rights were established only as against the plaintiffs and defendants of those suits. For example, the Pleasant Valley Canal Company was a defendant in three of the suits and was decreed a different quantity of water as its right by each. None of these three water right quantities can be considered as the final right of the Pleasant Valley Canal Company, but only as a right against the various plaintiffs. It is not possible, therefore, to establish a single diversion schedule on the basis of the court decrees. The decrees do, however, establish the fact that an order of priority in amount and time exists on the stream which future upstream developments must recognize and consider. Applications . Most of the water used in the upper basin is appropri- ated \mder rights established prior to the Water Commission Act of 19l4 or used under riparian rights. Since initiation of the state filing procedure in 191^, a total of 31 applications for a total diversion of U.221 second-feet and two applications for storage of h"J acre-feet per annum have been granted licenses or permits in the Tule River watershed above Success Dam. The largest of these -17- diversion applications is for power pirrposes, 3-0 second-feet by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, leaving applications for only 1.221 second- feet for other purposes. Four additional applications for diversion of 2. 605 second- feet and 19 applications for storage of 2,h32.'^ acre-feet per annum were pend- ing and had not been acted upon as of June 1959- Seventeen of the I9 pending applications for storage total only 332.5 acre-feet and consist of 31 small farm reservoirs, all of which are existing, the largest having a capacity of ^7«5 acre-feet. The other two pending appli- cations for storage are those of Mrs. Clemmie Gill for storage of 750 acre- feet on Hickman Creek, tributary to the North Fork Tule River, for irrigation, and of the South Tule Independent Ditch Company for storage of 1,U00 acre-feet on the South Fork Tule River for irrigation. The dams under the latter two applications would come under state supervision as to safety of dams. Two applications have been made for diversion and storage at Success Dam. The first was made by the Txilare Lake Basin Water Storage District in 19^5 for diversion of 2,000 second-feet and storage of 50,000 acre-feet per year. The second was made by the State Department of Finance in 1952 for diversion of 2,350 second-feet and storage of 75^000 acre-feet per year. Nine applications have been made on the Tule River and tributaries below Success Dam, and from Tulare Lake, only one of which has been approved. The only licensed right consists of a comparatively small diversion of 6 second- feet by R. J. Gilkey from Cross Creek and Tulare Lake, filing for which was made in I916. The unapproved applications total 5>192.5 second-feet of diversion and 1,150,000 acre-feet of storage, of which U,500 second-feet and all of the storage have been filed on by the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District. All applications, both approved and pending, filed for water from the Tule River as of June 1, 1959, are listed in Appendix B, "Applications -18- to Appropriate Water From the Tula River". For convenience, the applications are divided into two sections: (l) applications to appropriate water from the Tule River above Success Dam; and (2) applications to appropriate water from the Tule River from Success Dam to and including Tulare Lake. Surface Diversions Within the Upper Tule River Basin Water diverted in the upper Tule River Basin is utilized for agri- cultural, urban, recreational, and power purposes . Appendix C, "Surface Water Diversions in the Upper Tule River Basin", tabulates the quantities of water diverted in 1957^ the diverters, the purpose for which the water was used, and other pertinent information. This information is summarized in the following paragraphs and Table 7- Irrigation Use . The presently irrigated lands in the upper basin are supplied vrith water principally by direct diversion from the Tule River, with a relatively minor amount of surface storage. About 22,900 acre-feet of water were diverted for irrigation purposes in 1957 to irrigate approximately 3^900 acres . Insufficient flows in the Tule River and its tributaries during the summer and fall seasons limit the irrigation of additional acreage . About 700 acres that are normally irrigated were idle in 1957- Of the k,600 acres that are normally irrigated in the upper basin, about U50 acres will be inundated by Success Reservoir. The Pioneer Water Company diverts water from the upper Tule River into Pioneer Ditch about one mile above Success Darr. for irrigation use in the Porterville area. In 1957^ approximately 5^700 acre-feet were diverted. A special outlet is being provided through Success Dam in order that the use of Pioneer Ditch can continue as before. In addition to the natural limitation on use of water, a court decree prohibits, with exception of some minor uses, diversion of water by riparian -19- users and appropriators upstream from Oettle Bridge during the 22-day period March 19 to April 10 of each year, unless there is UOO or more second-feet of water flowing past Oettle Bridge. Oettle Bridge is located about 12 miles downstream from Success Dam. Urban Use . The Springville Public Utility District diverted and treated about 320 acre-feet of water in 1957 f'or urban use in and around the town of Springville. This water was obtained from the tailrace of the Tule Powerhouse of the Southern California Edison Company. The water supply pro- vided by the Camp Nelson Water Company to summer homes in the Camp Nelson area was classified as a recreational use for purposes of this investigation. Recreational Use . The Camp Nelson Water Company diverted about 150 acre-feet of water from Bishop Creek to supply about 210 summer homes in 1957- The Moorehouse Springs Fish Hatchery diverted about 700 acre-feet of water, also considered a recreational use. However, all of the water diverted by the hatchery was released for further use downstream. The Middle Fork of the Tule River is used extensively for trout fishing when flows are adequate . Hydroelectric Power Use . At the present time there are two small hydroelectric power generating plants in the upper basinj one ovmed by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and the other by the Southern California Edison Company. Due to lack of storage facilities, power development must depend on the natural flow of the river. Both plants are located on the Middle Fork of the Tule River, which is the only branch with sufficient runoff during the dry period to make power development practical. In 1957^ the two plants diverted a total of about i^7,000 acre-feet of water, all of which was released for further downstream use . -20- TABLE 7 WATER UTILIZATION IN THE UPPER TULE RIVER BASIN IN 1957 Use I Diversion, in acre -feet Consumptive in nature Irrigation 23,100 Urban 320 Recreational (summer homes) 1^0 Subtotal 23,570 Nonconsumptive in nature Hydroelectric power ^7,080 Recreational (fish hatchery) 70O Subtotal TOTAL Downstream Users The Tule River is a source of water supply for numerous individuals and the following public districts in downstream order from Success Dam: Porterville Irrigation District, Lower Tule River Irrigation District, and Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District. The boundaries of these districts are shown on Plate 2. Quantities of water diverted from the stream in the reach from the mouth of the South Fork downstream to Oettle Bridge for the 11-year period 19^9 tlirough 1959 are given in Table 8. The average annual quantity of water diverted was 38,200 acre-feet. Prior to 1950, the water supply of the Porterville Irrigation District was obtained from the Tule River by surface diversions and by pumping from ground water storage . Records of depth to ground water within the district indicate that the water table dropped from an average depth of 16 feet to 55 feet during the period 1921-^4-8 . Of the total drop of 39 feet, 26 feet occurred during the 19^3-^8 period. Increased irrigated acreage and below normal runoff were responsible for the rapid rate of depletion. -21- o c- O a\ CT\ O O t-i CO f- en tr- ON VD iH OJ CD iH \o .H [-- i-t i-H -* 1 1 m -:t' O -:t o o o O O ^- o VD VD o vo D- VO CO ro o ITN OO i^- en 00 -4- c— en CO 1 •s •\ •\ •\ •s •\ •\ t^ On OO i-H OJ OJ ir\ ON o ur\ O o o o O ON J- CO tr- On o VD .H CM VD 03 en -^ en 1 1 1 »\ •\ •\ •N •N #v ^ t- CVJ rH UTN o O o O O o o CO OJ 8? l>- ON VD t- 00 1 en LTN i-l OJ 1 ON 1 o ON o O o o O o CJN 00 H o t- ON VD iH 00 1 VD OJ u> VD VD VD •\ •\ •\ *\ *\ J- t^ en H OJ r-i en o O o o o o O LTN CVJ OJ t-t VD VD CVJ GO 1 CM LTN H VD o- LfN •\ •N •\ J- CO H CM c— en H o o o O o o O VD o 00 CO LTN J- LTN CO CO J- C7N en ITN LTN o O VD O i-l VD O o o o o o O o o & J- VD ^ ^- tH & ON r-l 1 t^- l>- en ^ ON VD LfN •N •\ •\ •\ •\ •v •N •\ VD IPv r-( 1-1 00 J- CM -d- r-l O o o o o o O o (V-l -4- en 00 CO o LfN c- J- IPv en 1 CVJ LPv l/\ c^- OJ J- rH H •\ •\ •\ •\ •s •\ LTN [>- r-\ H CO ITN I-l K ij ij K J ij K J J J o en VD CM CVJ ON VD CM OJ en CO O OJ CD 6 oJ cn m en VD [-^ ON .H rH LTN ITN « t:) +3 ^ ,c! iH p •iH fl •rH o o c3 •H Q 0) £8 Q p p a Q H • rH ^ •H •rH cd Jh 3 ^ to 0) ■§) CJ Q Q CJ rH (U 0) EH CJ o U p ^ 03 (U w +3 fl ^ •H o ^ 0) c ;h d Td ^ •H pq ^ O Q P (U fl u P o •H ^ Q 1 H •H C •H ^ C •H fH O C iH CO aJ Q r) P^ 0) p^ pq [x< U o I-l •H S 1 1 o ^ u C ft 2 o •H O p p O •H o (3 o (S O 3 ^ ?H o •iH (U CO Ph m O Oi > Oh K K Ph s J o -22- Prior to 1950^ the Lower Tule River Irrigation District obtained its principal water supply by pxitnping from wells and by supplementing the ground water supply by surface diversion from the Tule River. Records of depths to ground water within the district indicate that the average depth to ground water increased from 22 to 83 feet during the period 1921 -US. A drop of 27-5 feet occurred during the 19^3-^8 period, an average drop of 5*5 feet per sea- son. Increased irrigated acreage and belovr normal runoff were responsible for the rapid depletion of ground water supplies. In 1950, the Porterville and Lower Tule River Irrigation Districts began purchasing water from the United States Bureau of Reclamation. The imported water was obtained from the Friant-Kern Canal, a feature of the Central Valley Project. The q.uantity of water imported is shown in Table 9« The water table has risen an average of 29 feet in the Porterville and Lower Tule River Irrigation Districts during the period 1951-58' From the spring of 1957 to the spring of 1958, the average increase in ground water levels was 3.7 feet in the Porterville Irrigation District and 2.U feet in the Lower Tule River Irrigation District. Despite the generally rising water table, the average ground water elevation in 1958 was still 30 feet below the elevation in 1921. The Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District (gross area 193^000 acres) obtains its water supply from Tulare Lake and its many tributaries, including the surplus flow of Kern, Tule, and Kaweah Rivers and the portion of Kings River flow which enters through South Fork Channel. Although Tulare Lake covered an area as great as 1,000 square miles in 1880, it is now con- fined by levees to an area of about Uo square miles. In recent years, the lake has receded, and a large portion of the lake bed is used extensively for irrigated agriculture. -23- TABLE 9 WATER IMPORTED INTO THE TULE RIVER BASIN VIA THE FRIANT-KERN CANAL, 1950-58 Quantity imported, in acre-feet Porterville Lower Tule River Year Irrigation Irrigation Totals District District 1950 7,i+15 76, 07^^ 83,i+89 1951 5,255 9h,l6k 99,1+19 1952 8,000 153,000 161,000 1953 &,k6o 198,500 206,960 195^ 7,868 170,000 177,868 1955 i+,723 208,351 213, 07U 1956 7,558 262,101 269,659 1957 2^,195* 2UU,018 268,213 1958 31,125* 21+7,1^8 278,273 * 19,190 acre-feet and 25,300 acre-feet in 1957 and 1958, respectively, were delivered outside the district. The water supply for irrigation of the presently cropped acreage in the Tulare Lake area is generally deficient. The maximum irrigation demand is estimated at 230,000 acre-feet per year for an irrigable area of about l6o,000 acres. This demand is subject to reduction in some years because of flooding, which temporarily reduces the cropped area. Water is diverted directly from all surface inflows to the area to the majximura extent available. However, the supply available for direct diversion is usually inadequate, and surplus flood waters of Tule, Kaweah, and Kern Rivers which accumulate in the Tulare Lake are utilized by gravity or by pumping to augment the supply. A large portion of such flood waters is lost by evaporation. The Vandalia Irrigation District, a small district located about five miles southeast of Porterville, was organized in 1923 for the purpose of developing a supplemental water supply by pumping from a gravel deposit near Tule River. Water is diverted from the Tule River by the Vandalia Ditch and transported about one mile to a spreading area, where it is stored in the -21+. underlying ground water basin. Since 1925 the basin has been replenished annually. Diversions for replenishment have averaged 1,700 acre-feet annually since 1949. Success Reservoir Success Reservoir, currently under construction, vdll be operated primarily for flood control by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Reservations of capacity to store winter rain floods and snowmelt floods have been established, and whenever encroachment on this space occurs, water will be released up to safe channel capacities. During large floods and during exceptionally wet years, estimates indicate that some residual flood damage will still occur in the Tulare Lake area. During the snowmelt season (Feb- ruary 1 to July 3l)» reservoir operation will be based on snowmelt predictions and anticipated irrigation diversions, with the general objectives of not exceeding downstream channel capacities and eliminating or minimizing damaging flow into Tulare lake. Water conservation at Success Reservoir for irrigation use will be subject to storage requirements for flood control. Irrigation interests participating in the project will be allowed to store water in the reservoir and have it released on demand, as long as such storage does not conflict with flood control reservations or operation. The 80,000 acre-feet of storage capacity in the reservoir will be utilized as follows; 75,000 acre-feet will be available for flood control and irrigation storage, and 5,000 acre-feet of space in the reservoir will be reserved for silt storage and for recreational uses. The 75,000 acre-feet of storage can be used at times for both flood control and irrigation, as waters stored to prevent flood damage can often be released later for irrigation use. This is particularly true of snowmelt run- off, because the reservoir can be safely filled near the end of the precipitation season. -25- Tile Corps of Eu^lnesrs has det-ermined that flood control accomplish- ment- s woj".ld :0T.3i«t of reducing flood damage along the Tule River and in Tulai-e Lahe Basin. Tulare Lake Basir. has teen divided h:/ levees into a large number of cells. All Lut the central cell are cul^-ivated and used for crops when not flooded. D-^-ing the period of analysis,, 19CA— 55;. Tule River flood flows would have caused damage in only six years had Success Reservoir been in operation. Studies by the Corps of Engineers indicate that Success Reservoir would aid irrigated agriculture by developing new water and by reregulating the existing supply so that it can be used more effectively for crop requirements. The new water would be obtained by reducing evaporation from Tulare Lake^ and the quantity would vary greatly from year to year. The estimated annual amounts of new and reregulated water are 6,600 and 19;20C acre-feet^ respectively. Downstream users have or claim rights to all the irrigation water to be stored in the reservoir. Water Requirements Estimates of water requirements for irrigation^ urban,, and recre- ational purposes in the upper Tule Rirer Basin are pre ; -nted in this section. In general, estimates of water requirements were based on v.tit values of con- sumptive use and the present and probable ultimat.e patterns of land use. Irrigation Water Requirements Determination of irrigation water requirements was based on unit values of consumptive use of applied water for the variO'^s crops growii in the area;, and the efficiency with which water is or would be applied to the land. The unit values of consumptive use of applied water used in tixis bulletin are those presented in State Water Resoiirces Board Bulletin No. 2, "Water Utilization and Requirements of Calif ' r:tia"; Jv.ne 195!^ • .26- An average value of consumptive use for irrigated lands in the upper Tule River Basin was determined from the crop pattern observed in 195?. At that time, about 70 percent of the land irrigated in the upper basin vras pasture. Assuming that the seasonal consumptive use of applied water on pasture land was about 3*1 acre-feet per acre, and that seasonal consumptive use on the other 30 per cent of the irrigated lands averaged 2.1 acre-feet per acre (which is the quantity of water consumed by deciduous and citrus orchards), the weighted average seasonal consumptive use of applied water was about 2.8 acre-feet per acre. In the period from April 1957 through March 1958, about 23,100 acre- feet of water were diverted to irrigate about 3^900 acres, an average unit diversion of 5-9 acre-feet per acre. The computed irrigation efficiency is about 50 percent. However, because of rediversion and nongrowing season diversions within the basin, the actual upper basin efficiency is undoubtedly higher . The cost of developing future water supplies for the irrigation of additional land would undoubtedly be considerably higher than the present cost. It is believed that lands brought under irrigation in the future would be utilized largely for orchard crops and other high-income producing crops. As a result, irrigation efficiency is expected to increase to around 75 percent. It was assumed that 90 percent of the new irrigated area will be orchards with a unit seasonal consumptive use of applied water of 2.1 acre-feet per acre, and 10 percent alfalfa with a unit seasonal consumptive use of 3-1 acre-feet per acre. The weighted seasonal consumptive use of applied water would be 2.2 acre-feet per acre. Applying the assumed irrigation efficiency of 75 percent, a unit irrigation requirement of 2.9 acre-feet per acre per season was derived for additional land brought under irrigation in the future This unit requirement and the 11,000 acres of irrigable, but as yet unirrigated. -27- land was used to estimate future irrigation water requirements in the upper basin. It was assumed that presently irrigated lands would retain their present diversion rights. Table 10 summarizes the irrigation water requirements. TABLE 10 PRESENT AKD PROBABLE ULTIMATE SEASONAL IRRIGATION WATER REQUIREMENTS IN THE UPPER TULE RIVER BASIN Stage of development Irrigation water requirements, in acre-feet Present 23,000 Ultimate 55^000 An additional amount, approximately 32,000 acre-feet of new water, vrould be required seasonally for irrigated agriculture under conditions of ultimate development. However, the stream would be depleted only to the extent of the consumptive use and irrecoverable losses incidental thereto, appro :i- mately 23,000 acre-feet per season. Thus, tlje eiiicie"ajy at which land would be irrigated in the futujre would be inportant wit i regard to possible exchange agreements with prese-A downstream water users. Urban Water Requirements The ultimate seasonal unit water requirement for urban use was esti- mated at 2.6 acre-feet per acre in Bulletin No. 2, and the same value was uti- lized in this study. It is noted that in 1957^ the Springville Public Utility District diverted about 322 acre-feet to serve a gross area of 2^2 acres, about 1.3 acre-feet per acre. However, the area is only partially developed, and it was assumed that 2.6 acre-feet per acre would be required per season under conditions of ultivr^te development. -28- About 550 acres are projected for urban use in the future. The probable ultimate urban seasonal water requirement in the upper basin^ as derived from the above values, was estimated to be 1,400 acre-feet. Recreational Water RecLuirements Unit values of water use for recreational purposes in the upper Tule River Basin were obtained by considering the number of user-days for each category of recreational activity, the quantity of water used, and the probable ultimate pattern of land use. Wilderness areas were assumed to have a negli- gible water requirement. The total ultimate seasonal recreational water requirement for the upper basin was estimated to be 2,000 acre-feet. Supplemental Water Requirements Supplemental water requirements, as used in this bulletin, are the difference between estimated ultimate water requirements and present water requirements. Table 11 summarizes present, ultimate, and supplemental water requirements for the upper basin. TABLE 11 SUPPLEMENTAL SEASONAL WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR THE UPPER TULE RIVER BASIN (in acre-feet) Water requirements Pu3T)Ose Urban | Recreational" I Irrigation Total Present (195?) Ultimate Supplemental 300 200 l,i+00 2,000 1,100 1,800 23,100 23,600 55,000 58,UOO 31,900 3^,800 -29- Monthly Demands for Water The present monthly distribution of annual water use for irrigation and other purposes is largely dependent upon the regimen of Tule River and its tributaries, since water for irrigation purposes comprises the major use and existing supplies are unregulated. A large q.uantity of water is diverted during the early spring months when water supply conditions in the Tule River and its tributaries are generally good. As the runoff dwindles, the diversions for irrigation decrease accordingly. Under future conditions, the monthly distribution was assumed to be similar to irrigation and urban use in the Visalia-Delano area, as shown in Water Resources Board Bulletin No. 2. Table 12 shows the monthly distribution of annual water demand assumed to exist under conditions of ultimate develop- ment. TABLE 12 MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL WATER DEMANDS Month Percent Month Percent January February March April May June 2.0 July 1.6 August 3.0 September 6.5 October 8.6 November 9.6 December TOTAL 13-3 16.5 16. k 12.0 6.0 100.00 ■30- CHAPTER IV, AVAILABILITY OF WATER An essential step in planning a water resources development is a determination of the location and amoiont of unappropriated water. Existence of Water Available for Development in the Upper T ule River Basin Previous reports of the Department of Water Resources have con- sistently indicated tha,t there is no unappropriated water in the Tale River, except in occasional flood years, "Water Resources of Tulare County and Pieir Utilization", published in 1922 ty the Department of Public Works, did aot recommend construction of conseriration storage on the Tule River without exchange of import water on the valley floor, since it was concluded that such storage would trainly result in a change in method of use^, and would not make available any tiBt.erially larger part of the r-xinoff than was then used. Office Report No, 2(1: }„ "Tuls River-Deer Creek Area in Tul8.re County"^ published in 19UO 'by the State Water Project Authority, included a conclusion to the effect that about one -third of the average seasonal water requiremftnts diH'ing the 18~year period 1921-39 was derived by depleting ground water supplies. In the California Water Plan, as presented in Depart.ment of Water Resources Bulletin No, 3., Jfey 1957. it was stated that it would be necessary to substitute imported water for valley floor lands under a negotiated exchange agreement if upstream reservoirs were to be constructed on the Tule River for the purpose of de/eloping additional vater for the area above Success Reser^roir, An analysis of the flood flows entering Tulare Lake supports the contention that only on rare occasions do appreciable quantities of unappro- priated water exist in the Tule River, Table 13 shows the flow in the Ttile River at a stream gaging station near the edge of the ■'.ralley (Wort.h Bridge -^31- Season TABLE 13 RUNOFF OF TULE RIVER AT WORTH BRIDGE AM) TURNBULL GAGING STATION Tule River at Worth Bridge (in acre -feet ) 1942-i9ii3 = 181>00 19^U = 150 19i+U=l9U5 205,600 5i+,i+00 19i+6 92,kOQ 9,600 19i+7 49,700 20 19U8 59,800 3^*0 19i^9 U3,6oo 19U9-1950 58,U00 1951 131,000** 13,^00 1952 310,000 10l+,800 1953 93,000*-* 9,800 195^^ 8^,400 1954-1955 58,300 80 1956 20U,600 57,900 1957 59,500 760 T urnbull Stati on Runoff from E lk Ba.you hjMo 700 23,300 5,300 660 l,i+00 60 6,900 3i<-,100 2^800 23,800** Runoff from Tule River* 13U.,000 31,100 i^,300 6,500 70,700 7.-000 0** 0** 3^,100** 0>k* * Determined ty subtracting the runoff from Elk Myou from the total runoff recorded at Turnbull Station. ** Estimated. .32- gaging station) and at a downstream gaging station near Tulare Lake (Turnbull gaging station) for the period 19^+3-57. The latter station was located 1^200 feet downstream from the Corcoran- Angiola Highway Bridge^ about 37 miles down- stream from Success Dam. This station measured the inflow to the Tulare Lake area and included water from the Kaweah River (via Elk Bayou) and the Tule River. Runoff from Elk Bayou was subtracted from the total runoff at Turnbull Station to determine the runoff from the Iv.le River. When the seasonal flow remaining in the Tule River at Turnbull Station was relatively small, say less than 10,000 acre-feet, there was essentially no unappropriated water in the river. This condition existed in 11 out of the 15 water years between 19^3 and 1957 • In two of the remaining seasons, 19^5 and 1956, Tulare Lake had sufficient storage capacity to contain the flows, and they were therefore claimed by the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District. In two years, 19^3 and 1952, there may have been unappropriated water. With the Kern River and Kings River now regulated by large flood control reservoirs, namely, Isabella and Pine Flat, it is probable that the 1952 flow in the Tule River could have been contained in Tulare Lake without undue damage. This leaves only the year 19^3 in which there would have been some unappropriated water. Flows in the Tule River equal to or exceeding those of 19^3 are esti- mated to have occurred only five times in the last 65 years. Therefore, sub- stantial quantities of unappropriated water do not exist in the Tule River except in occasional flood years, occurring, on the average, less than once in ten years. Exchange Possibilities Since substantial quantities of unappropriated water do not exist in the Tule River and tributaries except in occasional flood years, future water supply development for irrigation in the upper basin must be largely contingent -33- upon possible exchange with downstream users. Domestic and urban supplies can usually be expanded as needed, because of the relatively small quantities involved and because of the higher water right priority assigned to domestic use by law. Agencies proposing development of significant additional irrigation supplies in the upper basin^ however, will probably have to bear the cost of providing exchange water to downstream users. Sources of water for exchange are discussed in the following paragraphs. Existing Ditch Companies Shares in certain ditch companies along the Tule River below Success Dam are available for purchase. There is the possibility that upper basin water users could purchase these shares and thereby effect an estoppel against the subsequent exercise of the claim to water for these shares. If none of these shares have claims of riparian rights, there is also the possibility that the point of diversion and place of use for these rights could be trans- ferred upstream, provided the water can be used by direct diversion without storage and that no other water rights are adversely affected. The latter condition would probably be difficult to achieve because of the nearly complete beneficial use of the natural flow of the river in this area. Friant-Kern Canal Interim supplies of surplus water may be available for purchase from the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation via the Friant-Kern Canal in years of above- average runoff, because some of the participating districts are not fully developed. These districts are not, under the terms of their contracts, presently diverting their maximum quantities of water. Although there were, as of January 1, 1959; about 50 applicants for such surplus water, only a portion of these applicants could handle significant quantities of water in the months when it is available, primarily, February through May. -3U- The Bui=eau of Reclamation estima.ted in 1958 that with repetition of the runoff conditions of the past 60 years, and with the projected use of the Millerton lake water supply ty long-term contractors, an average season sur- plus of 250^000 acre-feet would be available during the next, five years. Based on the historical runoff record, there would be no surplus in half of the years, while up to 700,000 acre=feet of surplus water would be available for delivery in wet years. Historically, there ha.ve been several continuous four-year periods during which no siorplus water would have been available. In previous years, this surplus water has been sold by means of temporary one-year contracts. The Bureau of Reclamation now proposes to con^ tract for the potential surplus supply over a five-year period. About. 20 such short-term contracts have been executed. The price charged for sarpras spring water is $1.50 per acre-foot and for sixrplus summer water is $3.50 per acre -foot . As the districts with long=-terra contracts increase their pur'cha.ses of water from the Friant-Kern Cana.l, the surplxxs water available for short- term contracts would decrease. It is estimated that surplus water would be available only in the wetter years after approximately 15 years. It Is pos= sible, however, that additional surpluses may become available with the construction of additional units of the Central Valley Project. Another possible source of 3hort--term exchange water, closely related to the surplus water supplies of the Bureau of Reclamation just dis- cussed, is the surplus water of certain districts which hold long-term con- tracts with the Bureau, These districts are not able to use their minimum contract commitments. The Porter\'-ille Irrigation District, for example, sold 25,300 acre-feet to other districts in 1958. Surplus water is offered by the Bureau of Reclama-tion first to long-term contractors, then it ma.y be offered =35' to shc" area. The annual costs per acre-foot were estimated tc be: pumping facilities, $6; energy for pumping, $10; conveyance and distribution, $5 • I't was assumed that permission to store water in Success Reservoir could be obtained at a cost of $2 per acre- foot, making a total unit cost of about $23 per acre-foot. This cost does not include the cost of piirchasing water on an exchange basis from downstream appropriators in those years when new water would be unavailable in Success Reservoir . While the cost of obtaining a supplemental water supply from Success Reservoir appears comparable to the cost of water from the North and South Fork Projects, it should be emphasized that since the primary piirpose of Success Reservoir is flood control, permission to store water may not be obtainable. Also, water stored in the North or South Fork Projects could be used for stream enhancement and recreation; whereas, water obtained from Success Reservoir would not be available for such uses. Land Management Local leaders of the Tule River Soil Conservation District have expressed a strong interest in the possibility of Increasing runoff in certain of the lower brushlands of the upper Tule River Basin by removing brush and -50- replacing it with grass. The possibility of improving range land should be considered the strongest inducement in this regard, with the possibility of increasing runoff as a by-product . The Department of Water Resources is cooperating with the University of California in studies of the effects of such manipulation of vegetation on several small watersheds in the foothills of the Coast Range and Sierra Nevada. In these studies to date, increases in annual water yield of as much as 10 inches in depth, or 533 acre-feet per square mile, have been measured under favorable conditions without serious acceleration of soil erosion. However, these results are based on limited data, and the department cannot attest to their applicability to large areas. There are several limitations on the practicability of brush clearing. In the case of shallow soils, which is likely to be the case in the area being considered, many grasses will extract about as much soil moisture as the existing brush, resulting in little or no increase in water yield. In some areas, particularly on the steeper slopes, removal of the brush cover may decrease infiltration rates to such an extent that flash flooding and severe erosion problems would occur. Therefore, it would probably be only on the deeper soils with flatter slopes where a savings of water could be demonstrated without severe flooding and erosion. Research by the U. S. Forest Service in Idaho has indicated that the limiting slope is 30 percent. With slopes greater than 30 percent, the small reduction in total evaporation and transpiration losses from burned plots is achieved at the expense of greatly increased flash flows of silt-laden water. The limiting factors of soils and slopes, above which the potential hazards outweigh the potential grazing and water gains, may narrow the area of potential benefit from brush clearing to rather small proportions. A limited amount of clearing in carefully selected areas on a ■51- trial basis would be desirable. The experience thus gained should help evalu- ate the desirability of widespread conversion of brushlands to grassland in this area. Careful study of the University of California, College of Agriculture, publication entitled, "Improving California Brush Ranges", by R. M. Love and B. J. Jones, is recommended for those contemplating brush clearing. It should be particularly noted that before fire is used, the details of the operation should be worked out in accordance with requirements and suggestions of repre- sentatives of the State Division of Forestry. A permit to burn at a stated time and place must be obtained from the local State Forest Ranger. Distribution System The cost of transporting and distributing water to irrigable lands varies considerably, depending upon the distance water must be transported, the terrain, the type of soil, and the availability of construction materials. A review of distribution system cost estimates in previous reports indicated that the combined transportation and distribution cost would be about $5 per acre-foot per year. Repayment Capacities The limited scope of this reconnaissance investigation did not war- rant a detailed study to determine the capacities for repayment of water costs of the various crops that may be produced on the irrigable lands in the upper basin. However, the department has made detailed studies to determine the repayment capacity of the same crops in the other parts of the state, some of which include areas with climate and soil conditions similar to those found in the basin. Based on these studies, it is estimated that orchards and truck crops produced in the basin would have a repayment capacity ranging from about -52- $15 to $30 per acre-foot, and that irrigated pasture would have a capacity between $5 and $8 per acre-foot of water used. In general, crops that could he produced on irrigable lands in the upper basin that are not irrigated at the present time may tend to have repayment capacities nearer the lower limits mentioned above because of the type of soil and the topography. Service Areas Service areas that could be economically supplied with water from proposed projects in the upper Tule River Basin were determined by assuming elevation limits on the irrigable lands. In selecting the areas, consideration was given to the cost of water from each project, the general topography, land class, presently irrigated lands, and existing irrigation systems. The most practical service area for the North Fork Project appears to be the Springville-Pleasant Valley area. This would include all irrigable land north of the Tule River between the 652-foot contour (the spillway ele- vation of Success Reservoir) and the 1,300-foot contour and east of the ridge in Section 13, Township 21 South, Range 28 East. Also included would be the lands south of the Tule River and east of Success Reservoir that are presently irrigated. The service area would include about 'J,600 acres of irrigable land, of which 3 J 500 acres were irrigated in 1957- The area would also include about 550 acres classed as urban and 60 acres classed as recreational. The supple- mental req.uirement for the service area would be about ll<-,500 acre-feet. No service area was delineated for the Middle Fork Project because of the high unit cost of water. It is possible that at some time in the future the recreational benefits of a reservoir on this stream will be sufficient to make this project feasible. The area selected for the South Fork Project would include irrigable lands along the South Fork of the Tule River between the 652-foot and 1,000- -53- foot contours. The area includes 2^700 acres of irrigable land, of which about 700 acres were irrigated in 1957' The supplemental water requirement for the service area would be about 6,000 acre -feet per year. The irrigable area within the elevation limits described above con- tains about 2,100 acres of valley land and 8,200 acres of hill land for a total irrigable area of 10,300 acres. In addition, the area contains about 550 acres of land forecast for virban development and about 60 acres forecast for recre- ational purposes. The aggregate reservoir storage capacity of about 28,500 acre-feet provided by the North and South Fork Projects would yield approximately 20,500 acre-feet per season, the quantity required for full development of the selected service areas. Lands in Pleasant Valley south of the Tule River and east of Success Reservoir that are not presently supplied by existing ditches could be included in the South Fork Project seivice area. Since the unit cost of water from the Worth Fork Project would be about $8 more per acre-foot than water from the South Fork Project, water could be conveyed into Pleasant Valley from the South Fork Project at costs up to this amount before an economic balance is reached. Summary of Plans For Development The supplemental water requirement for the North Fork Project service area would be about 1^4-, 5OO acre-feet seasonally. This would require a 22,000 acre-foot reservoir, which would cost about $6,000,000. Annual costs of water at the reservoir would be about $20 per acre-foot. To this amount must be added the estimated transportation and distribution cost of about $5 per acre-foot. The supplemental seasonal water requirements for the South Fork Project service sj^ea would be about 6,000 acre -feet, which would require a 6,500 acre -foot -5U- reservoir costing about $l,i^OO,000. The unit cost of water at the dam would be about $12 per acre-foot. To this cost shoiold be added the estimated transportation and distribution cost of about $5 per acre-foot. The Middle Fork Project would yield water costing approximately $29 per acre-foot exclusive of distribution system costs. However, the project would probably have the highest recreation and stream flow enhancement benefits of those considered, and may merit further study in this connection. The possibility of obtaining a supplemental water supply from Success Reservoir was evaluated. While the estimated cost of water from this source amounts to $23 per acre-foot delivered at farm head gates and is comparable to the cost of water developed by the North and South Fork Projects, it has not been determined whether the Federal Government would allow storage of the water in the reservoir each year for agricultural purposes. There is also the possibility of obtaining additional runoff by con- verting brushland to range land. While studies indicate an increase in water yield is possible under favorable conditions, there is insiifficient infor- mation available for a definite q.uantitative evaluation. The estimated cost of irrigation water developed by projects con- sidered herein would range from about $17 to $3^ per acre-foot delivered at farm head gates. This cost excludes the cost of exchange water for downstream users. Table 17 presents a comparison of costs and yields for development of supplemental water supplies for the upper Tule River Basin. -55- TABLE 17 CCMPARISON OF POTENTIAL WATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS FOR THE UPPER TULE RIVER BASIN Project Reservoir storage capacity^ in acre-feet Seasonal irrigation yield, in acre-feet Capital cost, dam and appurte- nances Annual costs Dam and appurte- nances Distri- bution system Total Per acre- foot of sea- sonal yield North Fork 22,000 lit, 500 $6,037,000 $290,000 $72,500 $362,500 $25 Middle Fork 1,^00 2,200 1,11+6,000 6U,000 11,000 75,000 3^ South Fork 6,500 6,000 1,1+01,000 7^,000 30,000 10^^,000 17 -56- CHAPTER VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As a result of the reconnaissance field investigation and analysis of available data on the water resources and water problems of the upper Tule River Basin, and on the basis of estimates and assumptions discussed herein- before, the following conclusions and recommendations are made: Conclusions 1. The present basic water problem in the upper Tule River Basin is the limitation on expansion of irrigated agriculture imposed by the scarcity of water remaining available for development in the Tule River. 2. The mean seasonal depth of precipitation over the upper Tule River Basin is about 31 inches, ranging from about 15 inches at the lower elevations to about 50 inches at the higher elevations. Mean seasonal unimpaired runoff of the Tule River above Porterville is about ll+0,000 acre-feet. Waters of the Tule River are generally of excellent mineral q.uality, 3. Present land use in the upper basin includes approximately k,600 acres of irrigated land, 2^0 acres of urban land, and 270 acres used intensively for recreation. k. Land classification surveys indicate that there are about 17,500 acres of irrigable lands in the upper basin. In addition, about 550 acres may be used for urban development, and as many as 9,1+00 acres may be used intensively for recre- ational purposes under conditions of ultimate development. ■57- 5. Water diverted from the upper Tule River in 1957 for consumptive purposes totaled about 23,600 acre-feet. About 98 percent of this diversion was for irrigation and incidental domestic use, and the remainder was used in urban and recreational areas. 6. Under ultimate conditions of development, the mean seasonal requirement for supplemental water in the upper basin is esti- mated to be about 35^000 acre-feet, of which about 92 percent would be for irrigation, 3 percent for urban use, and 5 percent for recreation. 7. As a result of prior appropriations and applications for appro- priation downstream, no significant quantities of water appear to be now available for development from the Tule River, except in occasional wet years. However, water might be made available for development in the upper basin through exchanges with down- stream users on the valley floor. 8. The principal source of import water which could be made available for exchange at the present time is the Friant-Kern Canal. Interim surplus water could possibly be obtained from this canal when avail- able, which would be about half of the years, on the basis of the historical runoff record at Friant Dam. The new water supply, averaging 6,600 acre-feet per year, to be developed at Success Reservoir, apparently is too undependable to be of value for ex- change, except in conjunction with other sources of exchange water. 9. In the future, probably in about 8 to 10 years, import water for exchange on the valley floor may be available on a firm basis from the San Joaquin Valley- Southern California Aqueduct of the State of California. This water will cost about $lif.00 per acre- foot, according to present estimates. In not less than 10 years, -58- import water may also be available from the East Side Division of the Central Valley Project of the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. 10. Water sufficient to meet the ultimate supplemental water requirements for the assumed service area in the upper basin could be made avail- able by storage on the North and South Forks of the Tule River, and the pvirchase of exchange water. The estimated capital cost of the North Fork Project would be $6,037,000, and the seasonal irrigation yield, lU,500 acre-feet. Annual costs would be $20 per acre-foot of yield for the dam and reservoir, and $5 per acre-foot for dis- tribution, or a total cost of $25 per acre-foot of yield. The estimated capital cost of the South Fork Project would be $1,^100,000, and the seasonal irrigation yield, 6,000 acre-feet. Annual cost of the dam and reservoir would be $12 per acre-foot of yield, and distribution costs woiild be $5 per acre-foot, or a total cost of $17 per acre-foot of yield. These values do not incliode the cost of the exchange water. 11. Repayment capacities for irrigation water are estimated as $5 to $8 per acre-foot of water used for irrigated pastixre, and $15 to $30 per acre-foot for orchards and truck crops. 12. Storage on the South Fork of the Middle Fork of the Tule River woiold be valuable from the standpoint of recreation and stream flow enhancement . 13. Conversion of brush-covered watersheds to grass cover is a prom- ising so\irce of additional water, althoxjgh not enough research has been done to enable quantitative estimates to be made now of the benefits resialting from treatment of large areas. •59- Recommendations It is recommended that local interests in the upper Txile River Basin evaluate the range of water development costs presented herein with respect to their particxilar needs and ability to finance such development. If sufficient interest can be demonstrated in the development of supple- mental water supplies for the upper basin, at the costs indicated, it is further recommended that supplemental studies be undertaken to define the most desirable projects, and to determine the engineering feasibility, economic justification, and financial feasibility thereof. It is also recommended that further consideration be given to the - conversion of brush-covered watersheds to grass cover as a means of increasing the available local water supply. -60- APPENDIX A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES AND TULARE COUNTY A-1 Agreement No. 160OO5 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA^ DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES AND TULARE COUNTY This agreement, made and entered into as of the 30th day of June, 1958, by and hetvreen the State of California, acting by and through its Department of Water Resources, hereinafter referred to as the "State", and the County of Tulare, hereinafter referred to as the "County": WITNESSETH WHEREAS, by Article 5, Chapter 1, Part 6, Division 6, of the Water Code of the State of California, the State is authorized to conduct investi- gations of the water resources of the State, formulate plans for the control, conservation, protection, and utilization of such water resources, including solutions for the water problems of each portion of the State as deemed expedient and economically feasible, and may render reports thereonj and WHEREAS, by Article h, Chapter 1, Part 6, Division 6, of the Water Code of the State of California, the State is authorized to cooperate with any county, city, state agency or public district on flood control and other water problems and when requested by any thereof may enter into a cooperative agree- ment to expend money on behalf of any thereof to accomplish the purposes of Chapters 1 and 2 of this part; and WHEREAS, the County has requested the State to make a cooperative investigation and report on a study by the State to determine the amount of water, if any, available for development and use in the area above the proposed Success Reservoir; A-2 wow, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed, subject to the availability of funds as follows: (1) The State shall perform the work provided for by this agreement and shall prepare the report and othervi,dse advise and assist in formulating solutions to the water problems of the area. (2) The work program shall be as set forth in the attached sheet, incorporated herein, entitled "Work Program" and marked "Exhibit A". (3) The County shall contribute $2,500 which shall be transmitted to the State prior to commencement of the work. (U) The State shall contribute $2,500 from funds appropriated to the Department of Water Resources by Item 257 of the Budget Act of 1958. (5) Funds contributed by the parties shall be deposited in the Water Resources Revolving Fund in the State Treasury for expenditure by the State in performance of the work provided for in this agreement. (6) The State shall under no circumstances be obligated to expend for or on account of the work provided for under this agreement any amount in excess of the funds made available hereunder. (7) A statement of expenditures for each fiscal year beginning July 1 and ending June 30, shall be furnished the County by the State as soon as practicable after the close of the fiscal year. (s) Upon completion and final payment for the work provided in this agreement, the State shall furnish to the County a statement of expenditiire s made under this agreement. Any unexpended balance of the $5^000 referred to above shall be returned to the State and to the County in eq.ual amounts. (9) The work to be done under this agreement shall be diligently prosecuted with the objective of completing the report by June 30, 1959^ or as nearly thereafter as possible. A-3 IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement, Approved as to Form and Procedure COUNTY OF TULARE /s/ RALPH B. JORDAN Attorney, County of Tulare B y /s/ ROGERS L. MOORE Chairman, Board of Supervisors Approved as to Form and Procedure /s/ MARK C. NOSLER Chief Counsel, Department of Water Resources Approved - Department of Finance State of California Department of Water Resources HARVEY 0. BANKS Director of Water Resources B y /s/ PAUL L. BARNES Paul L. Barnes, Chief Division of Administration 8/18/58 A-k EXHIBIT A Work Program It is estimated that the investigation will be completed in one year. The work program would include the following: 1. Procure and organize personnel^ prepare detailed work programs, compile available maps and other data, and review and become familiar with previous reports and studies throughout area. 2. Coordinate investigation with studies of water resources and requirements made under Chapter 6l of Statutes of 195^, and studies made by the State Water Rights Board. Supplement these studies as required. 3. Collect, compile, and analyze data on the water resources of the drainage basin. k. Compile and review information on existing rights to water in both the drainage basin and the area of use on the San Joaquin Valley floor. 5 . Determine the present use of water in the drainage basin and estimate the probable ultimate requirements. 6. Determine in a preliminary manner the amount of remaining unappropriated water, if any, available for the upper watershed. 7. Determine practicability of obtaining additional water for the upstream area by effecting an exchange with present users of Tule River water on the valley floor. 8. Prepare a report on the investigation and include recommenda- tions for further action based upon the quantity of water found to be available for development. A-5 APPENDIX B APPLICATIONS TO APPROPRIATE WATER FRCM THE TULE RIVER This appendix contains data on applications to appropriate water from the Tule River, filed with the State Water Rights Board prior to July 10, 1959- The applications to appropriate water have been assigned diversion numbers by the Department of Water Resources, which are referred to the town- ships, range and section subdivisions of the Public Land Survey. Under the system, each section is divided into UO-acre tracts, lettered as follows: D C B A E F G H M L K J N P Q R Diversions are numbered within each i^-O-acre tract according to the sequence in which they have been assigned numbers by the department. For example, a diversion having a number 2OS/3OE-26DI is found in Township 20 South, Range 30 East, and in Section 26. It is further identified as the first diversion located in the iiO-acre plot lettered D. All the diversions in the Tule River area are referenced to the Mt. Diablo Base and Meridian. B-1 Qj » 1 3 •^ iu SI ft. ^ ^ D. ^ £ tu rt c rt k 1 S I. 5 - t. » 5 ^ i .J; _, ;:; .J5 d ^ .ij c<> -H E ?- rl M <-A a ^ 1 s 5 1 1 1 I2 § 1 ■g 1 1 1 ■iS " % h r ?j 1^ i n 8 S 3 e s «l u s tl § S 1 iS a p § z .2 a J & '^ ■^ i 1 S ^ a & ^ s 1" a ~ ^ t-> •^ ^ •-* l^rr\ ■^ > « g *> h ot s « 5 ■? ^ 1 s P ^ ^ £ ^ I a s i i ^ SS ^ 4 2 s- ■z > ^ ^ ^ J J( r^ A r^ rH ^^ A A rH £^ 1 1 .?• 1 1 1 i t 1 1 * 1 2 a k 1 i 1 1 |S s I i 1 - ^; -J £ •s S ? ■s ■g, u ■g I ^^ ■g, 1 s I ^ 5 s. ■3 '3 I ^ I ^ £ S g 3 a 3 8 ". i 8 § a ! 8 s °. s s 3 § i§ g S s CM < '^' ° ° ■-'" "■ " ~ ° ■^"s ° z OD H II 11 gi n R R Pi g B Q g R R g g g g 9 9 g @ g m g t? °= '.'? 1;! g s', :^, 1 ■n^, 'A ?, •" 3 d a S S R 13 s a S S S t '' ■■' M .Q r] rf ^) fl S 3 s '" s 3 3 a^ a 3 d rj :^ i^ " S u ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 01 , « „ ^ ^ o 1 ^ M !o w „ l;i 7; ;,: IS ^ M V, s s s T~ 3i § B g V" s g g ^ sj 13 =,' ^ y -. ■i a 2 s ^i ^- :% S ^ .^ g 1 g ^ B B 1 1 £ 3 1 1 s i i 1 jS S **■ ta. % 1^1 :S s 2 1 1 i 1 -^ S 1 ■i a i i 1 « ; 1 1^. ^ S' ra" ■3 ^ ^ r^ (^ s i; X ^ g a „ ^ ° 1 ^ a. 5 5 t iS a u o 1- s: 1 s ^ « *J *j -■^ fr- Jj h 1 1 1 t ^ :i s- £ Is &.6 S " s *> > ^ «> to 1 « 1^ jj ^i; Jut »! 5 ° £ ° ^ c ^ II ^ £ |S S i: t. h i; " b -J ii It £ifl 1 s fc fe - ! 1 :2 j! 6 1 :g i o o 5 o I 1?" s s 1 5 1 1 1 £ r 2 1 1 .5^ ft 1 cJ rj ff ^ c3 z'. ^ d fl ^1 ^ I 1 } 1 1 ii 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 tr c ^ oi Q ^ i a 3; a SJ t s a -a •a •a ■a •3 ■3 1 a 1 a § § " o ^ ■^ ■;! 3 :i S x: " :2 s ta 1 » .*j 1 ^ o ■i s ■H « 1 " -" ." .2 S s ■H ■i :J '? o s la ^ j» a * a g 1 £■ g ■S X 1 rl " 1 ■^ u ^ «! t ^* l3 1 01 tfj as '0 10 to 1 s 5 ■^ 10 ffl S .? i 1 i 5 1 1 1 ■^^ L «s «« l« 1 3 1 1 3 i s Is 1 s. ■o « 1 fi H 1 1 1 t £ « £ 1'" 1 r II |l 1 i 1 S5 2^ X s 1 1 = -^, s 4 5 T 5 . $ H $ A « « S » ^ ■^ 1 5 ^ 5 2 ^ 3 F °" •t r? ?\ S i^ ^ oT 1 j::;' |!; ^ rf 4 ^ d > s R ^ s t^ '' .^ i " :T 3 ^ > > ^ > > ■== > ■^ -? > '^ ^ .1 ^ 1 ^ d |i •1 » ^ !?, $. s; ?0 a 3 S 1 a 1 1 g ai '? s 3 3 iS *i B-2 < s= - a. S o < a: uj u a- a: - Q. t- r o < " a: 111 « Q. q: S a. »- o* < « £ " £ % S ii . » c» «, a f S 1 :S -5 5 o. 'V. 4 3 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 ■ 5 1 5 1 1 s ;? ^ I 3 3 1 1 J ■i i 1 2 1 1 1 ^ 1 1 1 1 g c" ll a . . 1 1 1 1 a 1 !? 1 o a, o § , : 1 £ c .J ■3 i Is 1 £ If S t ■d S „ llr-- £ Id a> 1 ^ |: tt « 1^ S is .Cj S„ 1" s CM 13 8 1 9 1 • a £ H I H M 8^ . 6a 3 o . 00 "in "^ ss" , •g "sl V t. II S ^ n o "1 . ■g L 1. 1. g .3 g fc s g sE SS, Is sl -H 3) ■p h sS p z. iSd |S ■^ 1 J ^■e St P S» *^ -H if 5 .S3 |S |3 a M « i 1 1 r 1" 1" J3 1 1.5 5 1 s°- 1^ gS 5 5 1 I "5 c R 3 s ■H H rt^ s, rt ^ A H A 5^5^ rtrtrtf^sirt 33)3 33-J 3 3 3 R H ^1 ^ 3 1 1 U ! 2 ii 1 1 1 J, i 1 7 1 a |^ll,sl fH ^?f 9 7 1 1 1 ! = s AA ri H rHrH rH ^ £i ^ i i 1 i i IS 1 1 1 s s i ii llllll III III s 1 1 1 1 1 £ ^ 1 1 5 1 ay 1 lU y ^ 1 ■s a'ia ^^U's^ia yS"J ^^•3 •3 y 13 1 ■3 1 S °. S § °. 1 R| S II -* a s S 2° ^":-:;33 5!^2 °~rf2 5 S o- § -^ < °- ° '-" ° s "■>" -'■ -"" z " .1 s IS m g S g g 9 § g g gg g s g g s gggggg ggg ggg g g g g g a 8 1 s R § § s gg s s s s a §S»SaR ass ffi§S s a 8 a R a a a s s S g a s SS s T s s d Ssssss SS5 gas § S S § ^ „ ^ tn (p ([[J ^ rsj ^ « c^t- ~~ ^ a Q ^ ^3333?) S^!«, ^^^ m ^ _^ g " S J ^ ^ 2 ^ "« E 1 S 1 ! 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 KS a 1 1 1 K t 1 1 I I t s tl ^ ^ O i ■3 g 1 1 S • s S a 1 S « a 1 3 a ^_ ° § I =' = i §. i ;;j g a; * z ^ 1 g X s • S i s ^ 1 ^ s S, 5 5 m 3 m ;3 ^ o _3 5 3 3 3* ■a d 5 I 1 ^ n 2 9 1 ^ 3 1 ■o 1 1 3 ^ S .s to c St i » "^ n s " w s s '^ w S ^ a g 6 J -' .° 1 t a. ju. 1 1^ 1 1 1 l"° 1 ! 1 1 :■ 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 3- 1 <^ jj iS !? ^ W1 K • "2 1 S-2 ■^ ^ ^ ■C ^ *Q ^ ■Hi 5 ■^ ^ ■C ■^ ^ S ^ ^ ^ ;^ > " o = H (O \ d of > ^ ^ •^ > ° > > > ° ° ° ° 3 ° d d a 1^ = E -^ o- 1 1-1 g O S -^ o- i 1 s i s .1, s 1 s § s » ^ 3 3 B 4 4 d 4 4 Ih M ^ s S 5 ^ s ^ < " B-3 O 4 o> a. cc 2 , « «, » » 3 1 *f III s 1 III 2 £ g £ S S 1 £ S £ g m a. "■ ^ a. "■ a, a. a. 1 5 3 w * Sj • £ o £ 1 1 s t S <^ fV ^ S S a. M M § § 1 g 5 § s Is g y -H ». ^ j5 3) m 1 5 Itf S rt r.0 s 5 1 1 1 ^ a a S °.i 1 III f 1 S f c • ^ AM J J A Q. 5 1 g III a 1 g 1 II 1 1 »= == ^ y ^ ^^^ ^ ^ ^ ■3 ^■3 ^ la^ 1 E < § ■i — -^ 1 " ■"d "^ gS 2 (S g s sss s @ § @ s§ i iS Ol 1 ff K s s lis ffi S 8 S ss s Is ^ •5 H 3 ^ Sss s s S S 33 s sU o a. • ;p J 33S S S » ■SfS ^ "o (/) 1 ^ 2 s S35S3 n S S s sa g gs -J ^ S g aS'Ji B S! S Si ss g gs i S '3 m J£ g- u. II 5 1 s^ tj g s as . 1 ^ i i 2? t. C -X c u S a S fe S a (A > '^SS £S i '^ a» i "■' S 2 t til 5f 1 1 g? i 11 i 1 t &I ss j^. 1 ^ s 1 3 St 5 3 ^i s* r a c 5 Is „ ! 1 1 1 1 1 gg ■" E ^ r; 1 ' ' Ra (r c t ^t « o t a s 1 s i 1 f 1 j> o 1 & ■ ' s i 1 • .x * 1 1 E 6 ? '*» "• a. 1 • a 1) If; -O ^ ^0 . ^ t- W Ov o- o = ■^ ^ d R d s d s fi rt a ^ > > > ^ > > g . > t; • 9, -o 11 i § III g 1 III < B-4 ;3 1 1 1 1 d f 1 PL, f f Iff 1 1 1 s "H T) Td o s S s M ■H O O s g 8 . ^ » o S t "2 ■^1 a| S^ a g 1 o 1 1 :§ ■So ■s's -sl -g g g fc t ! 1 r r r 1 1 1 c c' M ^ ^ ■5 Q ^< c " - o| < d H " H H ?i PIT ?( »■ Q. -^ < -H < < < 4 < <^§ ^ t3 < § t^ ~ < UN U> U> u^ § O if w <^ ^ ^ ^ < < >S a a ^ ^- -> P] .1 J. J? -o - i ^ Q H S :^ ^. Lr\ Z\ " w s p5 P. ^ r 7^ H j5 s s B-5 APPENDIX C SURFACE WATER DIVERSIONS IN THE UPPER TULE RIVER BASIN This appendix contains information pertinent to water diverted from the Tule River above Success Dam during the period April 1957 to March 1958. The diversions are numbered according to the system described on page B-1. The upper Tule River Basin was subdivided into six subunits to help the reader locate the diversions. Brief descriptions of the subunits follow: Middle Fork . The watershed of the Middle Fork of the Tule River above the confluence of the North and South Forks of the Middle Fork. Springville . The watershed along a 9-roile reach of the Tule River and the Middle Fork from a point about 1 mile south of Springville to the confluence of the North and South Forks of the Middle Fork. Also included is the watershed of the North Fork from its mouth to Bear Creek. North Fork . The watersheds of the North Fork and Bear Creek above the confluence of the two streams. Success . The watershed of the Tule River, excluding the South Fork, from Success Dam to a point about 1 mile south of Springville. Reservation . The watershed of the South Fork of the Tule River above the western boundary of the Indian Reservation. South Fork . The watershed of the South Fork from its mouth to the Indian. Reservation. C-1 S'l m S 1^ 3| I"" t H 1i 11 ■3 S3*' g • iPlI I E I " S I ^ ill ou.h3m oh t'-HW oOO_^» jfi Oxr-o^ CvcT; o j nto Ho efi oo It oq iilli fillil itSiiill 121^ ii^lti^illii tils illill Is ■gl°.l ill 3t 1 1 it 8? at g E 33 as hi m 5.^ i2 ^g is ii I i « g i -1 » g 3^ i&f 1^ !^ a 9 3 s C-2 la^t ■3- 5ft •ad U Ei^liS sinus's S«;l J |l oli 5^SS 3 -^ . 3 3 8 Se I 3 1:1 lis " .^ TJO| Till iJll ?S|! l"^l 1""^ « g" ^1 '''"Ji &I5 ?5S ir5 I 8 I m BBS", 1 •s?^ •g-s ^ ???! ??? •'s 1 lit 1 1 iill Iti 1 1 333 33 3 3333 333 3 3 s 3 S » *S •S5 S *g \ II :ll^ £ III Si II II £ s S II II AS ii |s P I! .15 ill S5 9i| 'II C-3 ■s bC S a 9 ^ .Ills ilillls II II 1^ °l §1 dSoo§ till I i6 si? S2i lit 119 If ill I il "J 11 ill lis pi9 111 it Is 11 Hi § I I c o s ?; §1 ^11 fol 86^ I I Z DO 3 '33 a3 33 If 33 hi :1 fe 3S ?)3 ai ail t g is I s fc I, I ^1 ^i li ti 11 tl r mi il C-4 .3 i a2||.s ill 1 1 fis feat's I all ^■" fee |lig5 •i."3 ■a.TSS |5 E-;aa3S.5£ §»; EJ •S|SS fill « • 5 ^ S ° .§• -^ ° 2 1 I « .!l .5 a II 3 c 3!c o 13 ill! 1^ ^3 tt J3S I 'i t I T as E-2 Is 2" t-i tl tl fel II ll tt U r r £ r p si _J d ii C-5 h 1^ ^3 tlt^' ". "^ 13* ^ g fe fe 2 ° H 5 "" O S ^ "* ° ^' •>* " ^ I 1^ "3 ■'' £■ * ^ O . § O * "5 - **^ C^ -Hr-tl coca) |>,'^^'°'l!-^ '^c-^'^^g-sS^-^S '^d'^^JK'"^. Is ^ I- Is III ;1 h f^ll^^s ;3S-SS.SSS 6 .2" .as n Hi Sgss lis si I 1 t 3 nil 3335 33 115. •I I ►^ S ,51 ,5 J P -a I i , 8 ■S S; S 1 H --J^! C-6 - .,..,.g »w g 3 Si .5 ..^ ll u) V H •^ . :' :c'^£ '■ .Hi ii ■r iSs-:J . ■.- 1.1 -H u ' ^ ou il |><|se V. u a filsi's "^'S^"! E^ i ■3 •o'^ 2 01 J= 14 o "^ "^ li -i «j t. C^ *J u - >) 4J Ih -H u o ' not. -D . C «) u" aj (S « H -S = *j*j'aa-*j fc. mnm-H-tJ P "^ ^ 5 -S Si^a^|:S |ia»'^a';;§ ii.rj l^^is ^.^1 oE5S^^. ..«&"_ tils _^ --I P -rH g ■iU-r- ao^wgui £S^;3-^'^s'^ ti ^ -H U '^ "C 01 is ^?HSs l^^ciHS ^^^si^ 1 ;t5.S 1 1^91 '^It ° n 0) 3) '^ E |l|!ll |6| ^ £ i2 ^ a-M _^ ■s If^ *i *j IL j:^ fe « ^ -C . IsHgiS Mil 1 ^S ^ is'* i? iii 1.3 -g -55 Is gl i -^^o Is |sS IS i »^ ^1 Uo '^ £ iH sS • O V *'■ •'X IKIs 6 5 s . ssa fe'g all " ^ 8 ■■1 t-'s S §i b -g s s k5 !ii °.»|.§|5 Zt ^ « *J S £ o III f:;lti |£ 5^Sl l!3 15i ■hll 1 a 4 i" <^ <^ ,5 6 A " , ° ; g S S S i 1 « g s 5 o « S 3 « Ti 1. u |gS 1 i «■ s Y, « ^ e ^ "^ 1 ^ ■jj ^ ^ i S ji i § „ "• T) t, ^ 0) 'S'J .2 " § j s 1 ■^ o "^ o ^ "^ c ^ C ■^ -o irt XI 1 — O p. s „ c s s u w g ^ o ^ f 1 1 ■S 1 a t 5 1. 9 1 i S s 5 s sJ ig ^ T3 t o a: .( ,«; J^ T f^ ^ a o g 1^ E S CO °. ^ g. 1 1 1 ;^ «. M k o 1 1 5 1 ■^ e c^ 1 = V, O i 1 ^ i S i £ 5 u If " s .t a. s i s 1 3 1 FJI 1 e u i- 1 M 1 S g" s 5 c t^ L. C O t) 4) O « g^ ■H P '^ rt ^ a 1 ?:jl i i "in '"' 45 « 'wi ~ -c g II c s 'u h S'rt ■f* n V i ^ Ji AS ^1 ^.!; i-S Sii F< 1 a; P b-^ SM ? s s & |a sa fesl to i . iS s s ^g "^ 4, '^ c 1' 1 g g ^ la 12 1^ p ^ - 3 1 5 5 5 i .3 S ■s!^^". d ■a ^ ^ .!§ p^ oo S > i3 III 1 P^S ll 1 1^ ^5 II sa-i s s^ |il -=■ P'S mS pi j3 -," .s -■J g^ s: 3 g a a 1 3 s ;3 c. r. Ht ^ i i 3 1 1 A i ^ 3 ^ ^ f 1 a ^ ~g; i C-7 O -D W „ e" :^ 11 n ^ >« ? g , 11 6S fl 2 iPPl! isli^ i til n S >»'& 5 « d ii si '^ :S = s .s » ^ -s „ .s - 5 ?i g H g