IPhysicaiJ Sci.LiB. f ITC 1824 1C2 |a2 Ino,8 V. ' s CALIFORNIA. DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN. Wt\ WrwJ^^'''^H^^^W^ Wm^^m^ fJI ^^>MiMpA^ W^^i "2**^ S^flr^ ^^!f^J V -^j^^vj 1 \ji^^^^ » Jk r in^ iM& t^w^ /tm/K \ ■' K w i If Uiu LIUi ^' JAN 1 1 iSBg) Li- ::or V s 1 IftUFORNiA L STATE OF CALIFORNIA ||^ 16^9 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND IRRIGATION BULLETIN No. 8 PHYSICAL SCIENCES UBMKf COST OF WATER TO IRRIGATORS IN CALIFORNIA 8 By Harky F. Blaney, Associate Irrigation Engineer, Division of Agricultural Engineering, Bureau of Public Roads, U. S. Department of Agriculture. (Based on data gathered under cooperative agreement betvsreen the Bureau of Public Roads of the United States Department of Agriculture, the California State Department of Public Work^, and the University of California Agricultural Kxperiment Station.) W. F. McClure, State Engineer, and Director of Public Works. ulHlVERSlTY OF CALIFORNI DAVIS MAR 11 1958 LIBRARY 37104 CALIFOB> [A STATE PRINTING OFFICE JOHN E. KINO, State Printer SACRAMENTO, 1925 5.^ » » STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND IRRIGATION BULLETIN No. 8 COST OF WATER TO IRRIGATORS IN CALIFORNIA By Harry F. Blaney, Associate Irrigation Engineer, Division of Agricultural Engineering, Bureau of Public Roads, U. S. Department of Agriculture. (Based on data gathered under cooperative agreement between the Bureau of Public Roads of tlie United States Department of Agriculture, the California State Department of Public Works, and the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station.) W. F. McClxjre, State Engineer, and Director of Pu])lic Works. CALIFORNIA STATE PRtNTING OFFICE JOUN E. KINO, State Printer SACRAMENTO, 1925 37104 TABLK OF CONTENTS. rage Iiiti iKliutioM 7 I'lililic I'tilitics 8 Nature 111' :i imlilii- utility 8 .Milluxl dl" rmaiiciiii; 8 I'^lctors ill rust 111' water mulei' piililie utilities 9 Water rates 9 Duly of water 9 Cost of water under publie utilities 10 Description nl' table 1 10 Duty of water 10 Annual cost of irrisation water 12 Cost of water for various ci'ops 12 Irrigation Districts 1 ■* Nature of irrigation districts 14 Method of tinancing 14 Bonds 14 Assessments 14 Factors in cost of water uiuler irrigation districts 15 District tax 15 Water tolls 1» Duty of water 16 Interest on capital invested 16 Cost of water under irrigation districts 16 Description of table 8 16 Duty of water 19 Annual cost of irrigation water 19 Annual cost of gravity water 20 Annual cost of pumped water 20 Cost of water for various crops -1 Mutual Water Companies 24 Nature of a mutual company 24 Organization and financing 24 Water stock 24 Factors in annual cost of water under mutual water companies 25 Assessments and water rates 25 Interest on capital stock _ 2G Duty of water 26 Cost of water under mutual water companies 26 Description of tables 17 and IS 26 Duty of water 29 Annual cost of irrigation water 30 Annual cost of gravity water 30 Annual cost of pumped water 31 Cost of water for various crops 32 2 — .•{7104 TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued. rage I'livate Pumping Plants M Introduction 1 :; 1 Factors in cost "f innnping uiulcr private pumping plants 34 Cost of power 35 Cost of fuel oil 3 Attendance 3 Fixed charges 3 Pumping plant tests 3 Discharge " 3 Lift 38 Power 3S Plant efficiency 38 Description of plants 38 Cost of pumping under private pumping plants 53 Description of tahle 30 53 Summary of table 30 53 Description of table 32 54 Summary of table 32 54 Cost of pumped water for various crops 54 Reducing overhead expenses 55 Capital Cost and Value of Irrigation Water 56 Cost of irrigation systems 56 Market value of irrigation water 56 Summary 57 Types of enterprises 57 Annual cost of irrigation water 58 Annual cost of water for various crops 58 Cost of irrigation enterprises 60 Appendix fii Cost of water for irrigation in Soutliern Calit'iuniM. by (\ I'^:. Tait 62 LIS'I^ OK TAHI.KS. 1. Cost of water for irrigation i!i California. Page Public utilities in Northern, Central, and Southern California, 1922 facing 10 2. Summary of duty of water under public utilities 10 3. Summary of annual cost of water under public utilities 12 ■i. Sunuiiary of animal eiist of water under public utilities in Nortliern California for various crops l.T ."i. Sniurnary of annual cost of water under public utilities in Central California ftU' various crops 13 6. Suiniuary of ainuial cost of water under public utilities in Southern California for various crops 13 7. Suiumary of annual cost of w'ater under public utilities in California for \arious crops 13 8. Cost of water for iirigation in California. Irrigation Districts in Northern, Central, and Southern California, 1922, facing 10 9. Summary of duty of water under irrigation districts 19 10. .Summary of annual cost of water under irrigation districts 19 11. Summary of annual cost of water under irrigation districts delivering all gravity water 20 12. Summary of annual cost of water under irrigation districts delivering all pumped water - 21 13. Summary of annual cost of water under irrigation districts in Northern Cali- fornia for various crops 21 14. Summary of annual cost of water under irrigation districts in Central California for various crops 22 15. Summary of annual cost of water under irrigation districts in Southern Cali- fornia for various crops 22 16. Summary of annual cost of water under irrigation districts in California for various crops 22 17. Cost of water for irrigation in California. Mutual water companies in Northern and Central California, 1922, facing 20 IS. Cost of water for irrigation in California. Mutual water companies in Southern California. 1922 facing 20 19. Summary of duty of water under mutual water companies 29 20. Summary of annual cost of water under mutual water companies 30 21. Summary of annual cost of water imder mutual companies delivering all gravity water 31 22. Summary of annual cost of water undiT mutual companies delivering all pumped water 31 23. Summary of annual cost of water under mutual companies in Northern California for various crops . 32 24. Summary of annual cost of water under mutual companies in Central Cali- fornia for various crops 32 25. Summary of annual cost of water under mutual companies in Southern California for various crops 34 26. Summary of annual cost of water under mutual companies in California for various crops 34 27. Power schedules for pumping, Sacramento Valley, 1922 35 28. Power schedules for pumping plants tested in 1923 35 29. Kstimated fived charges fur pumping plants 37 LIST OF TABLES— Continued. 30. Cost of water for irrigation in California. Page Private pumping plants in Sacramento Valley, 1922 facing 52 31. Summary of cost of pumping for electric plants tested in Sacramento Valley 53 32. Cost of water for irrigation in California. Private electric pumping plants in Central California, 1923 facing 54 33. Summary of cost of pumping in Santa Clara Valle.v 54 34. Summary of pumping plants tested in San Joaquin Valley 54 35. Summary of pumping plants irrigating citrus trees 54 36. Summary of typical pumping plants irrigating alfalfa in Central California.- 55 37. Summary of annual cost of water for citrus trees 58 38. Summary of annual cost of water for deciduous trees and vines 58 39. Summary of annual cost of water for alfalfa GO Appendix — Cost of water under Southern California irrigation companies, 191S — 62 COST OF WATER TO IRRIGATORS IN CALIFORNIA. By Harry F. Bi.anky, Associati- Irrigation iMieiiiPor, Division of AKricultural Engineering, Bureau of Public Roads, V S. Department of Agriculture. INTRODUCTION. This report roprosents the results of a field study of the cost of water to irrigators under various types of irrijiation enterprises in California, which was suppoi'ted cooperatively by the l^ui(^au of Public Roads, Tniteil States Department of Ajiiiculture, the Department of Public Works of California, and the University of California Agricultural Experi- UKMit Station. Water yearly is becoming of higher value and more difhcult to obtain, in consideration of which l)ankers, investors, govern- ment officials, (Migineers, and farmers may well ask what expenditure can be justified to develop a water supply on land suital^le for growing high grade crops, and what water charge can such land pay. Farmers and prospective farmers are in need of such cost data as will enable them to clioose crops that ma}^ be grown profitably under existing water charges. In California the following types of enterprises may furnish irrigation water: luiblic utilities, contract companies, irrigation districts, mutual water companies, individuals, partnerships, associations, private com- panies, United States Bureau of Reclamation, United States Indian Service, state land settlements, water works districts, municipal improve- ment districts, and reclamation districts. Jdowever, for t\w purpose of this investigation, most of the data collected may be placetl under one of jour classifications: public utilities, irrigation districts, mutual water companies, or private pinnping plants. For a report of this character to be useful in published form, it must give information on the type of irrigation system, locality, age, source of water supply, duty of water, acreage irrigated, kind of crops, capital invested, and water charges, in addition to annual cost of water to the irrigator. Such data were obtained for this report by visiting the princi- pal irrigation enterprises of the state. The data on private pumping plants wvvv obtained i\v making fi(4d tests in each case. Figures on duty of water given in the i-eport are of varying degrees of accuracy. vSome are results of careful measurements or metering. At th(» other extreme are merely the liest estimates of the system engineer or superintentlent, based on occasional or jjeriodical gaging and close familiarity with the use of water under the system. Great care was taken, however, to have the figures represent, if not exactly, at least approximately, the true use of wat(M', and none have been included that were not considered by the system engineer or superintendent to conform to this standard. The factors entering into the cost of irrigation water differ for each type of enterpiise; hence they will be tieated separately under the headings of Public Utilities, Irrigation Districts, ^lutual Water Com- panies, and Private Pumping Plants. The data have been compiled and sununarized in tables, but to many readers the figures would have little meaning without further explana- 8 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. tion. Accordingly, each type of enterprise is discussed l)riefly, with r(^gard to its nature and the factors comprising the annual cost of water; and a description of the compilation accompanies each table. PUBLIC UTILITIES. Nature of a public utility — A pul)lic utility water company is defined by the state law as follows : Section 1. Whenevei- any person, firm or private cori)orati()ii, their lessees, trustees, receivers or trustees appointed by any court whatsoever owning, controUing, operating or managing any water system within this state, sells, leases, rents or delivers water to any person, firm, private corporation, municipality, or any other political sub- division of the state whatsoever, except as limited by section 2, hereof, whether imder contract or otherwise, such person, firm or private corporation is a public utilitv, and subject to the provisions of the pulilic utilities act of this state and the juris- diction, control and regulation of the railroad commission of the State of California, provided, however, that whenever the owner of a water supply not otherwise dedicatecl to pubUc use and primarily used for domestic purposes l\v such owner or for the irrigation of such owner's lands, shall sell or deliver the surjilus of such water for domestic purposes or for the irrigation of adjoining lands, or whenever such owner shall, in an emergency water shortage sell or deliver water from such suppty to others for a limited period not to exceed one irrigation season, or whenever such owner shall sell or deliver a i)ortion of such water su]iply as a matter of accommodation to neighbors to whom no other sujiply of water for domestic or irrigation purposes is equally available then such owner shall not be subject to the jvu-isdiction, control and regulation of the Railroad Commission of the State of California; provided, further, however, that for the purpose of determining the status of any person, firm or private corporation, their lessees, trustees, receivers or trustees ajjpointed by any court whatsoever, owning, controlling, operating or managing any water system or water supply within this state, the railroad commission may hold hearings and issue process and orders in like manner and to the same extent as provided in the putjlic utilities act of the State of California and the findings and conclusions of the railroad com- mission on questions of fact arising vuider this act shall Ije final and not subject to review, except as provided in said public utilities act. Sec. 2. Whenever anj^ private corporation or association is organized for the purpose solely of delivering water to its stockholders or members at cost, and delivers water to no one except its stockholders or members at cost, such private corporation or association is not a public utility, and is not subject to the jurisdiction, control or regvilation of the railroad commission of the State of CaHfornia.* Contract water companies selling water to non-contract holders have been classified by the commission as puljlic utilities to that extent, as have mutual water companies delivering water for compensation to others than their members or stockholders. Method of financing — Most pul^lic utility water companies have been financed In' private capital. Theoretically the capital stock represents the investment, or the cost of water rights, developing a water siipph', and irrigation works. The original irrigation enterprises of this type were generalh' of two classes: those under which water rights were sold for a fixcnl sum, with the addition of an annual charge for maintenance and operation of the irrigation system, and those under which water was furnished for an annual rental. Under the Public Utilities Act of 1911 the State Railroad Commission was given the power not only to fix the rates charged by water corpora- tions, but practically to regulate their entire business, including manner of service, measurement of water, incuiicMice of inde))tedness, accounting, ♦Statutes 1913, Chaptor 80 and Statutes 1923, Chaptor ]7«'. COST OK \V ATKK To IUKMCATOKS. V profits, etc. I'^acli (•()m|)any is rccjuircd to file its rates witli the coiii- inissiou aiul to ^ivv a yoarly report, on spc'cial foiius provided, showinfi; details of tluMr opei-atioiis. FACTORS IN COST OF WATER UNDER PUBLIC UTILITIES. The factors that dotorniiiio the annual cost of wattM- to irrifj;ators under pul)lie utilities urc water rates and duty of water. Walcr ra/f.s— Under the public utilities the water rate represents the entire cost to the user and the interest on investment is a matter of conc(M-n for the coiporation only. Rates established by the Caliiornia Hailroad Conunission allow a reasonable profit to the utilities on the investment, if practicable. In fixinct the cost of water and other useful facts are shown in the table. Most of the column headings are self explanatory; hence only a few of th(Mn will be described in detail here. Column 4, "Year organized" may or may not indicate the age of the water rights, as some companies have reorganized or bought out early rights to water. Column 17, "Water charges per acre-foot" is a reduction of column 16, "Rate" to an acre-foot Ijasis in such cases as permit the reduction. Column 18 shows the water charges "Per acre for average amount used." If the water charge is a flat rate per acre, column 18 equals column 16, otherwise column 18 is the product of column 17 and column 15. Column 19 gives "Cost of water per acre for the first acre-foot" antl is equal to figures in colunui 18 if aflat rate per acre is used; otherwise it is equal to column 17. Column 20 shows the "Cost of water per acre for the average amount used." It is equal to column 18. Column 21, "Cost per acre-foot for the average amount used," is obtained by dividing colunm 20 by the duty of water shown in column 15. Columns 19, 20 and 21 indicate the cost of water, including the interest on capital invested. Public utility water rates include interest on capital invested and represent the entire charge to the user. It was deemed impracticable to estimate the interest as it would require a comprehensive study of each case. While the figures in Tal)le 1 represent the cost of water to irrigators they may not in some cases indicate what it actually costs the com- panies to deliver the water, mainly because some companies have had rate hearing ]:)efore the state railroad commission and luive been allowed 8 per cent interest on their investment, while other companies which perhaps did not care to antagonize the farmers have never had their rates before the commission and in some instances are not making interest on capital investcnl. Tal)le 1 is condensed in the following tables: Dxli/ of ivdler — Table 2 is a sunnnary of cohnnn 15 of Table 1 showing the mininunn and maximum duty of water under public utilities in northei'n, central and southern California and foi' the state as a whole. The number of companies considered is also shown. TABLE 2— SUMMARY OF DUTY OF WATER UNDER PUBLIC UTILITIES. Sect ion of California Number of coniijanics con.siflored Quantity of water used, per acre Mininunn, aerc-feet Maxiinmn, acro-fcct N'ort hem 13 24 9 46 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 . 00 f) 00 Central 6 o2 Southern - A 00 Entire state - _ -- () o2 ■ ■ ■ / 11 r^ if'd PHYSICAL SCIENCES LIBRARY Name of company Northern Californu. Conetaod Water Co. ' -- Cottonwood Irrigation and Mining Co- El Dorado Water Corporation Excelsior Water and Power Co , Natomas Water Co North Fork Diteh Co Pacific Gaeand Electric Co Pacific Gas and Electric Co... Pacific Gas and Electric Co Palermo Land and Water Co. • South Feather Land and Wat«r Co. ».... Sutter Butte Canal Co Yolo Water and Power Co.. Central California. Consolidated Canal Co.* Eastside Canal and Irrigation Co Empire Water Co. ' Foothill Ditch Co Kern County Canal and Water Co .\nder6on Canal Co Buena Vista Canal Co Central Canal Co. (Calloway) TABLE I. COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION IN CALIFORNIA. Public Utilities In Northern, Central and Southern California. 1922. i East Side Canal Co Farmer Canal Co ._ .,.".... Gates Canal Co __ James Canal Co Kern Island Canal Co Kern River Canal and Irrigation Co Lerdo Canal Co _ Pioneer Canal Co Plunkett Canal Co '.""'. Stine Canal Co _,, Kings County Canal Co... ---.!"'"" Madera Canal and Irrigation Co _ *'" Monterey County Water Co ."" Pacific Gas and Electric Co ..... San Benito County Water Co ...'.'.'.'..'. San Joaquin and Kings River Canal and Irrigation Co.. San Joaquin and Kings River Canal and Irrigation Co. San Joaquin and Kings River Canal and Irrigation Co Southern Calipornu. .^ppleton Land. Water and Power Co Bell Water Co ,',". California Michigan Land and Water'Co" Cuyamaca Water Co Farmers Ditch Co _ !!"!" Lake Hemet Water Co. ' San Gabriel Valley Water Co " ' Santa Clara Water and Irrigation Co.... I Sweetwater Water Co LosMolinos.. Hornbrook PlacerviUe Smartsville... Sacramento... Sacramento Auburn Nevada City.. Oroville Palermo Oroville Gridley Woodland Fresno... Newman. Lemoore.. Bakersfield. Bakersfield. Bakersfield. Bakersfield. Bakersfield.. Bakersfield . . Bakersfield . . Bakersfield , . Bakersfield.. Bakersfield . . Bakersfield . . Bakersfield.. Bakersfield.. Bakersfield.. Los Angeles.. Madera Spreckels Sonora HoUister LosBanos.. Los Banos.. LosBanos.. Hesperia Bell Los Angeles.. San Diego... Santa Paula. Hemet Los Angeles.. Saticoy National City.. County Tehama Siskiyou El Dorado Vuba and Nevada Sac'to and El Dorado.. Placer Placer Nevada Butte Butte Butte and Yuba.- Butte and Sutter Yolo.. Fresno.. Merced . Kings... Tulare.. Kern Kern Kern..-. Kern Kem Kern Kern Kern Kern Kern Kern Kern Kern Kern Tulare and Kings.. Madera Monterey Tuolumne San Benito Merced. Fresno Stanislaus. San Bernardino.. Los Angeles Los Angeles San Diego Ventura Riverside Los Angeles.. Ventura San Diego.. 1907 1904 1919 1899 1905 1905 1905 1908 1912 1901 1887 1901) 1878 1878 1891 1892 1880 1878 1870 1892 1892 1878 1878 1878 1905 1888 1901 1905 1908 1905 1905 1911 1902 'mi' 1917 1887 1908 1871 1902 Source of water supply Mill and Antelope Creeks Cottonwood Creek American River. Webber Creek. Y'uba River and Deer Creek American River American River South Yuba River South Y'uba River Feather River.. Feather River Lost Creek Feather River Cache Creek.. Kings River San Joaquin River.. Kings River Kern River Kern River.. Kern River Kern River Kern River Kern River Kern River Kern River Kern River Kern River Kern River Kern River Kern River Kern River Kern River Floodwater Tule River Fresno and Merced Rivers-- .\iioyo Seco River , . Stanislaus River San Benito River San Joaquin and Kings Rivers. San Joaquin and Kings Rivers. San Joaquin and Kings Rivers. Deep Creek Wells . Wells ;;" Boulder and San Diego Rivers. Santa Clara River. Lake Hemet Welle Santa Clara River. B S Sweetwater Reservoir. 100 100 100 Area irrigated 4.800 X 1,383 26,400 350 125 856 708 30 550 535 10 90 '%m 2,200 1,000 Remarks,-. Estimated, i Hate for 1-5 M.I. per month. ■ 1 M.L to 5 acres, basis. < 1 M.I. to 5.5. acres, basis. 'Contract 37104 — facing p. 10. 2,814 "9"333" 3.281 13,115 6,760 2,455 1,340 3,720 1,445 2,660 16,100 1,200 Field crops 1.964 5,378 2,407 580 1.324 404 1,236 2,085 3,409 3,747 3.080 181 803 311 'V.iio 10,000 600 6.000 2,700 1,683 1,900 26,400 350 1,500 2,065 1.800 66,778 23,484 100,400 6,600 116,000 1,800 '2,400 8,779 23,096 10,820 5,750 2,753 "300 ■6,800 35.015 5.905 2.384 8,935 '1,000 6,100 1,203 12,202 2,100 2,200 1,000 79,877 210 05 '700 4,000 4.200 7,000 '700 2,260 fp fa ^ 3.30 1 bO I 14 1.23 3.40 1 70 1.36 2 37 2.75 1 33 '2 00 2,60 '6 00 1 00 2.00 5.95 2.10 '2.00 •2 00 '2 00 3 82 1 47 2 37 '2 60 3 06 2 36 '3 00 3 82 1 99 6.06 6 52 2 70 '3 00 3 25 '1 00 1 07 1 50 I 29 1 60 '2.20 '2 20 '2 20 '1 50 I 31 '1 00 '1 00 1 52 3.00 1 00 1 50 1 60 '3 00 1 00 Factors in aimual cost of water Water charges Rate J3 50 per 10 per 30 00 per 25 per 5 00 per 35 00 per 45 00 per 16 per 10 per 22 per 60 00 per 2 30 per 7 80 per 3 00 per 3 00 per 3 00 per acre (2-5 *M.l. per mo.) 'M.I. per 24 hours 'M.I. per season 'M.I. per 24 hours acre =M.I. per year 'M.I. per year 'M.I. per 24 hours 'M.l. per 24 hours 'M.l. per 24 hours 'M.l. per season acre for most crops acre for rice year to year. .. cu. ft. per 24 hrs. — trees cu. ft. per 24 hrs.— Alfalfa., cu. ft. per 24 hrs. — rice 75 per acre + 0.36 C.I.D. tax.. 2 34 per acre (average) 1 OOperacre 14 per 'M.I. per 24 hrs -24 hrs.. -24 hrs.- 1 60 per acre 76 per cu. ft. per sec- 75 per cu. ft. per sec- 1 50 per acre _ 75 per cu. ft. per sec. — 24 hrs 76 per eu. ft. per sec. — 24 hrs 75 per cu. ft. per sec. — 24 hrs 1 50 per acre 75 per cu. ft. per sec. for 24 hrs 60 per cu. ft. per sec. for 24 hrs 0. 75 per cu. ft. per sec. for 24 hrs 75 per cu . ft . per sec. for 24 hrs 1 50 per acre - 75 per cu. ft. per sec. for 24 hrs 1 00 per acre 50 to 1.25 per ac.-ft. (Sl.OO average). 1 50 per irrigation (2 irrig.).. 21 per =M.I. per 24 hrs 5 00 per acre for 2 irrigations 1 75 per acre in Merced County 1 25 per acre in Fresno County 2 25 per acre in Stanislaus County. 015 per 'M.l. per hour.. 2 00 per 100 »M.I. per hour 04 and 0.20 per 100 eu. ft 06 per 100 cu. ft. (average) 20 per 'M.I. iier 24 hrs. (majority) lOper 'M.l. per 24 hrs. (alfalfa) 40 per "M.l. per 24 hrs ,50 per 1000 cu. ft... 20 per 'M.I. per 24 hrs. (beans and orchard). 04 to 0.10 per 'M.l. per 24 hrs. (alfalfa) 05 per 100 eu. ft 12 02 "s'oi 3 23 2 02 5 65 1 SI 1 51 1 51 38 38 38 38 30 38 38 S3 50 3 23 '6 00 6 20 5 00 '7 00 '8 IS 7 66 5 56 7 38 •12 00 2 30 7 80 I 51 3 02 8 98 1 11 2 34 1 00 5 64 38 "i 65 "4'24 12 10 20 62 26 14 5 04 2 52 10 10 21 78 5 04 "2i"78' 1 50 56 90 1 50 1 16 89 1 14 1 50 76 1 .52 2 48 1 03 1 50 1 24 I 00 1 07 3 00 6 47 5 00 1 75 1 25 2 25 13 62 15 85 20 62 25 14 7 66 7 56 10 10 32 67 7 56 5 54 21 78 Annual cost of water including interest on capital invested '$2 00 2 02 6 00 5 04 5 00 7 00 8 18 3 23 2 02 5 55 12 00 2 30 1 51 1 51 1 61 1 11 2 34 1 00 2 82 1 50 38 38 1 50 38 38 38 1 50 38 30 38 38 1 60 38 1 00 1 00 4 24 5 00 1 76 1 25 2 26 9 08 12 10 20 62 25 14 6 04 2 52 10 10 21 78 6 04 2 52 21 78 3» c o a.G' S3 50 3 23 6 00 6 20 6 00 7 00 8 IS 7 66 5 56 7 38 12 00 2 30 7 80 I 51 3 02 8 98 1 11 2 34 1 00 5 64 1 60 56 90 1 50 1 16 89 1 14 1 60 76 1 52 2 48 1 03 1 50 1 24 1 00 1 07 3 00 5 47 5 00 1 75 1 25 2 25 13 62 15 85 20 62 25 14 7 66 7 56 10 10 32 67 7 66 5 54 21 78 company. « Taken over by IrrigationDistrict. ' 40 miner's inches^I see.-ft. » 50 miner's inehcs=l sec.-ft. M6 miner's inches— 1 sec. -ft. M. I., abbreviation for miner's inch, x Acreage unknown. Cost of w atkk' to iuimc atohs. 11 PLATE I. Fig. 1. Dam across Sacramento River at head of Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District. _^fj .•*? ..•.Ji5^«*--- i «!gj. ' f # ■":n ' ria^lX: Fig. 2. A concrete-lined Irrigation canal on the Orland I'roject of tlie L'nited States Keclam.ition finroaii. 3 — 37104 10 Descriptk of water to representing to the cost and other headings ar in detail he: CoUnnn ^ water right rights to w; Cohnnn 16, "Rate" Cohnnn used." Ift 16, otherwif Cohnnn is equal to it is equal t Column 1 used." It ] Column obtained b^ 15. Columns on capital i; invested ar impractical; study of eai While th' they may i panics to d rate hearinj 8 per cent perhaps di( rates befor interest on tables: Duty of u the minimi northern, c The numbc TAB Northern Central Southern Entire state. COST OK WATER To IRK'Ki \T()|{«. 11 PLATE I. Fig. 1. Dam across SacrameiUo Kivtr at head of AiukTSdii-Cotlonwoml Irrigation District. Fic. 2. A concrete-liiU'd irritfalion canal on tlu- (Jrlaiid I'rojtct ui" the I'liiled States lU'claniation F'.iircau. 3—37104 12 DEPARTMENT OP PUBT.IC WORKS. In Table 2 the high duty of 1.00 acre-foot per acre is found under systems which grow either fruits or grains that require Httle water, or which are short of water. It is interesting to note that of the systems having such a high duty, the lowest cost per acre-foot is $1.00 per acre- foot while the highest is $25.14. Both companies referred to furnish gravity water only, but the one having the low rate depends mainly on flood waters, while that having the highest rate has expensive storage works. The low duty of 6.52 acre-feet per acre is not representative, as the system suffers high seepage losses. The 6 acre-feet per acre duty, shown for a project where rice is grown, is a value better representing the lowest duty. ^' Anmml cost of irrigation .water — Table 3 is ^ summary of .columns 20 and 21 in Table 1, showing the minimum" arid imaximumcM3st of water under public utilities in northern, central and southern California, and for the state as a whole. The number of companies considered is also shown. '-" • ''v^* TABLE 3— SUMMARY OF THE ANNUAL COST OF WATER UNDER PUBLIC UTILITIES. 1 Niiniber of companies considered Cost of water including interest on capital invested . Section of California Per acre Per acre-foot Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Nortficrn _ - 13 24 9 46 $1 51 . °^ 5 54 56 $12 00 5 64 32 67 32 67 $0 92 30 1 85 30 $6 01 Central _. _ 4 24 Southern ^ ^ _ _ __ 25 14 j5ntire state - . __ _- - 25 14 Practically all the water used under the public utilities in northern California is gravity with some storage. In central California where the cheapest water is found it is all gravity with very little storage. In southern California the high rates are due either to expensive stoi-age woi-ks for gravity water, cost of pumping water, or costly distriljution systems on account of scarcity of water. Cost of water for various crops— It is difficult to make veiy accurate comparisons of the cost of irrigation water according to crops grown, because most systems furnish water to more than one kind of crop and very few keep records that would make this possible. However, the following summaries of columns 20 and 21, Table 1, give some indication of the variations in costs for citrus trees, deciduous trees and vines, alfalfa and rice, in northern, central and southern California and the state as a whole. The numbei- of companies considered is shown in (^icli table. COST OK WATKK TO IKIv'KIATC )KS. 1'^ TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COST OF WATER UNDER PUBLIC UTILITIES IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA FOR VARIOUS CROPS. Number of companies considered Cost of water including in tcrest on capital invested Crop Per acre Per acre-foot Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Citrus trees 5 12 4 2 $5 00 1 51 2 30 7 80 $12 00 12 00 6 20 8 98 SI 47 92 92 1 30 $6 00 Deciduous trees and vines Alfalfa 6 01 5 04 Rice 1 51 TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COST OF WATER UNDER PUBLIC UTILITIES IN CENTRAL CALIFORNIA FOR VARIOUS CROPS. Number of companies considered Cost of water including interest on capital invested Crop Per acre Per acre-foot Minimum Maximum Minimiim Maximum None 15 19 Xnnr Deciduous trees and vines Alfalfa Rice $0 56 56 $5 64 3 00 SO 30 30 $4 24 2 00 TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COST OF WATER UNDER PUBLIC UTILITIES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FOR VARIOUS CROPS. Number of companies considered Cost of water including interest on capital invested Crop Per acre Per acre-foot Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Citrus trees 7 7 6 None $7 56 7 56 5 54 $32 67 25 14 25 14 $5 04 5 04 1 85 $25 14 Deciduous trees and vines Alfalfa. . 25 14 25 14 H i CO TABLE 7— SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COST OF WATER UNDER PUBLIC UTILITIES IN CALIFORNIA FOR VARIOUS CROPS. Number of companies considered Cost of water including interest on capital invested Crop Per acre Per acre-foot Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Citrus trees 12 34 29 2 $5 00 56 56 7 80 $32 67 25 14 25 14 8 98 $1 47 30 30 1 30 $25 14 Deciduous trees and vines Alfalfa- 25 14 25 14 Rice . . . 1 51 The figures in tal>k'.s 4, 5, and 7, iiulicate clearly that the cost of irri{2;ati()ii water is a potent influence in (leteriniiiing the kind of crops that can be grown profitable The high(^st costs per acre-foot are found where citrus trees are irrigated; tlien follow deciduous trees and vines, 14 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. alfalfa, and rice. The high cost per acre for rice is due to the huge amount of water used. However, the averag^e cost per acre-foot for rice is less than the cost for any of tlie other crops shown. IRRIGATION DISTRICTS. Nature of Irrigation Districts — The irrigation district* ma,y l)e defined as a public corporation organized under state laws empowering it to issue bonds and levy and collect taxes, with the object of provichng funds for a water supply to irrigate lands within its boundaries, and for the operation and maintenance of its irrigation system. California irrigation districts are political subdivisions of the state and are organized under the jurisdiction of the county in which they are located. The affairs of a district are administered by a board of directors, assessor, tax collector, treasurer and secretary, all of whom are elected except the secretar}^ who is appointed. Method of financing — Districts issue bonds to provide fvmds for o])tain- ing a water supply and distribution system to irrigate land within their boundaries. Taxes are levied to raise funds to retire these bonds when they fall due, for interest on the bonds, the cost of operation and main- tenance of the system, and all other general expenses. Some districts have a water toll or charge to cover the cost of operation and main- tenance. Bonds. Irrigation district bonds are legal investments for savings banks, trust companies, trust fimds, and insurance companies, when ai:)j'>i-oved by the state irrigation district bond commission. In certifying the bonds the commission limits the bonded indebtedness to 60 per cent of the market value of the irrigation system and the land within the district. These bonds are exempt from personal property tax in California. Assessments. The district assessment roll is prepared and equalizcnl by the irrigation district officials, who likewise attend to levying and collecting the taxes. Improvements are not assessed. The assessed valuation does not include^ the value of the irrigation system. Values shown in the assessment roll are for the land alone. The method of fixing valuations per acre for assessment purposes varies. Some districts assess all the land on a flat rate per acre. Other districts base their valuations on the charactei- of the land, such as irrigable by gravity, irrigable by pumping, alkalized swamp, river bottom, hillside, town lots, or non-irrigable lands. Districts have set one valuation on lands served by system and another for lands not reached l)y the present ditches. In some cases districts vary assessed valuations according to distances from town centers. The assessments are generally paid in two installments, the first lieing delinquent on the last Monday in December and X\w s(M'ond d(>lin(iuent on the last Monday in June. These taxes if unpaid become a lien on the land. "The rate of assessments levied is ascertained l)y deducting 15 per (-ent for anticipated dcliiKiuencies fioni the aggregate assessed vnhie of th(> ^ *For ch'tailpil inforinatioti on irriRatioii districts, soo Bulletin 7, "Californiii Irnnatidii Districts' Laws;" Califoriiiu Stiitc Dcpiirtincnl of Public Works, Division of Engiiiccniig anil Irnnalion. COS'I" Ol' WATIOU- 'I'd IlxK'KiA'I'OKS. 15 |)i'(t|)(M'ty in the district as it appears on the asscssiiiciit roll for the current year, and then dividinj;' th(» sum to he I'aiscd by the remainder of such ajroiTirate assessed value."* S|HH'ial assessments may l)e made if the majority of votes cast at a special election favor them. FACTORS IN COST OF WATER UNDER IRRIGATION DISTRICTS. The main factors determining the amnial cost of water to iri'if^ators, uiidei- an iri'ifiation disti-ict, are district tax, water tolls, duty of water, and interest on capital invested. District tax The district tax may he sef>;ref2;ated into bond interest, hond principal, rentals due, pei'manent improvements, cost of power, maintenance and operation, administration and general purposes. How- ever, most districts limit their segregation to hond interest, bond princi- pal, and geiuM'al fund. Hence it is hard to determine from the tax rate just what i)()rtion of the gen(n-al fund is used for permanent construc- tion, for maintenance and operation, or general purposes. In order to ascertain that portion of the tax which goes toward annual cost, the tax for hond principal and permanent improvements should be subtracted from the total tax antl charged to capital account. In other words, that portion of the tax to be charged to annual cost includes interest on bonds, maintenance and operation, and other general expenses. In reducing the district tax from the rate per one hundred dollars assessed valuation to a rate per acre, the usual assessed valuation per acre for irrigable lands was used. This was taken instead of the average assessed valuation per acre, the latter, in some cases, being too low because of low valuation of non-irrigable land, or too high because of higii valuation of lands in towns. In computing the tax per acre, an average of the 1921-1922 and 1922- 1923 assessments was used rather than those for a single year, because some of the district expenses ma}^ overlap from one assessment year to the other. The fiscal years used by the districts are not uniform and few districts keep their records on the basis of the calendar ^x^ar. Generally assessments levied in one year are to cover estimated expenses for the following y(>ar. The assessments so made are collected in most districts in two installments, th(> first in December of the year made and the second in June of the following year. P\jr this reason some authorities would consider the 1922-1923 assessment to represent the cost for the year 1923, while others would consider the average of the 1921-1922 and 1922-1923 assessments as representing the cost of the calendar year 1922. Water tolls — Some iri'igation districts secure their funds for operation and maintenance purposes from water tolls, using various units to determine t he water charge. Many districts feel that the cost of installing measuring devices and of measuring the amount of water used by each irrigator is prohil)itive, hence their wat(M- toll is based on a flat rate pei- acre. In a few instances the flat rate varies according to the crop grown or to whet Ik I the \v;itei' is gravity or pumped. Other districts charge l)y the acre foot, hour-inch, or cubic foot, depending upon their kind of measuring (1(> vices. ♦Section 60 of Ciilifomia IrriKatioii District .\ct. 1() DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. These unit charges may also vary according to amount of water used. A few districts assess their tolls on the })asis of an irrigation, the rate varying with the crops grown or the methol)t per acre" is o])tain(>d by dividing the total amount authorized bonded (l(^bt by the acreage in the district. C'ohnnn 19, "Total present lionded debt per acre" is the result of dividing the total amount of present bonded indebtedness by tlie acreage in the district. Column 20, "Total ])onded del)t retired per acre" is obtained by dividing the total amount of ])()nded debt retired, by the acreage in the district. Column 21, "Usual assessed valuation \)vv acre" is ioi' the 1922-1923 tax levy. Column 22, "Interest on retired bonds per acr(^ at () p(M- cent" is com- puted from figui'es shown in column 20. Column 23, "Average district tax per new for the past 2 years" is obtained by reducing the tax rate i)er hundred dollars for 1921-1922 fHYSiCAL SCIENCES LIBRARY TABLE B, COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION IN CALIFORNIA. Irrigation Districts In Nonhern, Centraj, and Southern Callfornis. 1922. NoKTKBBS Calitohhu. A ijderson-ColtoD wood ( ';iriuiclmcl - . CilrUB Hciglite. - C.-fduii _._ Glcnn-l'olusa (JTCuaiJa -- Happy Valley Jucintu Panidat --_ Priiiwloii-C'odum-Glvitti Prmr<;loii-Ci>dfini-TOU .•relma hrcsiio .Sad Joaquin. San Joa(|uiii. Lindtay Metcoil. ... Moclwto OubiJale Mantt'ca Terra Bolb.. Trantiuillity, Turlock WaWrfonJ... Truey fiMumoiit. . . ElCeatio... LittJoRock.. fosla Mo3.. Cfufii Mesa.. I'^lmdale ■SdD YBidro. . iAM Angela . Lea Aogelus . ShiutA tjnoramciiio Sacrnmcnlo Yuba Sacramento Ulcun, Colusa.. Glenn, Colusa.. Siskiyou Shasta Olenn Bulle- Glenn. Colusa.. Gitnn. Colusa. - CoIUBU Tulare lulare, Fresno CuulraCosi4t Frcsiiu, Tulare. Kings.. Kiugr FrcBoo Ytveuo Tul&rc Merocti Stanislaus... Stajiislaus, Sun Joaquiji. San Josquin Tulare Fresno _ Stanislaus. Merced Stanislaus. San Joaquin. . . Riverside Iniiwriiil L<» Aueclcs.. Orange.- Uranae .. IiOa Angeles.. Sim Diego... 1914 1916 ID20 lillQ 1917 1S20 l'J21 1601 lUtti 1016 lum lOlU 1921 1919 1920 1920 18S7 1»0'J 1000 1915 1918 S.512 4.000 105.000 18.277 11.460 11.250 13,661 8.006 130,000 17,000 ISO.OOO 51,570 2-l3.l)0[) 2i;.500 15.289^ 190,000 81.183 74.1'40 71.112 12,285 10.750 181.490 13,577 11.600 3.176 003.840 3.073 5.412 3.2WI 84.000 4.0M 13.213 11.260 8.50D 11.780 50,700 8.0GS 130,000 130,000 14,500 165.000 75.000 03,000 e<,iu() 10.08(1 10.S50 105.000 10.747 I1.7ti5 Source of water supply Sacramento River ,. American River North Fork Ditch Co.. Vuba River Nortli Fork Dilcb Co.. Sacramento Itiver Shaslji River Sacramento River.. Little Butte Creek.. Sacramento River. . Sueramcnto River. . Sacramento River, . 21 wells Kings River , Old Hiver (San Joaquin). . King* River Kings River Kings River , Kings River and weUs 39 wells Merecd Hiver Tuolumne River Stanislaus River Stanislaus River WcUs aod streams King)! and San JoaquJn Riven. Tuolumne River . TUolunme Rivor _. .San Joaquin itiver Wells and creeks Colorado River Little Rock Creek... Wells Little Rock Creek Wells Loe Angeles aqueduct. . LoE Angeles aijiieduct- . Heuarkb— ' Estimated. » Operation and int£rat charges on irrigation vorks. ■171(14— facing p. 16. 847 Maximum 1.050 1,510 3,000 17,273 5,019 9,ft43 2,276 21,496 8,818 32,185 Maximum 34,500 1,800 'l'4i6' 200 1,196 1.090 12,896 S,4S0 9,375 6,283 1,800 1.200 1.600 2,200 42,000 2,400 2,200 2,412 2.000 5,000 1,410 4.400 100,000 0,000 ■126,000 10,000 215,000 10.000 ""M7u" >66,0OO 60,653 19.290 51,203 4.117 10,000 106,000 3,106 10,671 Consolidated Canal Co."s water charge * Acreage lor U. 8. only: 150,000 additional acres in Mexico. * Average o( eleven mutual companies' asscssmente. '4 00 ■1 50 1 70 '0 00 2 40 0.90 3 00 '2 00 50 2 25 1 00 '6- 00 '2,00 9 00 '1 50 1 57 2.10 3.26 1 84 2.00 "i.si" '2 50 2 50 3 00 I 60 '2 00 •1 50 1 33 'I 00 '2 00 ■3 00 1 30 '1.00 '2 00 S39 95 20 03 86 53 48 44 50 00 34 04 47 24 41 86 20 77 43 56 12 63 107 92 63 16 51 98 32 33 60 96 81 40 24 m 37 30 $37 15 28 45 m 35 46 63 40 00 21 03 47 24 40 49 20 33 43 5e 12 63 35 07 3 15 31 25 5 67 14 74 8 23 37 73 25 80 51 11 32 33 60 II 81 40 24 19 36 64 49 35 ■16 19 r2 40 72 40 26 50 23 18 100 22 100 22 H 62 74 62 Zi 'S60 00 80 00 00 00 120 00 80 00 50 00 50 00 46 00 130 00 100 00 100 00 100 00 150 00 150 oil' 75 00 90 00 54 25 100 00 100 00 150 00 65 00 90 00 100 00 80 00 100 00 100 00 400 00 250 00 300 00 600 00 250 00 200 00 300 00 500 00 200 00 Factors in annual cost of water Annual cost of water 4 70 3 40 2 51) 2 56 12 00 9 00 2 85 5 40 1 33 1 33 1 40 1 27 4 15 4 15 II 10 1 56 5 22 3 69 6 2.^ 10 75 6 00 3 45 4 00 7 50 1 80 6 86 II 70 11 70 4 04 9 00 '2 95 '3 55 '5 91 '2 95 '3 19 '4 78 '7 07 '3 19 Deductions, average past two years Per acre for average amount used Rice General.. Rioe ri- 1-5= None. , (2.50 p 3.00 p None.. per acre. . _ perac.-(t - _ per acre ((or let 2 ac-ft,). . (in 19221 6 00 4 62 1 42 S5 10 7 71 9 60 4 70 9 40 6 60 3 40 12 00 9 00 3 28 5 40 3 48 per acre. . per acre. . per aero. . S0.80 per hr-laOO"" head)-. None - (2,50 peraorc-foot '.75 pcrncrc -. .50and tl.OOpvrirrigatK. $2.00 per acre (gravity) 3,50 per QCro (iiumpod) 9.00 per acre-foot None None 484 ';ro3' $1(1.00 per a' None None t. None - None f-[oot.. 4 75 2 25 I 07 44 Alfalfa. .. Orchard.. All (av.) . . Deciduous. Citrus Alfalfa. -.- AlKav.) _. Deciduous Citrus Alfalfa.--. $7.00 pur acre 1.00pcrae^^foot (43 17).. Nunc $1.00 per irrigat .75 |ierirrig!Hi.iii None $12.00 per acre . 0.014 per 100 ou. ft 0,014 per lOOcu.ft O.OUper lOOcu.ft 0.014 per lOlJcu.ft, 0.014 per 100 cu. ft. 0,014 per lOOcu.ft O.OMper lOOeu.ft 0.014 pur lOOcu.ft. 6 10 6 10 6 10 12 00 7 93 10 12 20 18 3 7 93 6 10 12 30 16 70 16 20 4 01 21 00 10 15 9 29 17 31 20 52 * Aqueduct bonds not included. ' Used 1922-23 tail rate and included aqueduct bund tax. x .AcrcAgc unknown. COST OP WATER TO IKRHiATOKS. PT.ATE TI. 17 Fig. 1. Pumping: plant furnishing- 1500 culjic fec-t of ■water per second to Centra] Canal, Clcnn-Coluaa Irrigation District. mifiu i Fill. -'. Flooiliny a rice lielil in Sticramenlo ValUy, IG T A h van tion D aim or a sent wor be ( / in 1 Firt ass( onl; on reti reti ] a s Ho hei CO!- op SOI to m; he ta ca fe' di di of a( is a( t£ P o COST OF WATKIv TO JKIiKIATOKS. 17 PT.ATE II. Fio. 1. I'umping- plant, furnishing- 15110 cuIhc feet of water per second lu Central Canal, aicnii-Colusa Irrigation District. Fig. 2. Flooding a rice Tuld in Sacramento Valley. 18 DEI'Airr.MEXT OF ITHIJC WOKKS. and 1922-1923 to an acre basis and taking their average. This method was decided upon because the expenses of one year overlap with the next year in many districts, the average for the two years giving fairer results. Generallv this average may be taken as referring to the calendar year 1922. Column 27, "Water charge per acre for average amount used" is derived either fi'om Column 25 or from the prockict of columns 17 and 26. Column 28, "Bond principal tax per acre" gives the average of bonds retired per acre for the last two years. Column 29, "Permanent improve- ments tax per acre" shows average portion of th(^ tax for the past two years that has gone into capital improvements. Thesc^ two columns come under the head of "Deductions average past two years" as both should be deducted from the total tax per acre and thus charged to capital account rather than annual cost of water. The last four columns of the table are the final results obtained from calculations based on the previous columns. Column 30, "Cost of water per acre for average amount used, exchuUng interest on retired ]:)onds" is equal to column 23 plus column 27 minus columns 28 and 29. Column 31, "Cost of water per acre for average amount used, including interest on retired bonds" is equal to column 30 plus column 22. Column 32, "Cost of water per acre foot for the average amount used, excluding interest on retired bonds" is equal to column 30 divided by column 17. Column 33, "Cost of water per acre foot for the average amount used, including interest on retired bonds" is (Yjual to column 31 divided by column 17. The conditions affecting the annual cost of water varv so much in different districts that there is no fair basis of comparison. Some districts deliver water to every 10 acres, others to every 160 acres, leaving the farmers to take care of the remaining distribution system. In some projects where gravity water is depeneded upon without storage, the irrigator supplements this supply by a private pumping plant to tide over a dry season, and thus adds to his regular irrigation district charges. One district may have expensive storage reservoirs, diversion works, pumping plants, or a concrete pipe or lined canal distribution system, while another district will depend entirely on unstored gravity water with unlined ditches. Of 37 districts listed in Table 8, 17 have no water tolls and depend entirely on taxes for revenue, 10 have taxes plus flat rate per acre water tolls, and 10 have taxes plus measured rate water tolls. These facts further complicate comparisons of costs on por acre or per acre-foot bases. Districts having a higher bonded deljt per acre naturally have higher interest charges to })ay. These chai'ges in some cases amount to more tlian the cost of operation and maintenance. Many of the above facts are shown in Table 8; the irrigator sliould ».eigh them carefully before coming to the conclusion that h(^ is j)aying o nuich for water in compai'ison with other districts. Notwithstanchng the disadvantages mentioned, some idea of the variation of the annual cost of irrigation water under different conditions may be obtained from sunuuaries of cohnnns 30 and 32, which give costs on the per acre or per acic-foot l)asis respectively, excluding intei-est on retired ])on(ls. It is impractical)le to give summaries of colunms 31 and 33, which include interest on retired bonds, as only a few districts have retired bonds. The intcicst on th('S(> is small, as the table shows, COST OK WATKK To IKWICATOKS. 1!) ami would have V(MV littl(> clTcct on av('iared is also shown. TABLE 9 SUMMARY OF DUTY OF WATER UNDER IRRIGATION DISTRICTS. Section of California Number of districts Quantity of water used, per acre Minimum, acre-feet Maximum, acre-feet Xorthern Central - . 12 17 8 37 0.50 1.50 .64 .50 9.00 3.30 Soutliern _ _ - - 3 00 Entire state - -- 9.00 The minimum dutj^ of 0.50 acre-foot per acre as shown in the above summary is for a system untler which deciduous fruits and olives are grown almost exclusively, the soil is retentive, and the average rainfall is about 27 inches. This accounts for the small amount of water used. The maximum duty of 9 acre-feet per acre is found under a system which has plenty of water and the entire crop is rice. Both of these examples are extreme cases. Annual cost of irrigation water — Table 10 is a summary of columns 30 and 32 in Table 8, showing the minimum and maximum cost of water under irrigation districts in northern, central and southern California and for the state as a whole. The numl^er of districts considered is also shown. TABLE 10~SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COST OF WATER UNDER IRRIGATION DISTRICTS. Number of districts considered Cost of water excluding interest on retired bonds Section of California Per acre Per acre-foot Minimum Ma.ximum Minimum Maximum Northern . 12 17 8 37 $3 28 90 4 04 90 $12 00 24 69 21 00 24 69 $0 37 53 2 66 37 $18 00 Central . 16 35 Soutliern . 22 19 Entire state.. . .. 22 19 The lowest annual cost f)f 80.90 per acre is for a system which depends upon gravity water without storage. Most of the crops that need water after July 15 are irrigated by private pumping plants and the cost of this irrigation is not shown. On the other hand, the highest cost of 824.09 is under a district whei-e all the water is pumped through an average lift of aijout 300 feet, the distribution .system consists of steel, redwood and concrete pipe, and the average cost of litigation for the past two years has been about 85.00 per acre. These two illustrations will give sonu^ idea of the reasons foi' the wide variations in costs per acre among the different districts. 4 — .371 "I 20 l)p]PARTMENT OP I'l^BLIC WORK8. Ill many cases the annual costs shown on the acre-foot basis ai'c theoretical only. This is especially true where the costs consist of assess- ments alone or assessments and flat water tolls per acre, and is due to the fact that the cost per aci-e-foot is ol)tained l)y dividin duty of water. Thus the maximum cost per acre-foot of $22.19 is found under a district which has an annual cost per acre of $14.20 with a duty of water of 0.64 acre-foot. However, water is not alnmdant in this section and it would undoubtedly cost $22.19 or more to develop and distribute one acre-foot of water. This district has a concrete and steel pipe distribution system and pumps 50 per cent of its water from 50 to 150 feet. The minimum cost per acre-foot of $0.37 is for a system where rice is grown entirely with annual cost of $3.37 per acre and a duty of 9 acre-feet. Seventy per cent of the water was pumped through the low lift of 5 feet. Only a small acreage was irrigated in 1922 and water was plentiful Annual cost of gravity water — Table 11 is a summary of columns 30 and 32 in Table 8 showing the minimum and maximum annual cost of water under irrigation districts delivering all gravity water. Figures are shown for northern, central, and southern California and for the state as a whole. TABLE 11 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COST OF WATER UNDER IRRIGATION DISTRICTS DELIVERING ALL GRAVITY WATER. Number of districts considered Cost of water excluding interest on retired bonds Section of California Per acre Per acre-foot Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum 5 8 2 15 $4 70 90 4 04 90 $9 60 5 88 7 97 9 60 SO 78 53 2 66 53 S18 00 Central . 2 45 Southern - -- 3 04 18 00 The higher costs are generally found under districts which have stored water or expensive distribution systems, while the lower costs as a rule are in districts having no stored water. The maximum cost per acre- foot of $18.00 is for a district which only uses 0.50 per acre-foot of watei-. The cost per acre is $9.00, hence cost per acre-foot is high. The minimum cost per acre-foot of $0.53 as shown by one district and the minimum cost per acre of $0.90 as shown l\v another are for systems having no storage. Some irrigators in both districts have supplemented their gravity supply by privately installed pumping plants. Annual cost of pumped water — Table 12 is a summary of columns 30 and 32 in Table 8 showing the minimum and maximum annual cost of water under districts dehvering all ])umped wat(M'. Figures are shown for noi-thern, central, and southern ('alifoi'uia and for the state as a whole. COST OF WATER TO IRRIGATORS. 21 TABLE 12— SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COST OF WATER UNDER IRRIGATION DISTRICTS DELIVERING ALL PUMPED WATER. Number of districts considered Cost of water excluding interest on retired bonds Section of California Per acre Per acre-foot Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Xort horn 3 5 2 10 $4 08 7 35 16 20 4 08 $12 00 24 69 21 00 24 69 SI 56 3 68 8 35 1 56 $6 00 Central lb 35 ISout hern : 10 80 Entire state l(i 35 Of the districts shown in Table 8, ten dehver pumped water entirely. The average lifts varj' from 24 feet to 392 feet. The maximum lift for part of the w^ater in one district was 601 feet. The maximum costs of S24.69 per acre and S16.3o per acre-foot are for a sj'stem which has an average lift of 300 feet, the highest lift being 460 feet. However, So. 00 of this S24.69 per acre cost should be charged to litigation over pumping rights. The minimum cost of S4.08 per acre and $1.56 per acre-foot is for a district pumping water from Sacramento River through a lift of 24 feet. Cost of water for various crops — As was the case under public utilities, it is difficult to make accurate comparisons on the cost of irrigation water according to crops grown because many districts furnish water to more than one kind of crop and very few keep records making the segre- gation possible. However, the following tables, gi\'ing summaries of columns 30 and 32 in Table 8, in a measure indicate the variations in the annual costs of water for citrus trees, deciduous trees antl vines, alfalfa, and rice. Figures are shown for northern, central and southern California and for the state as a whole. TABLE IB- SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COST OF WATER UNDER IRRIGATION DISTRICTS IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA FOR VARIOUS CROPS. Number of districts considered Cost of water excluding interest on retired bonds Crop Per acre Per acre-foot Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Citrus trees 5 10 6 4 $3 28 3 28 3 28 3 37 S9 60 9 60 12 00 9 33 $1 13 78 78 37 $5 64 Deciduous trees and vines .Alfalfa IS 00 6 00 Rice... . 1 56 22 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. TABLE 14— SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COST OF WATER UNDER IRRIGATION DISTRICTS IN CENTRAL CALIFORNIA FOR VARIOUS CROPS. Number of districts considered Cost of water excluding interest on retired bonds Croj) Per acre Per acre-foot Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Citrus trees 3 14 14 1 $0 90 90 90 3 56 $24 69 24 69 9 78 3 56 $0 60 53 53 1 n $16 35 Deciduous trees and vines Alfalfii Rii-e._. : 16 35 t) 23 1 1 1 TABLE 15— SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COST OF WATER UNDER IRRIGATION DISTRICTS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FOR VARIOUS CROPS. Number of districts considered Cost of water excluding interest on retired bonds Crop Per acre Per acre-foot Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Citrus trees Deciduous trees and vines Alfalfa Rice 4 8 5 None $7 97 4 04 7 97 $21 00 21 00 21 00 $2 66 2 66 2 66 $8 90 22 19 8 90 TABLE 16— SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COST OF WATER UNDER IRRIGATION DISTRICTS IN CALIFORNIA FOR VARIOUS CROPS. Number of districts considered Cost of water excluding nterest on retired bonds Crop Per acre Per acre-foot Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum 12 32 25 5 $0 90 90 90 3 37 $24 69 24 69 21 00 9 33 $0 60 53 53 37 $16 35 Deciduous trees and vines Alfalfa - -_- 22 19 8 90 Rice 1 56 The average annual cost of water to the irrig;ator in the state as a whole, for various kinds of crops, as shown by Table 16, indicates that the higher costs per- a(;re and per acre-foot are under districts where citrus trees are grown. Then follow in order the costs for irrigating deciduous trees and vines, alfalfa, and rice. Hence as would be expected, districts having conditions favoi-able for growing the highin- grade crops are able to stand the greater costs, necessary in many cases, to develoii a tlei)end- able water supply. The high costs of water per acre for rice and alfalfa as shown in some of the tables is (hie generally to the larger (luuiitity of watiM' used for those crops. COST Ol' WA'I'KR TO JKKKIATOUS. 23 PLATE III. Fig. 1. A eombinetl power anti irrisaiion canal in the Sierra Nevada above Sacramento Valley. i-'ii.. -. IxMi I > (Itu .•"tiiraee (lani of Modesto and Tiirlnelv ]rrip:alii.n Districts allowing liydro-eleetric plant below. 24 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. MUTUAL WATER COMPANIES. Nature of a mutual cornpany — Under the California laws a mutual wat or company is defined as "any private corporation or association organiza- tion organized for the purpose of delivering water solely to its stockholders or members at cost."* This ty[)e of enterpi'ise is also known under the name of cooperative water company. A mutual company may be considered a special form of private company in which the stock repre- sents water rights and is entirely owned by those who are to be served. Organization and financing — Mutual water companies are incorporated mider the general law of the state regulating the organization of private companies. Many of th(^ nmtual companies have been organized as part of the program of enterprises engaged in the sul^division and sale of land. Usually the land companies built the irrigation systems or portions of them in advance of settlement, and organized the mutual companies on paper. Shares of stock were then sold to settler's together with the land. In most cases the settlers obtain control of the irrigation system after 50 per cent of the stock has been paid for. Some mutual companies have been organized by the landowners directly, who worked together for the development of a water supply and the construction of an irrigation system. In such cases the works usually were built a little at a time and were not completed for several years, the period depending upon how construction funds were secured. P^mds have been raised by suliscriptionsto capital, by direct assessment of the capital stock, by bonds, and by small loans. In a few cases settlers have cooperated in building works by their own labor. The affairs of mutual companies are controlled by a board of directors elected annually by the stockholders. The president is elected by the directors from one of their own number. As a rule the secretary keeps the books and records and computes and collects water charges. A superintendent is placed in charge of water delivery, operation, and maintenance. The mnnber of zanjeros assisting him in delivering the water depends upon the size of the company. Water stock — One share of water stock per acr(> is g(Mierally the amount issued by mutual water companies, although in some cases as high as 200 shares per acre have been issued, while in other instances one share covers 640 acres. The par and market values of stocks likewise are (H'centi'ic, and in order to make comparisons between companies it is necessary to reduce values to an acreage basis. Each share of stock maj'' carry with it a right to a certain amount of water. Under the California law a mutual companyf may, imder its ])y- laws, make the stock ai:)purtenant to the land. However, a few have done this under the aiticles of incorporation instead. Where this pro- vision of the law is exercised to the full extent the wat('i' can not l)e sold separately from the land. Although the stock may have a high pai- value, it apparently has no independent market value; nevertiiel(\ss, such value does exist under cover of the land piices. A method sometimes used to fix the price of unsold shai'es of stock idtcv i\\o first year, by certain companies which make the water appurtenant to tiie land, is to re(juii-e ♦Chapter 191 of the Laws of 1017. fPortioiiH of several pages in this discussion on iinUunl wutcr (Hjiupanics were coiupik'd from oriKinal notoa of the late C. E. Tait, Division of Agricultural Engineering, Bureau of Public Roads, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. COST «>F \VATi:U TO IKKKiATOKS 25 tho siil)so(iuont puirliaser to pay tho par value, plus all assessments to date plus simple interest. Some companies make the water oi- slock appurtenant only to the larji;e tract of land to he suhdivided and to the adjoining lands, and allow traiisfers of shares of stock between individual land owners within this area so long as these transfers are handled 1hrouji;h the company's office. Under this plan a user may invest in as many shares as he needs, (l(>pen(l- ing upon the crops heing grown. Other companies pref(>r not. to make the stock appurtenant to any lands. Under such compani(>s the directors would not construct laterals to reach lands outsi(l(> of the territory originally intended to be irrigated. Since the land ownin- or stockholdei- cannot afford to carry the water very far at his own expense, the result is about the same as that brought about by companies which make the water api)urtenant to certain lands. The advantage of making the stock non-appuitenant is that untl(>r a system where crops are tliversihed, each re(iuiring a different amount of water, the landowner needs to invest in only as many shares as he can get along with. If the stock is appurtenant and the ratio of shares to the acre is fixed, he must provide for the max mum water requirements of any crop that may be grown, and if he has to pay assessments on these shares he is inclined to demand all the water his shares entitle him to. A few companies which make the water appurtenant to the land, allow shares to be rented by one stockholder to another for periods not exceeding four years. This limitation is to safeguard the ownei- of the shares against any claim of a prescriptive right being set up by the renter of the shares by using the water five years or more. Where the stock can be transferred from one land owner to another separately from the land, it acquires a market value which, with a few exceptions, is higher than the par value. This market value of shares is influenced by the agricultural values producible by the use of the water, by the character of the water right, indebtedness of company, cost of operation, and other minor factors, as well as the original cost. FACTORS IN ANNUAL COST OF V/ATER UNDER MUTUAL WATER COMPANIES. The principal factors in the annual cost of water considered in this report are annual assessments, water rate, (lut>- of water, and interest on capital stock. Assessments and water rates — Companies differ to some extent in their finances. Under the California law all stock is assessable. Some com- panies raise all their funds by assessments on capital stock. Under such a system there is little inducement for the stockholder to use water economically. Where crops are uniform throughout the project it works fairly well. The other extreme is to meet all expenses by the collection of a water rate or chai-ge, proportional to the amount used. From time to time the charge is fixed by the board of directors in anticipation of the future expenses of the comjiany. Some companies using a moic logical i)lan fix a rate to water using stockholders sufficient to meet the annual cost of disti-ibution, leaving the requirements of capital investment and imi)rovements to the system to l)e taken care of by assessment on all the stock issued. This method 26 1>EI'ARTI\IKN'I' OI' ITI'.IJC WORKS. is not conducive to either speculation in ca[)ital stock or extravagant use of water. Many different kinds of rate schedules are used by the companies. The rates may be on a measured basis of so nmch per hour-inch per irrigation, per day-inch, per acre-foot, or per cubic foot; or on a flat rate basis of so much per acre or per miner's inch per season, irrespective of the amount of water used. Some companies have a constant i-ate for all water used, others different rates for winter' and sunnuei', others different rates for each month, others different rates for day and night use, others have a rate decreasing as the amount of water used increases, and others have a minimum charge. Mutual water companies that make no charges for water generally assess the stock every year. Companies that use a water charge to meet their running expenses may not assess the stock every year, but only when some improvements are to be made on their system or when pay- ments are to be met on loans or bonds. However, it rarely if ever happens that a company does not make at least one assessment in five years. For this reason, in determning the annual cost of irrigation water for this report, the average of the assess- ments for five years terminating with 1922 has been used rather than the assessment for 1922 alone. Where any part of the revenues are applietl on retiring bonds or loans, proper deduction should be made from the total annual cost. This is not a proper charge to annual operating cost as payments on principal belong to the capital account. Interest on capital stock — For purposes of comparison, the value of capital stock for companies has been reduced to an acreage basis. If the stock had an established market value in 1922 this was taken in making the reductions. If it had no apparent market value due to being appur- tenant to the land or for other reasons, the original par value was used in determining the value per acre. Interest on this value of capital stock, which represents the stockholder's investment for water, was calculated at 6 per cent. Duty of ivater— The amount of water used by the irrigator beconies a factor in the annual cost of water when it is desired to obtaiii this on the acre or the acre-foot basis. I'he duty of water data givcMi in this report represent the average amount of water delivered to the ii-i-igator; that is, it is the amovmt of water he pays for. In most cases this may be considered the net dutA^ of water for the systiMu. COST OF WATER UNDER MUTUAL WATER COMPANIES. Description of tables 17 and /c?— Table 17 has l)een prepared showing the annual cost of water to iiiigators und(M' the most important mutual wat(M- companies in northern and central California. There are 31 cohnnns in the tabulations. In addition to the cost of water to irrigators, th(^ table shows factors which affect the cost of water and many other useful facts. Many of the column headings ai'c self explanatorv and will not be taken up in d(>tail her(>. CV)hunn 3, '"'Year oiganized," in many cases will give some idea ol th(> ag(^ of water rights or syst(Mn ; but this is not a fixed rule. Column 19, "Value of stock i)er acre" is obtained by nniltiplymg colunm 17, "Market value of stock per share" by column IS. ".\v(M-age 27 PHYSICAL SCIENCES LIBRARY TABLE 17— COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION IN CALIFORNIA, IVIulual Water Companies in Northern and Central California. 1922. RxiUEKS — ' Eatimjiti'i] cost of systom per acre. ' Includes Last Chance Water Ditoh Co. stock. • Includra Peoples Dilch Co. stock. • Includes L^t Chance Water Ditch Co. asseas- meriM, ^ laclu'les Peojjira Ditch Co. aaseasments. * Cii liasis of ] miner's inch for 5 acres, ' 25 cents for first additJoDuJ acre-fool, • 50 minor's inches equals 1 second-foot. ' 40 miner's inches cquale 1 eecund-Joot. x Acreage unknown. * Efitimatcd. 'KYSICAL SCIENCEo LiSRARY 2 Location - — i Source of water supply f 6 1 2. 1 ■a I Area irrigated Capital stock Factors Ml annual cost of water A nual cost of water 9 i 10 14 B in III Hi IS z i'i ir 16 ! i s. a 1 17 s II ; s i r 18 > ; i if ■ 2. i I < g 2, § 1 20 il II" si l¥ 1^ rE 21 1 Water rate 24 if if h 25 > 1.11 IP To : \^ ; S5- Per acre for first acre-foot Per acre for average amount used Per acre-foot for average amount used t Name of conipiiiiy 3 L 7 n r 8 If = S 1 i 12 I 13 22 23 i 1 Schedule ; 26 ll i s 27 28 i.l l.| P If t It 29 ll : § ; 1 30 sl It II ; i ; i '. f : 2, 31 1.1 i r 2, Butte Glcnu Mutual Vi ■ ■ ' Built UlL'nnMulu:il '^ ■'■ ' ' Durham atati- Laud ::'.i::Lhr. l' _ . Dodgebnd.... IS20 8 100 12 3 180 195 5.60 1.06 .. 2,174 S7 00 1 000 S7 00 to 42 42 3 00 2 70 1 38 1 92 2 82 1 20 00 06 06 3 00 56 10 25 25 10 1 00 1 50 50 1 00 60 3 30 00 00 00 08 1 76 3 50 4 95 2 98 79 83 '0 96 '0 9B 63 00 80 00 71 4) 82 •1 03 24 00 4 37 00 45 1 78 98 1 12 1 1)4 $13 00 3 80 1 25 3 1.1 so 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 3 30 00 00 00 00 S13 25 4 05 1 10 4 00 1 50 4 50 5 00 5 30 1 75 (I 00 2 00 8 07 68 3 61 3 50 9 99 2 98 79 69 79 7e 63 10 00 80 7 00 51 62 83 3 19 10 48 12 61 9 08 13 56 1 78 98 1 12 1 94 S13 67 SI3 26 4 47 4 06 4 10 1 35 6 70 4 16 2 83 I 50 6 42 3 94 7 82 5 00 6 60 5 30 1 75 1 84 6 06 6 00 2 06 2 00 11 07 3 47 1 24 68 3 91 4 40 3 50 12 99 20 07 3 28 2 98 1 09 79 83 66 96 7» 1 05 70 1 08 63 12 10 10 00 1 40 80 7 60 7 00 92 61 1 07 62 1 32 83 4 27 3 69 10 48 15 81 33 17 12 08 4 18 19 56 ^ 35 2 23 1 78 1 82 08 1 72 1 12 3 24 1 94 $13 67 4 47 4 35 6 85 2 86 5 86 7 82 6 50 1 84 6 06 2 06 6 47 1 24 J2 37 3 82 1 08 3 115 50 4 58 5 00 2 76 55 1 01 1 8« 8 07 23 88 .. 1 75 6 00 03 32 0.30 47 47 30 3 33 30 4 40 22 27 36 3 15 8 74 .. » 48 M 00 14 11 66 4B 56 78 $2 44 400 3.80 per acre, general Durham Sacramento.. - Maryaville.... Sacramento. .. Sacramento... Orangevale— Otland OromllE- Butte Cree£! 24 24 24 100 100 100 200 110 69 111 3.192 X 1.200 352 X 367 537 1,800 1.607 X 385 736 3,200 2,060 3.000 821 1.383 2,200 15.119 14,271 1.25 '50 00 45 00 23 00 32 00 47 00 '20 00 00 1 00 l.OOperac.-ft j 1 00 3 00 3 48 1918 1910 1S21 1920 "ifiie " 1614 105 6,000 •3-00 6.117 80 19 280 1.00 3.547 10 00 5 00 10 00 10 00 1 000 1.000 1.000 1 000 S23 00 JJatomaa Central Mutual Water Co Uatomas Riveraide Mutual Water Co.., 4 00 4 00 3 44 4 00 4 80 1 84 6 00 2 00 3 47 4.00 per ac.-ft 7 82 Northfork Ditch Co__ X 170 Orhiiid Project, U.S. R. 5. 6.885 004 4,178 X 3 34 . 1.000 1.000 I.r5peracre;3ac.-ft.' 6.00 per acre, rice _ 55 13,034 5 S14 29,000 1 00 1 02 Cestiial Cautqrsu. Carter Water Co... -. - Tchachspi Vigalia- DolhL -. Visaha Edison ja22 1874 1920 1854 I'JOO Wells 70 30 120 100 00 75 108-299 198 100 135 100 50 100 a • 100 100 12 100 100 100 100 140 4,400 700 X 141 100 X X 530 800 6.160 394 84 1,SU0 X 40 8 ICO 400 940 124 a ma 140 15,000 2,150 800 396 630 19.800 30.000 530 3.200 52,300 394 3,800 14.500 50.000 1,000 7.300 3.000 2.800 300 160 400 3.300 1.873 3,000 0.43 •3.00 4 00 140 97 >50 00 9 38 Ikkta 8 07 15 06 4,100 1,200 X 6,600 250 X 100 00 1,500 00 1/160 41 'lurloek Ircigatjou Diatrict... Kawcah River... . (Districl t4ix»2.15) X '2,00 992 3,00 385 •3 20 84 •2 50 20,197 I 68 45 100 00 so 00 it} 00 1 00 1.000 00 15 00 1 000 1,000 100 1.000 1/640 15 00 SO 00 6 00 6 00 2 81 •■2 81 ■4 37 7 50 35 00 10 00 10 00 87 •7 50 >S 12 18 00 00 3 00 30 30 17 17 26 46 2 10 60 60 41 45 49 1 08 00 3 00 3 00 6 no 45 84 60 1 30 None 00 V 00 00 00 17 17 17 00 00 00 00 20 20 20 00 00 00 n 00 000 00 00 00 00 4 40 23 07 3 28 1 09 83 96 1 05 1 08 12 10 1 40 7 60 92 1 07 1 32 4 77 "'36'l7' 7 18 12 36 2 23 1 82 1 72 3 24 2 20 Wells 255 15.00 per 1 .440 hour inches •. . . None ... 5 04 15 12 7 69 300 X X 230 50 00 6 00 1,800 00 Lakceiae Ditcb - Hanford Hanf ord Hatjforil Haiiionl Umoore Baketefield. .. Visalia. Patterson 1873 1873 lyil 188:1 1SI02 I'JSO 18(^1 X X X None 49 67 Last Chance Ditch 24,800 7,600 ] 63 Nonr 63 13,440 2 10 53 3 OO 394 •2 70 100 1.57 14.500 2 30 mi 2 30 72'-a 2 30 92 117 3.6O0 1 20 2,000 00 1 00 100 00 10 00 1.000 00 100 00 100 00 100 00 4 800 00 35 00 400 00 1/OM 1 000 025 1 000 I/&40 1/160 1/80 1,200 None.. "io'oo' LwiloMittuul WaierCo. No. 9.. . Wclls_._ St. Johns River San .Icmquin Itivcr 4 03 2.OO0 13,000 X 1.516 52 PaUenwji Wati-r Ca 7 00 4 84 Hanford Hanford Hanford. Porterville ._. Kings City. Ediaon. . ... Tehaehajn ... Telianh.ipj..._ VisaUa Visaha VisaUo Visaliu , , 1873 1S85 18',H tsss mis limy 1914 191] 1874 I'Jfn 1853 1872 * 4,400 00 New Deal Ditch Co Peoples Ditch... . None 47 i'eorilbi Dilch 100 00 15 00 57 Tule River and Wells. WuUs. X (Beans) 2,700 2 05 . 3 46 10 48 28 80 4 18 5 90 408 Salinas Land Co. Second EdjstmWeU Co.. _ WcJIa 292 3 43 46 45 •2 70 •2 00 •2 00 •2 50 276 160 766 321 700 tilO 91 so 00 "iob'oo" 100 00 10 00 100 00 1,000 00 "5606" 100 00 75 00 40 00 50 00 1.800 00 1 000 1 000 1 000 100 350 200 012 50 00 50 00 100 00 7 50 14 00 10 00 21 00 24.50 per 1.440 hour inches'.. - 24 )08 11 10 33 W£ll8 15 61 Wdla. Kawciih River St. Johus River Kawcah River , 0.65 per 30 inch-huura 1 None ■ Tulare Irngalion C-o _ 1.600 I.H8 X 900 2.610 83 Vplull Ditch Co --.- I 91 Walaon Ditch Co 86 Wmchumna Water Co - Kawcah River 1 30 ■ 37104 — facing p. i <, icT . n.' \.v.v'ri.'T? 'I'll ii^ww; vroKs; 27 26 is not c use of w Mail}' The rat irrigatio rate })as of the ai all wate different use, oth and oth( Mutu assess tl their ru when so ments a Howe least on' annual ( ments f( the asse; Wher< loans, p This is principa Intere capital g stock ha the redu tenant t determii which r( at 6 per Duty factor ii the acre report n that is, be consi De.scr, the anm wat(M' c( There wat(M- t' water a: self expl Cohu. the age C'oliiii coluinii / 11 iv^'i' 1 kP wA'1'i.'w 'I'll I i^wK! \'i"i >ws; 27 TABLE 16.— COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION IN CALIFORNIA. MuluBl Waler Companies In Southern Calirornla. 1922. 2 Locution 3 ? f 1 4 Source of water supply 5 r r 6 1 Area irrignled 12 l1 Capital stock Factors in annual coet of water Annual coat ol water — - — 7 o 1 1 P 8 s 9 10 s I r 1 1 1 13 1 1 S 1 i. 14 ? 1 2, f 1 15 a I 1 1 16 ii ll ■a 17 % 2, 1 18 It |s S.S ft 19 if n Water rate 22 h h i ? For first acre-foot Per acre for average amount used Per acre-tcet for average amount used 1 Name of company 20 1 21 1 23 :i : SB 24 tf ; S ; r ; a. 25 ll If ri ■• % ; I : g ; 2, 26 1 ; § ; I ; g : a. 27 ll i i I I" 28 11 : i i 1 : a. 29 S H \ i ■ s : r ; 2. McTUiL Companies. An.tei„ 1884 1885 1886 1913 1864 1881 1903 1887 1891 1886 1894 1882 1902 1902 1902 18B7 1892 1905 1905 1907 1886 1887 1887 1910 1910 1890 1905 1882 1888 1909 1921 1884 1920 IG22 1886 1911 1900 1913 1913 1900 1901 1901 1902 1902 1908 1907 1912 1909 1921 1905 1887 1887 I9lti 1912 1900 100 ""'io' 8 5U0 3.»2» 7.500 s 000 ,000 .920 •700 .900 800 ,300 .800 ,200 443 200 .380 806 .000 .000 .600 400 835 ,200 ,000 ,600 .500 ,800 600 2,000 .200 2.050 2,000 1.160 3,820 2,934 6,144 2,050 75 2.000 •1 22 •1 00 1 37 •1 00 2 73 1.67 8.0O4 $100 00 tlOO 00 3,700 5 00 30 00 11,891 15 00 100 no 14,000 15 00* 15 00 3,245 50 00 200 00 630 33 00 200 00 1 00 $100 00 1 .00 30 00 3 00 300 00 10 00 150 00 1.10 220 00 80 160 00 16 00 1 80 IS 00 9 00 13 20 9 60 85 ao J 0120 2 50 .0055 3 60 ,00487 None .0041 10 18 None 7 52 None »7 26 3 33 2 95 2 50 None None $8 86 3 33 4 04 2 50 None None $1 25 10 1 00 None 69 2 00 Ill 61 5 73 6 55 2 50 9 49 5 52 $17 61 7 53 23 56 U 50 22 69 15 12 $13 21 6 73 6 64 2 50 9 49 5 52 $19 21 7 53 24 64 11 50 22 69 15 12 $10 83 5 73 4 85 2 50 3 47 3 30 Arroyo Dilcb and Water Co. - Downey Rio Hondo _ 4 7 53 .Uusa Irrigating Co. White Water River •700 2,800 200 11 50 2 s 31 San Gabriel River 100 100 100 100 100 19 100 100 100 6" 14 19 73 100 100 100 100 100 10 70 100 100 100 100 100 100 40 100 26 500 100 14 9 03 Redlandfl 1,800 1.200 443 200 1.380 806 2,000 3,000 2,500 50 325 SO 3,825 4,500 2,500 1.800 40 X 1.200 1,600 800 900 3.820 1144 0.144 2,050 75 600 2.00 2.00 2,00 1 89 2 11 2.00 1-60 1,«0 1 34 ■2 00 1 20 0.56 1 81 1.56 1 42 2 33 30 0.53 1 20 •1,00 1.26 1 79 •2 08 2 08 2.76 1 18 2 39 1 08 3,321 1,411 443 196 1,500 806 8.005 5,005 17,280 421 3,498 983 5.197 10,000 4,359 22,600 2,500 20,000 1,259 222,450 2,300 2.088 :f,999 4.000 12.288 5.040 300 24,600 100 00 100 00 100 00 100 00 100 00 100 00 50 00 50 00 10 00 100 00 10 00 100 00 50 00 50 00 100 00 10 00 10 00 50 00 10 00 1 00 100 00 100 00 100 00 100 00 60 00 100 00 100 00 10 00 250 00 225 00 150 00 ioo 66 125 00 120 00 180 00 15 00 100 00 "16666" 260 00 100 00 140 00 20 00 17 50 50 00 500 00 2 00 400 00 '266"66" 76 00 160 00 90 00 '"'366' 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 09 1 00 1,50 1 50 7 00 1 00 4 00 1 00 1 00 3 00 1 25 12 55 1 00 1.00 1 00 150 00 1 10 1 00 1 00 1 13 2.00 2 30 4 00 10 00 250 00 225 00 150 00 100 00 109 00 125 00 180 00 270 00 105 00 100 00 40 00 100 00 250 00 300 00 175 00 251 00 17 60 50 00 SOOOO 300 00 440 00 100 00 200 00 S5 88 300 00 207 00 400 00 30 00 15 00 13 50 9 00 6 00 ti 54 7 50 10 80 16 20 6 30 6 00 2 40 6 00 16 00 18 00 to 50 15 06 1 05 3 00 30 00 18 00 26 40 6 00 12 00 5 15 18 00 12 42 24 00 1 80 5 80 12 00 8 50 13 50 7 10 16 00 15 90 24 00 70 2 60 10 48 None 4 50 16 60 17 87 22 60 90 '"'6"66" 7 75 3 50 None 10 40 6 16 None 25 30 None 20 00 1 80 2 32 4 50 2 07 2 20 2 54 2 59 3 91 2 49 3 53 4 50 4 26 4 00 ■"'406' I 90 8 00 None 4 60 12 00 4 00 1 10 13 00 1 50 5 25 None 5 00 None 3 20 11 00 2 60 1 65 II 60 7 20 13 00 None 70 6 50 27 60 7 20 3 50 2 41 ■i 40 24 90 11 40 None None None None None None None None None None None ,020 ,010 .00208 None None .025 .0125 None .0083 None None None None None None None None None None None None 12 10 6 05 1 26 None None 15 13 7 66 None 5 02 None None None None None None None None None None None None 6 77 10 95 1 97 None None 4 54 4 01 None 5 02 None 20 00 None 6 16 12 00 28 56 21 70 None 78 1 36 71 1 4'l 98 5 03 2 62 2 62 None None ■'Nrae' None 3 33 6 41 2 78 None None 1 67 1 56 60 4 311 2 62 2 W 1 04 6 21 None 6 50 5 02 10 64 7 79 12 01 6 12 10 97 13 28 21 38 70 2 50 10 48 12 10 10 65 14 43 11 46 19 82 16 03 7 56 7 33 11 21 2 90 15 70 7 78 7 OS 10 96 43 29 9 08 13 50 20 02 24 14 16 79 18 01 12 66 18 47 24 08 37 6S 7 00 8 50 12 88 18 10 25 55 32 43 21 96 34 88 17 08 10 56 37 33 29 21 29 30 21 70 19 78 12 23 28 96 55 71 33 08 15 30 6 02 10 64 7 79 12 01 6 12 10 97 13 28 21 38 70 2 60 10 48 6 77 15 45 15 14 11 46 19 82 544 4 01 7 33 11 21 2 90 15 70 7 78 10 28 10 96 47 65 21 70 13 50 20 02 24 14 16 79 18 01 12 66 18 47 24 08 37 58 7 00 8 50 12 88 12 77 30 45 33 14 21 96 34 88 6 49 7 01 37 33 29 21 29 30 21 70 19 78 15 43 28 96 60 07 45 70 15 30 2 51 5 32 3 90 6 35 2 90 5 49 8 30 13 36 52 1 25 8 73 12 09 8 64 9 70 8 07 8 51 18 13 7 56 6 11 11 21 2 30 8 77 3 74 4 96 3 97 40 39 9 08 12 50 B. V. M. W. Co 8 40 B- V.M.W.Co Redlands _ Whittier Wells.. • 15 06 UHabra California Domestic Water Co. . 23 49 ■■■356' 20 1.150 100 5 22 Capistrano Montebello SanJuan Creek 4 25 Welia 40 450 Wells _ _ 150 100 Bloomington Wells 25 50 Cucamonga Wells; Tunnels 100 0-340 80-320 30-100 90 700 300 Wells 14 97 80 Comptoa. Wells " Maj. 1 13 23 San Gabriel River .... 31 11 Eficondido 450 1.200 10 29 21 23 24 50-100 250 None .0049 None 2 96 San Jacinto 1.790 7 42 Sanla.ina River; Wells Wells 30 450 265 S2 70 220 10 49 Glendora .040 .015 None 24 20 9 08 None Wells.. . 1.300 100 14 60 El Centre Colorado River Imperbl Irrigation District Imperial rrigati on District mperial rrigation District mperial rrigation District mpenal Irrigation District Imperial rrigation District Imperial rrigation District Imperial rrigation District Imperial Irrigation District Imperial Irrigation District Imperial Irrigation District We^s » X 12,000 X X X 12 32.689 4 X 2 X 6 X 1 X 1 X 3 X 1 X X 1 300 1.169 6.000 6.000 0.000 0.000 9.000 8,260 5,000 8,000 5.000 8.000 2,000 600 850 2.80O 3.200 750 ««8 1.200 960 792 500 1.80O 9.134 365 974 8.058 800 5,000 500 7,428 2,200 628 500 1.480 1,362 1,400 4,682 1,575 350 781 2.000 2.600 2.000 3,00 3 00 •3 00 3 00 •3 30 3 00 ■3 00 2 80 3 00 '3.00 3 00 1.35 •1,63 80 1 20 2 70 2 40 11 89 92 1.09 95 1 70 •2 20 '4,30 3.60 1 66 2 67 2 TO 2 30 I 22 1.69 1 38 1.16 2 08 2 50 '1 70 0.85 1.65 1.61 2 00 2 78 77 1 14 1 lb 9 Coluii column COST OF WATER TO IHHKiATORS. 27 PLATE IV. Fig. 1. A typical small irrigation pumping plant in Santa Clara Valley. FiCi. -'. l-"iirro\\ irrigalmn ol' a cli'iiv Dn-liard m Santa ('laia \ alley. S— :5710» 28 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. luimljcr shares per acre." ^Vhere market value is not obtainable the par value is used. Column 24, "Water charge per acre for the average amount used" is equal to column 22, ''Water rate" where the water rate is on the basis of a flat charge per acre. Where a measured rate is used it is equal to column 23, "Water rate per acre-foot" multiplied b}- column 14, "Average duty of water per acre at delivery gate." The last six columns of the table are the final results obtained from the previous columns, and show the annual cost of water. Columns 26, 28 and 30 exclude interest on value of capital stock while columns 2?' 29 and 31 include the interest. Columns 26 and 27 showing the "Annual cost of water per acre for first acre-foot" were included in the table mainly for comparison pur- poses; they show what the cost would be if the irrigator only used one aere-foot instead of the average amount used by the system. Hence where the charge is on the per-acre basis an irrigator using one acre-foot pa^'s just as much as the irrigator who uses three acre-feet. On the other hand, if the water charge is on a measured basis the water user pays according to the amount used. Column 26 is equal to colunm 21 plus colunm 24, minus column 25, if the flat rate per acre is the basis of the water charges. Wlien the measured rate is used column 26 is equal to column 21 plus column 23 minus column 25. Column 27 is equal to column 26 plus colunm 20. Columns 28 and 29 show the "Cost of water per acre for average amount used." Column 28 is equal to column 21 plus column 24 minus column 25. Column 29 is equal to column 28 plus column 20. Columns 30 and 31 show the "Cost of water per acre foot for average amount used." Column 30 is equal to column 28 divided by column 14. Column 31 is equal to column 29 divided by column 14. Table 18, showing annual cost of water to irrigators under principal nmtual water companies in southern California, is similar to Talkie 17 except that, there being fewer column headings, they are numbered differently. As was the case with irrigation districts, the many variable conditions which affect the annual cost of water under different mutual companies make fair comparisons difficult. The method used in arriving at the cost of water under mutual water companies has been to take into account the assessment on the capital stock, the charge for water delivered, and the interest on capital stock. The entire cost is included in these items, with the exception of deprecia- tion on the plant, which has not been considered because it was not practical to include in this study the vast amount of work necessary fairly to determine depreciation under each of the many systems. No doubt in many cases repairs of a permanent nature offset this factoi-. P'rom the sum of the above three items considered should be deducted the amount put into a sinking fund to retire bonds or loans. Interest paid on the principal is jii-opei'l}^ chargeable to the annual cost of water, while funtls collected to retii-e the principal of indebtedness are not, and should be charged to capital account. Many irrigators overlook the fact that funds invested in water stock would earn interest if loaned out, and that such interest should be charged to th(Mr amuial cost of iirigation water. COST (H' W.\TER TO IRRIGATORS. 29 Of the itonis thai in:ik(> tho total annual cost of watci- the assossnionts and interest on capital stock are fixed charges because they relate to a share of stock and nuist be paid whether any water is used or not; but water chaise or rate vaiies in many cases according to the amount of water us(hI by the stockholders. For these i(>asons and others, together with the fact that tlu^ duty of water per acre is not uniform, the matter of fairly comparing the annual cost of water under different nuitual companies is complex. To compare the costs "per acre" is objectionable where the duty varies. In cases where the cost per acre is the summation of fixed and variable chai-ges it is unsatisfactory to compare the costs "per acre-foot," as this is obtainined by dividing the cost per acre by the duty of water in acre-feet. Notwithstanding the complications which arise when comparing the costs under difT(Ment systems, some idea may l)e given as to the varia- tions in the annual cost of water to the irrigators throughout the state, and under different conditions, by the following summaries of tables 17 and 18. Duty of water — Table 19 is a summary of tables 17 and 18, showing the mininmm and maximum duty of water und(>r mutual companies in northern, central, and southern California, and for the state as a whole. The number of companies considered is shown in the table. TABLE 19— SUMMARY OF DUTY OF WATER UNDER MUTUAL WATER COMPANIES. Number of companies considered Quantity of water used per acre Section of California Minimum, acre-feet Maximum, acre-feet Northern. . . .. . . . . 9 26 78 113 0.86 .43 .30 .30 5.94 Central .- 4.00 Southern - 4 30 Entire state - -■ 5.94 The minimum duty of water of 0.86 acre-foot per acre foi- northern California as shown in Table 19 is for a system irrigating deciduous fruits, beans, truck, and alfalfa. All the water is pumped from the Sacramento River through an average lift of 24 feet. The minimum duty of water for Central California of 0.43 acre-foot per acre is for an enterprise growing deciduous fruits entirely, at an elevation of about 4000 feet. All the water is pumped through average lift of 70 feet. The minimum duty of water for southern California of 0.30 acre-foot per acre is for a system under which the crop is almost entirely beans, which receive only oiu* irrigation p(>r season. All the water is pumped with lifts ranging from 1-feet per acre is for a new project iiaving sandy .soil and a large acrc^ige of alfalfa. Fifty per cent of the water is pumped through an average lift of 30 feet. The maximum duty of water of 4.3(3 acre-feet ptM* acre for soutiiern California is found under a system in Palo \Vrde \'alley irrigating alfalfa and cotton through the 30 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. long hot and dry season of the Colorado Desert. 'Hiis is all gravity water taken from the Colorado River. Annual cost of irrigation w^a^er— Tal)le 20 is a suinniaiy of tables 17 and 18, showing ininiinuin and maximum costs of irrigation water under mutual water companies in northern, central and southern California and for the state as a whole. The numher of conipanic^s consideicd in obtaining the average is also shown in the table. TABLE 20- SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COST OF WATER UNDER MUTUAL WATER COMPANIES. Number of companies considered Annual cost of water including interest on capital invested Section of California Per acre Per acre-foot Minimum -Maximum Minimum Maximum Northern _ _ _ 9 24 78 111 $1 84 83 2 07 83 $13 67 .3(5 17 60 07 60 07 $0 .5.T 40 1 22 40 $7 82 27 44 .50 91 .50 91 Central . ._ . . Southern Entire state The cheapest water is supplied bj^ the older gravit}' systems, some of which were constructed in the early fifties. Some are capitalizecl at a few dollars per acre, which does not represent the true present value of the water. In the absence of proper basis for interest cliarges the main expense under them consists of fees paid to the zanjeros, and in a few instances the farmers do most of the work themselves. The lowest cost per acre is for a system using 1.68 acre-feet of water per acre. This cost per acre is made up of interest, SO. 17, and an average annual assessment of $0.83, from which is deducted $0.17 for sinking fund, leaving a total cost pei- acre of $0.83. The lowest cost of $0.40 per acre-foot is for a company having the following items of cost per acre for water: interest $0.41 and average assessment of $0.71, from which is deducted $0.20 for sinking fund, leaving a total per acre cost of $0.92. This divided by the duty of water of 2.30 acre-feet per acre for the systcMu gives a cost of $0.40 per acre-foot. For the entire state, the highest costs are fouiul under sj'stems wliicli pump all their water, although there are some gravity systems in southern California that have higher costs than many pumping systems. The maximum costs of $60.07 p.er acre and .SoO.91 per acre-foot are found under a system in southern California lifting watei- about 450 feet from wells and having a duty of 1.18 acre-feet per acre. The cost per acre is made up of the following items: interest $12.42, average annual assessment $25.30, and water charge $28.56, from which is deducted $6.21 for sinking fund, making a total cost of $60.07 i)ei' acre. This cost divided l)y the duty of water of 1.18 acre-feet per acre gives a cost per acre-foot of $50.91. Annual cost of gravity water — Table 21 is a summary of tables 17 and 18 showing minimum and maximum annual costs of water under mutual companies delivering all gravity water. Figure's are shown for northern, central, and southern Califoinia, antl for the state as a whole. They include intei-est on value of capital stock. COST OK WATKK TO IKRICATOKS. 31 TABLE 21 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COST OF WATER UNDER MUTUAL COMPANIES DELIVERING ALL GRAVITY WATER. N'unibor of fonipanics considered Cost of water includinK interest on capital invested Section of California Per acre Per acre-foot Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum N ort horn 5 16 34 55 $1 84 83 2 07 83 $6 50 4 40 33 14 33 14 $0 55 40 1 22 40 S3 48 Central. 2 20 Son t horn , 20 21 I'.ntiro Stat©-- - 29 21 Tlu' lowest costs liave already been analyzed in detail under "annual cost of irrigation water." The highest costs for gravity water are found in southern California; the niaximuni is S33.12 per acre. This cost is mainly du(^ to the fact that this system has to keep up a pumping plant for protection against dry years, as well as to the high value of water rights. However, no water was pumped for the year the data refers to. The items making up the annual cost per acre are as follows: interest SIS. 00, average assessment §16.50, and water charge S1.97, from which is deducted S3. 33 for sinking fund, making a. total cost of 833.14 per acre. The duty of water is 1.56 acre-feet per acre and 4500 acres of citrus trees are irrigated. The highest cost of 829.21 per acre-foot is under a company bringing water some distance from a storage reservoir. The cost items per acre are as follows: interest SIS. 00, average assessment S7.75, and water charge S5.02, from which is deducted SI. 56, making a total cost of S29.21 per acre. The cost per acre-foot of water is S29.21, the duty of water being 1.00 per acre-foot per acre. Annual cost of pumped water — Talile 22 is a summary of tables 17 and 18 showing the minimum and maximum annual costs of water under mutual companies delivering all pumped water. Figures are shown for northern, central, and southern California, and for the state as a whole. They include interest on value of capital stock. TABLE 22 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COST OF WATER UNDER MUTUAL COMPANIES DELIVERING ALL PUMPED WATER. Number of companies considered Cost of water including interest on value of capital stock Section of California Per acre Per acre-foot Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Northern Central 4 7 24 35 $5 86 6 47 6 49 5 86 $13 67 36 17 60 07 60 07 $2 44 4 03 10 73 2 44 $7 82 27 44 Southern. 50 91 Entire state ... . .. .50 91 Tal)le 22 indicates that the lowest cost per acre and jjer acr(>-foot for "all pumped water" is found in northern California, while the highest cost is under u system in southern California, 32 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. The minimum cost of $5.86 per acre is accounted for by the fact that the system concerned has a duty of only 0.86 acre-foot per acre, and pumps water from the Sacramento River through the low lift of 24 feet. The minimum cost of $2.44 per acre-foot is for a company Iniying water from another system and pumping 8 feet from a canal. This' cost is for a rice crop which uses 5.60 acre-feet of water per acre. Incidently, because of the large amount of water used, this system has the highest cost per acre in northern California, $13.67. The highest cost' of $60.07 per acre and $50.91 per acre-foot are found under a company in southern California. The lift is about 450 feet and the amount of water used is 1.18 acre-feet per acre. The items making up these costs have already been discussed. Cost of water for various crops — For mutual water companies furnishing water for several crops and with fixed water charges such as assessments or a flat rate per acre it is difficult to make fair comparisons of the cost of water for different crops. There are many companies, however, especially in southern California, which deliver practically water to one crop. The following summaries of tables 17 and 18 indicate the in costs for citrus trees, deciduous trees and vines, alfalfa for northern, central, southern California, and the state as The number of companies considered is shown in each table. all their variation and rice, a whole. TABLE 23- -SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COST OF WATER UNDER MUTUAL COMPANIES IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA FOR VARIOUS CROPS. Number of companies considered Cost of water including interest on value of capital stock Crop Per acre Per acre-foot Alinimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Citrus trees .- - -- 2 9 8 3 SI 84 1 84 1 84 2 88 S6 50 7 82 7 82 13 67 $0 55 55 55 96 $3 39 Deciduous trees and vines Alfalfa.. - - ... 7 82 7 82 Rice . . .... 2 44 TABLE 24 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COST OF WATER UNDER MUTUAL COMPANIES IN CENTRAL CALIFORNIA FOR VARIOUS CROPS. Number of companies considered Cost of water including interest on value of capital stock Per acre Per acre-foot Minimum Maximum '^ Minimum Maximum Citrus trees - - 3 24 16 None $4 77 83 83 $36 17 36 17 7 60 $4 08 40 40 $10 33 Deciduous trees and vines Alfalfa - . 27 44 4 84 Rice COST OF W.\TF,Ii TO IKKinATOK.S. ;{:{ PLATE V. ..■■■.. --Lti:f- .' m Fig. 1. ISasin irrigatimi of a iirunc (irchard Fig. -'. Dam acrS6 60 6 00 5 40 4 50 3 90 Energy charge in addition to the demand charge; rate per k.w.h. for consumption per h.p. per year of — First 1000 k.w.h. 1.6 cents 1.4 cents 1.2 cents 1.1 cents l.I cents Xext 1000 k.w.h. 1.2 cents 1.1 cents 1.0 cent .9 cent .9 cent Xext 1000 k.w.h. 0.9 cent .8 cent .8 cent .75 cent .75 cent .\11 over 3000 k.w.h. 0.7 cent .7 cent .7 cent .7 cent .7 cent 'In no case will the total annual demand be less than $13.20. Rate B. Optional Rate. Any consumer may selec-t at his option the following rate instead of the demand and energy rate set forth above. Horsepower of connected load 2 to 4 5 to 14 15 to 49 .50 to 99 100 to 249 .\iinual minimum charge per h.p. ^$9 00 8 00 7 50 7 00 6 75 Rate per k.w.h. for consumption per h.p. per year of- First 300 k.w.h. 3.8 cents 3.4 cents .3.0 cents 2.6 cent.s 2.4 cents Xext 700 k.w.h. 1.6 cents 1.4 cents 1.2 cents 1 . 1 cents 1.1 cents Xext 1000 k.w.h. 1.2 cents 1.1 cents 1.0 cent .9 cent .9 cent Xext 1000 k.w.h. 0.9 cent .8 cent .8 cent .75 cent .75 cent All over 3000 k.w.h. 0.7 cent .7 cent .7 cent .7 cent .7 cent -In no case will the total minimum charge be !e!*s than $27 per year. 36 DE.r'ARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. Rate: Coast Counties Gas and Electric Company. Territory, Morgan Hill, San Martin, Gilroy, Watsonville, Chualar. Demand charge Gross Net For the first 5 h p. of connected load - _ _ $8 GO G 30 4 00 $8.00 jM'r li.p. per year GOO per h.p. jier year 4.00 per h.p. per year For the next 45 h.p. of connected load _ _ _ For all over 50 h.p. of connected load . _ _ Energy charge Gross Net For the first 3,000 k.w.h. per year For the next 27 000 k.w.h. oer year _ _ 2.10 cents l.GO cents 1.35 cents 2.00 cents per k.w.h. For all over ,30 000 k w h oer year ._ - - 1.25 cents per k.w.h. Total charge: The total charge is the sum of the demand and energy charges. The net rate is effective if the bill is paid on or before the 15th of the month next succeeding that for which the bill is rendered. If the bill is not paid on or before the loth, the gross charge is effective. San Joaquin Light and Power Corporation. Territory, Chowchilla, McFarland. Size of plant — Annual demand charge 2 to 4 h.p $16 00 per li.j). per year 5 to 14 h.p 14 00 per h.j). per year 15 to 49 h.p 13 00 per h.p. per year 50 to 99 h.p 12 00 per h.p. per year 100 h.p. and over 11 00 per h.p. per year • Energy charge. First 1000 k.w.h. per year 0.9 cent per k.w.h. ■ Next 1000 k.w.h. per year .8 cent per k.w.h. Next 1000 k.w.h. per year .7 cent per k.w.h. Next 2000 k.w.h. per year .6 cent per k.w.h. All over 5000 k.w.h. per year -- .5 cent per k.w.h. Optional Rate: Annual consumption per horsepower First 500 k.w.h. Next 500 k.w.h. Next 1000 k.w.h. Next 1000 k.w.h. Next 2000 k.w.h. All over 5000 k.w.h. Rate per k.w.h. for connected loads of — 15 to 49 h.p. 2.6 cents 1.8 cents .8 cent .7 cent .6 cent .5 cent 50 to 99 h.p. 2.4 cents 1.8 cents .8 cent .7 cent .6 cent .5 cent 100 h.p. or over 2.3 cents 1.7 cents .8 cent .7 cent .6 cent .5 cent Minimum charge: First 10 h.p. at .115 per h.p. per year, but not under .S30 jxt year. All over 10 h.p at $12 per h.p. i)cr year. Southern Ciilifurnia Edison Company. Territory, Visalia, lOxeter, I^cmoii Cove, Lindsay, I'ortcrvilic, Tulare. Rale: Rate per k. w.h. for connected load — Annual consumption per horsepower 1 to 4 h.p. 5 to 14 h.p. 15 to 49 h.p. 50 to 99 h.p. 100 lip. or over First 1000 kw.h. 2.7 cents .9 cent 2.5 cents .9 cent 2.3 cents .9 cent 2.2 cents .9 cent 2.1 cents All over 1000 k w h. .9 cent Minimum charge: First 10 h.p., $15 per liorsepower per year but not less than $30. All over 10 h.p. $12 per horsepower per year. u- . * m . i . Discount: Above rates excepting nnnimum charge are subject to 10 per cent discount. COST OF WATER TO IKKKIATOKS. 37 Optional Rate: Size of installation 1 to 4 h.p 5 to 14 h.p l."> to 4!) h.p ")0 to 00 h.p 100 h.p. and over- Annual charge ])er h.p. J18 on If) 00 14 00 13 00 12 00 Additional energy rate per k.w.li. 0.9 cent .9 cent .9 cent .9 cent .9 cent Ton j)or cent discount on above rates. ('().s7 of fuel oil — A few enj^ine-tlriveu i)laiits iiicludod in the tests used for fuel distillate costing 12 cents per gallon. Attendance — Many farmers do not consider the expense of attendance as ]->art of the cost of operating a plant as they spend at odd moiiHuits the time necessary. Such time should l)e charged to the annual cost of water just as though the irrigator had hired the work done. The attend- ance charge for distillate plants will vary somewhat depending upon the type and size. Motor-driven plants require very little attendance and for the purpose of comparing costs this item will be taken as 4 cents per hour of operation. Fixed charges — Interest on capital invested, taxes, insurance, deprecia- tion, renewals, maintenance, and repairs may be considered as repre- senting fixed charges and properly included in the annual cost. The cost of a complete pumping plant, including motor or engine, pump, well and casing, installation, and other items, represents a capital which if invested in reliable securities would produce an interest income. Information on the cost of a plant can usually be obtained from the owner, but very seldom the other fixed charges. Some farmei-s carry no insurance on their plant and keep no records of renewals, maintenance and repairs. There may be considerable variation in the fixed charges depending upon the rate of interest, type of plant, and care of machinery. For estimating them, a uniform percentage of total cost of plant was used throughout, in order to make possible a comparison of various plants tested. These figures are shown in Table 29. It is believed they represent average pumping plant conditions. TABLE as— ESTIMATED FIXED CHARGES FOR PUMPING PLANTS. Interest. Taxe." and insurance Kepairs anil niaintonanoe.. Depreciation and renewals. Totals Electric plants 6 per cent 1 per cent 1 per cent 7 per cent 15 per cent Distillate plants per cent 1 per cent ■i per cent 10 per cent 20 per cent PUMPING PLANT TESTS. I)ischani( — Wiierevei- jiossible the (piantity of water being lifted by the pumj) was measured l)y a poitai)le steel weir either of the rectangular or the 90-degree triangular notch type. The discharge was determined 38 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. fi'oin standard wo'iv tahlos, In some cases the "color nicthod"* was used in measuring the chscharge. Lift — The working head was determined by use of pressure^ and vacuum gages for some plants, while in other cases it was measured directly with an electric sounding line especially designed for the purpose. Power — The number of kilowatts consumed per hour by the electrical plants was computed from the speed of the meter disk and the meter constant. The disk was timed by a stop watch. Plant efficiency — The plant efficiency was computed from the measure- ments made of discharge, lift, and power input. For the electric plants it is the ratio of the water horsepower to the electrical horsepower input at the motor. Description of plants — It was not the purpose of this investigation to make complete mechanical t(\sts of pimij^ing plants and for this reason measurements not essential in determining the cost of pumping were omitted. Each plant tested is described briefly below: Plant 1. Location — Two miles north of Dixon on highway. Plant — lO-horsepower General Electric motor; ilirect-connected to a .')-inch Krogh centrifugal pump. Pit 29 feet deep. C:'o.s<— Complete plant $1100. Remarlcs — In 1922 plant operated 570 hours and iJUinpcd ;!1.!> acre-feet of water. Inefficiency of plant estimated at 42.3 per cent. Plant 2. Location — Eight miles north of Dixon. Plant — 15-horsepower General Electric motor; direct -connected to a No. G Krogh, Type B, pump. Cost — Complete plant $750. RemaH'K — In 1922 plant opcu-ated 955 hours and pumped 139.5 acre-feet of water from Putah Creek. Plant efficiency estimated at 60 per cent. Plant 3. Location — Two miles from Dixon on highway. Plant — 7j-'2-horsepower Cieneral l<]lectric motor; dircct-comiecled to a l-incli Krogli pump in pit. CW— Complete plant $d 1215 liours and pumped SS.S acre-feet of water in 1922. f].stimated plant eflicicncy IS. 5 per cent. *Thc Flow of Water in Concrete I'lpc, Ij.v Fred C. Scobey, Bulletin So2, U. S. I). .\., paKc IS. COST OF WATKK TO IHKKiATOKS. 39 PLATE VI. Fig. 1. Xevvly-built storage diim of Palmdale and Littlerock Irrigation Districts. Fig. 2. R.-low San Itimas Wash — an unusually nrolific underground water- Ijearing area tapped by mai»y irrigation pumping plants. 40 DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS. Plant 5. Location — One and one-half miles north of Dixon. Plant — 30-horsopo\vor Watjnor motor; dirert-connoftod to 7-iiich Krogli r-cntrifiigal pump. Cos/— Complete plant $1500. Remarks — In 1922 plant operated 1366 hours and i)uinped 258.3 arre-feof of water. Plant ofRcienfy estimated at 42.5 per cent. Plant 6. Location — Two miles northwest of Dixon. Plant — 35-horsei)ower (ieneral Electric horizontal motoi'; direct-connected to a No. S-B Krogh pumj) in i)it 25 feet deej). Cos<— Complete plant $2450. Remarks — In 1922 plant operated 1710 hours and piuni)ed ;]42 acre-feet of water. Plant efficiency estimated at 42 per cent. Plant 7. Location — Two and one-half miles northeast of Dixon. Plant — 25-horsepower Western Electric motor; connect (>d to Laync-liowler Ti-inch turbine pvunj). Cos<— Complete i)lant $2450. Re)nnrks — In 1922 i)lant operated 1246 hours and iiumped 19S acre-fet^t of wat(M-. Efficiency of i)lant estimated at 37 per cent. Plant 8. Locatio7i— One and one-half miles northeast of Dixon. Plant — 50-horsepower Westinghouse motor; belt-connected to a 12-inch Layne-Bowler turbine pump. Cos/— Complete plant $2450. Remarks — In 1922 plant operated 1740 hours and pumped 365 acre-feet of water. Plant efficiency estimated at 34.6 per cent. Plant 9. Location — Near Dixon, Solano County. Plant — 25-horsepowcr Western Electric motor; l)elt-connected to a 12-iiiili Layiie- liowler turbine i)uinp. Cos/— Complete plant $2450. Remarks — In 1922 plant operated 925 hours and pum])ed 1 19-acre-i'eet of water. r]fficiency of plant estimated at 32 i)er cent. Plant 10. Location — One and one half miles northeast of Dixon. Plant — 15-horsepo\ver (Jeneral I'llectric motor; direct-connected to a n-incli i^yron- Jackson centiifufi;al punij). Cos/- Complete plang $1000. Remarks — In 1922 plant operated 920 hours and iJimiped 60.7 aci-e-feel of water. Efficiency of i)lanl estimated ;it 29.7 per cent. Plant 11. Location — Two and one-lialf miles nortlieast of Dixon and one mile from highway. Plant — 10-horsepower l-'ort Wayne motor; direct-comiected to a 5-incli centrifugal Price ])ump. COST OF WATER TO IRRIGATORS. 41 Cos/— Complete plant SI 235. Remarks — In 1922 plant operateil 031 hours and piunpecl .59.1) acre-feet of water. Plant efficiency estimated at o2.6 per cent. Plant 12. Location — Two miles northea-st of Dixon. Plant — 25-hor.sepower General Electric motor; connected to a 12-inch Layne-Bowler turbine pump. Cos/— Complete plant $24.50. Rtni(irk'< — P^stimated that plant operated 499 hours and pumped S4.9 acre-feet of water in 1922. Efficiency (tf plant cltimateil 39. .5 per cent. Plant 13. Location — One mill' north of Di.xon, just east of highway. Plant — 10-hor.sepower rebuilt motor; direct-connected to a .5-incli Krogii pump. Cos/— Complete plant §800. Remark.^ — Plant operated 2417 hours and pumped 221.3 acre-feet of water in 1922. Efficiency of plant estimated at 39 per cent. Plant 14. Location — University farm at Davis. PZ«/(/—3.5-horse power (ieneral Electric motor; vertical direct-connected to a r2-inch Byron-Jackson turbine pump in a 14-foot pit. Cos/— Motor, $600; pump. $1200; well and casing, $640; installition, $100; addi- tional items, $150; complete plant $2690. Remarks — In 1922 plant operated 608 hours and pumped 56.29 acre-feet of water. About 44.14 acre-feet was u.sed for irrigation on 15 acres of alfalfa and 12 acres of orchard. Plant 15. Location — Three-fourths mile west of Davis. Plant — 25-horsepower General Electric vertical motor; direct-connected to a 12-inch Layne-Bowler deep well turbine pump. Co.s/— Motor. $756; pump, $1300; well and casing, $1300; installation, $200; complete plant $3556. Remarks — In 1922 plant operated 213 hours and pumped 12.6 acre-feet of water. Efficiency of plant estimated at 15.2 per cent. Plant 16. Location — Three and one-half miles ea.st of Davis on .south side of highway. Plant — 10-hor.sei)ower Fairbank-s-Morse motor; belt-connected to a 5-inch Byron- Jackson centrifugal pump in pit. Cost — Complete plant $1000. Retnarka — In 1922 plant operated 362 hours and pumped 44 acre-feet of w^ater. Plant efficiency estimated at 62 per cent. Plant 17. Ijocalion — Two miles east of Davis on highway. Plant — 20-horsepower Fairbanks- .Morse motor; boit-comiccted to a 12-inch Layne- Bowler piunp. Cos/— Complete plant $2500. Remarks — In 1922 plant operated 404 hours and pumped 2S.7 acre-feet of water. .\bout half the pumping w;i.s to eliminate sand. Efficiency of plant e.stimated at 15.4 per cent. 42 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. Plant 18. Location — Three miles east of Davis and north (jf highway. Plant — 20-horsepo\ver Fairhanks-Morse vertical motor; (lircct-coiinerted to a r2-inph Layne-Bowler turbine pump. ro.s/— Motor, $625; pump, $1100; well and casing;, $500; complete plant $2225. Remarks — In 1922 i)lant operated 319 hours and pumped .V.i.'^ acre-feet of water. Efficiency of plant estimated at 4ti.S per cent. Plant 19. Location — Two miles east of Davis on a road one mile north of hifrhway. Plant — 20-horsepower General Electric motor; belt-connected to a 12-inch Layne- Bowler turbine pump. Cos<— Complete plant $1100. Remarks — Tn 1922 plant oi)erated :U4 hours and pumiicd 2:^.3 acre-feet of water. Plant efficiency estimated at 25 per cent. Plant 20. Location — I'niversity farm at Davis. Plant — 25-horsepower General Electric vertical motor; direct-connected to a r2-inch Byron-Jack-son turbine ]jumi). Cos/— Motor, $450; jjump, $14-40; well and casing, $500; installation, $200; complete plant $2590. Remarks — In 1922 plant operated 627 hours and pumped 62.84 acre-feet of water. Efficiency of plant estimated at 56 per cent. Plant 21. Location — Two and one-half miles from Woodland on Knights Landing highway. Plant — 100-horsepower General Electric motor; belt-connected to a 12-inch Byron- Jackson centrifugal pump in pit. Co,s/— Complete plant $12,000. Remarks — In 1922 plant operated 1194 hours and ])umped S30 acre-feet of water. Efficiency of ])lant estimated at 25.1 i)er cent. Plant 22. Location — Three miles east of ^^'intcrs on highway. Plant — 40-horsepower Wagner motor; connected to an S-imli rniicil Ti-on \\'niks horizontal centrifugal jjiunp. Cos<— Complete plant $3000. Remarks — In 1922 plant operated 597 hours and i)umped 17.S acre-feet of water. Efficiency of plant estimated at .'0 jxt cent. Plant 23. Lijcdtion — Two miles east of \\'intcrs on highway. Plant — 16-horsepower Rawleigh Schryer .single-cylinder horizontal distillate engine; belt-connected to a (i-indi horizontal American i)Uiiii) in jiil. ro.s/— Complete i)lant .S2()()0. Remarks — In 1922 plant oix-rated 15.3 hours and i)umpcd 70.1 acre-feet of watci-. I'sed 132 galhnis of distillate per hour at 12 cents a gallon. I'lfiiciency of plant estimated at 37 per cent. COST oi' \v.\'ri:K r(.» ikkkiators. 4^ Plant 24. LocaHon — One and one-half miles cast of Wiiitirs on lii^jihway. Plant 20 horsepower Fonlson tractor blocked in place; belt-connected to a o-inch Byron Jackson vertical shaft ventrifufjal pump. ro.s7— I<:ngine, S450; pump, S4()(); well and casing, $401); complete plant $1250. Remarks — In 1922 plant operated 7.50 hours and pum])e3.5. Remarks — In 1923 o])cratcd (i3rial No. 3418. Cos;— Complete plant $.5000. Remarks — In 1923 plant operated 698 liours and pumjx'd 62.4 acre-fet-t of water. Estimated ])lanl efficiency 28.8 per cent. Plant 35. Ldtidion. -Three and one-half miles cast of S.an .lose on Alum Rock Road. Plant — .50-hor.sepower General Electric motor; l)ch-connccted to a \\'estcrn L\nl>ine [)ump in a pit 60 feet deep. C'o.s^— Motor, $11.50; pump, $1901); well and casing, $1201); .addition.al items, $200; Complete i)lant , $44.50. Remarks —In l'.)2.3 ])lant operated 740 hours and pumped IS.S acic-leet ol u;iter. Estimated i)lant efficiency 29.4 per cent. COST OF WA'l'KK TO IHHIUATOHS. 45 Plant 36. Location — First and Rincini streets in ("iunpln'll. Plant -I'-) liorsepowcr (Iriu^rnl KIcctric motor, coniicchHl (o ;i lO-imli l^iiync :uiJ Howler i)unii). Cos<— Complete i)hint SI 2,001). Remarks— \n \^'1'\ plant operated 1 iOli liours and puniptnl 1S4.S acre-feet of water. Sujiiilies some domestic water in addition to irrijiating 2S0 acres of orchard. Esti- mated plant ediciency 4:5.2 per cent. Plant 37. Locatinn — Saratoga Ave., eifiht miles from San Jose. Plant — lO-horsepower Wagner motor; type of ])umi) unknown. Trw/— Complete plant $4100. Remarks—In 192:5 plant operated 70S hours and pumixnl 57.S acre-feet of water. Estimated plant efficiency lUi.H per cent. Plant 38. L)calion — Four miles southeast of San Jose on McKee Road. Plant — 30-horsepower Western Electric motor; connected to Layne ami Bowler pump. Co.s-/— Motor, .?600; pump, .'i;2.500; well and casing, $4000; installation, $700; extra l^ipe $420; complete plant, $8220. Remarks — In 192:? i)lant operated 1010 hours and ])umped 40.8 acre-feet of water. Estimated efficiency of plant 32.1 per cent. Plant 39. Location — Cupertino, on Homestead Ave. Plant — .50-horsepo\ver General Electric motor; connected to a r2-inch Byron Jackson deep-well turlMne putnp. Co.s-<— Complete plant $7800. Remarks— In 192:i plant operated :;2() hours and pumpt'd 27 acre-feet of watei'. Esti- mated plant efficiency 40 per cent. Plant 40. Location — Five miles from San Jose on the road to Los Catos. P/a«<— 7.5-hor.sepower Westinghouse motor; connected to a Layne and Bowler i)ump. Co.s<— Motor and pump, $4990; comi)lete plant estimated at $8000. Remarks — In 192:5 phint operated :i()8 hours and pumped ()").() acre-feet of water. Estimated plant effi<'iency .52.(5 per cent. Plant 41. Location — Near Blaney Station at Cupertino. Plant — ;:0-hor.sepower Fairhanks-Mor.se motor; conni'cted to a 10-inch Wfstern \\unip, $4330; well, casiiut, and installation. $9820; coinpjcte l)lant, $15,400. Remarks — In 1923 operated 1080 hours antl pumi)ed 7'.!. 2 acic-fccl of wati-r. Plant 47. Location — On Quito Road, Santa Clara \'alley. Plant — .50-hor.sepower General Electric motor; connected to a Layne and Bowler pump. Cost—MoioY, $1150; pump. .S32()0; complete i)lant estimated at $9000. Remarks — In 1923 plant operated 623 hours and j)umi)ed 38.7 acre-feet of water. Plant 48. Location — Lexiton Road and Homestead St., Santa Clara. Piorti— 30-horsepower Westinghouse motor; belt-connected to a Xo. (i Bean two- stage vertical centrifugal pump set iti a concn-te pit (i by (i In- 50 feet. CW -Complete plant .$3250. Remarks — .\mount of water pumjied and lioius operated could not be ascertained. Capacity of p\inip l.;58 eu. ft. per second. COST oi' \V.\Ti:ix' 'I'o IlxM{r(;.\TOKS. 47 PLATE VII. Fig. 1. Bear Valley Dam in the San Bernardino Mountains, storing irrigation water for important citrus areas in San Bernardmo County. Kit;. 2. H.niet Dam, Riverside County, l.uill lo supply irrigation water to tlif vicinity of Hemet. 48 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. Plant 49. Location — Two miles east of Morgan llill, Santa Clara County. Plant — 40-horsepower General Electric submersible motor, connected to a seven stage 9j^-inch Byron Jackson turbine pump. Cos<— Complete plant $4400. Remarks — In 1923 operated 1910 hours and puiiiiiod 76.4 acre-feet of water. Esti- mated plant efficiency 48.2 per cent. Plant 50. Location — San Martin, Santa Clara County. Plant — 40-horsepower Fairbanks-Morse motor; coiuioctod to a Campbell-Budlong deep-well special pumj). Cos<— Complete plant $4478. Remarks — In 1923 plant operated 369 hours and pumjied 64.9 acre-feet of water. Plant efficiency estimated at 33.7 per cent. Plant 51. Location — San Martin, Santa Clara Comity, one mile east of S. P. R. R. on Church Ave. Plant — ^15-horsepower General Electric motor; direct-connected to a Byron Jackson 10-inch pump. Cost — Motor and pump, $1640; complete plant $3130. Remarks — In 1923 operated 186 hours and pumped 16 acre-feet of water. Estimated efficiency of plant 44.8 per c^ent. Plant 52. Location — Gilroy, on Church Ave. Plant — 20-horsepower Robbins-Meyers motor; belt-connected to a 10-inch Western turbine pump. Cost — Motor, pump, well, casing, and installation, $2600; additional items, $100; complete plant $2700. Remarks — In 1923 plant operated 285 hours and j)umped 26.6 acre-feet of water. Plant efficiency e.stimated at 26 per cent. Plant 53. Location — Gilroy, on Church Ave., one half mile east of S. P. R. R. Plant — 20-horsepower Crocker-Wheeler motor; belt-connected to a Western dee])-we]l turbine piunp in pit 40 feet deej). Co.s<— Motor, $390; pump, $1400; well and casing, $485; installation, $40; house, .$.50; complete plant $2365. Remarks — In 1923 operated 911 hours and pumped IOC) acre-feet of water. Plant efficiency estimated at 32.7 per cent. Plant 54. Location — Gilroy, state highway and Church Ave. Plant — .30-horsei)ower Faiibank.s-M()rs(> motor; iM-lt-connected to a 7-inch Campbell- Budlong deei)-weli turl)ine pump. Cost — Motor and i)ump, $1600; well and casing, $1000; installation, $70; hou.se, $40; complete plant .$2710. Remarks — In 192:5 phuit operated ,532 hoiu's and jumiped 88 acre-feet of water. l%fTi- ciency of ])lant estimated at 27.9 per cent. COST Ol'^ WATKR TO IRKKIATOKS. 49 Plant 65. Location — 3 miles northeast (if W atsoiivilli". Plnnt — 7'-2-horsepowpr Westinshouso horizontal motor; direct-connected to a United Iron Works pump. Source of water, Pinto Lake. Cofit — Motor, pump, and i)ii)e, .So.')0; installation, $50; complete plant .§400. Rcuinrks — In HV23 plant operated 481 hours and pumi)ed 32.."? acre-feet of water. Plant efficiency estimated at 27.0 per cent. Plant 56. Location — Watsonville on Beach Road. Plant — l.'i-horscpowcr Fairbanks-Morse motor; connected to a Bean horizontal centrifugal pump. Artesian well. Cos<— Motor, ?r>00; complete phmt -SIOOO. Remarks — In 1923 plant operated 339 hours and pumped 30.8 acre-feet of water. Efficiency of plant estimated at 50 per cent. Plant 57. Location — One mile east of Watsonville. Plant — 20-horsepower Fairbanks-Mor.se horizontal motor; direct-connected to a tVinch Fairl)anks-Morse pump, in concrete pit 10 feet deep. Cost — Motor and i)ump, SS40; well and casing, S725; pit and additional items, .S7o0; electric work, $90; complete plant $2405. Remarks — In 1923 plant o])erated SOB hours and i)umppd 129.7 acre-feet of water. Plant efficiency estimated at .50.(5 per cent. Plant 58. Location — Two miles south of Chualar, Monterey County. Plant — 20-horsepow'er General Electric horizontal motor; direct-connected to a Xo. 6 Byron Jack-son side-suction pump in wooden pit 18 feet deep. Cost — Motor and pump, SlSoO; pit, house and in.stallation, $500; complete plant S2350. Remarks — In 1923 plant operated 3910 hours and pimiped 712 acre-feet of water. Estimated efficiency of plant 49.5 per cent. Plant 59. Location — Eight miles west of Modesto, Stanislaus County. /^/^/>//— 20-horsepowcr Robbins-Meyers motor; direct-connected to a 10-inch Byron Jack.son type S horizontal dout)le-suction i)ump set in a contTetc pit 12 feet deej) . Source of water Tuolumne River. Co.s/— Complete plant $3403.0(). Remarks — In 1923 plant operated 1007 hours and pumped 562 acre-feet of water. Plant 60. Location — Soiith of Turlock allotment 00, Delhi State Land Settlement, Merced County. Plant — 20-hors<.'power V. S. motor; connected to a Sterling I'nitype turbine pump. Co.s<— Complete plant $1.5tMl. Remarks — In 1923 plant operated 3330 hours and pumped 532 acre-feet of water. E.stimated efficiency of pump 35.3 jxt cent. 50 DEPARTMENT OF Pl'BI.rr WORKS. Plant 61. Location — One mile west of Delhi, Merced County. Plant— \b horsepower U. 8. motor; connected to a Sterling tmhine pump. Drainage well. Cos<— Complete plant $1500. Remarks— In 192;{ plant operated 4140 hours and i)umped 538 acre-feet of water. E.«:timated efficiency of plant 40 per cent. Plant 62. Location — Several miles northeast of Delhi, Merced County. P/a///--15-horsepo\ver ^^'estinghouse motor; direct-connected to a Byron Jackson vertical centrifugal pump in a concrete pit. Pumps water from a canal. Cosi— Complete plant $1200. RemarkH~ln 1923 plant operated 619 hours and pumped 126.8 acre-feet of water. Estimated efficiency of plant 60.7 per cent. Plant 63. Location — One mile west of Chowchilla, Madera County, on 13th Road. Plant — 3-hor.sepower Fairbanks-Morse motor; comiected to a Krogh centrifugal pump in pit. Cos<— Motor, $200; pump, $300; well and casing, $50; installation, $50; complete plant $600. Retnarks — In 1923 estimated plant operated 656 hours and pumped 24.2 acre-feet of water. Plant efficiency estimated at 24.2 per cent. Plant 64. Location — One-half mile west of Chowchilla, Madera County, on Robertson Road. Plant — 10-horsepower Westinghouse motor; connected to a horizontal centrifugal pump. Cost — Motor and pump installed, $850; well and casing $300; additional items, $150; complete plant $1300. Remarks — In 1923 plant operated 1084 hours and pumped 42.3 acre-feet of water, lifting water 3 feet higher than surge level. Estimated efficiency of plant 34.8 per cent. Plant 65. Lucation — Four miles east of \'isalia on Porterville Road. Plant — 10-horsepower Westingh()u.se motor; connected to a No. 5 Fresno pump in pit 6 feet deep. Cost — Motor and puni)), $1000; w(>l! and ca.sing, $150; installation, $100; pit and house, $100; complete plant $1350. Remarks — In 1923 plant operated 872 hours and pum])cil 102.8 acre-feet of water. Estimated efficiency of i)lant 45.7 per cent. Plant 66. Location — Two miles north of Exeter. Plant — 7j^-hor.sepower Fairl)ank..s-Mor.se motor; direct-connected to a Bean horizontal centrifugal ])vnnp, set in an elliptical concrete i)it 25 feet deep. Cos<— Motor and pump, $1()()(); well, $139; pit, $133; complete plant $1300. Remarks — In 1923 |)lant operated 1638 hours and jjumped 36.9 acre-feet of water. Plant efficiency estimated at 19.6 per cent. COST oi'' \v.\'n:K' lo iK'ixicA'roix's. 51 PLATE VIII. Fig. 1. A typical irrigation reservoir of tlie footliill belt near Pomona, filled from pumping plant. !*Sf* Fig. J. Cro.ss-lurrow IrriKutlon of walnuts in Oranee County. 52 DEPARTMENT OP" PUBLIC WORKS. Plant 67. Location — Two and one-luilf milos from Exetei' on highway to Lindsay. Plant — 3-horsepower Century motor; connected to a No. 3 Standfield-McKnight deep-well plunger pump. Cost — Motor, puni]), and insstallation, $983; well and casing, $491; additional items, $.50. Reinarks — In 1923 i)lant operated 224t) hours and i)um])e(l 22.2 acre-feet of water. Plant efficiency estimated at 10. S per cent. Plant 68. Location — Four miles from Lemon Cove on E.xeter Highwa\'. Plant — 10-horsepower Fairhank-Morse motor; connected to a Bean S])ray vertical turbine pump. fW/— Complete plant $1410. Remarks — In 1923 plant operated 3025 hours and pumped 154 acre-feet of water. Plant efficiency estimated 05 per cent or more. Plant 69. Location — One-half mile north of Lindsay. Plant — 5-horsepower General Electric motor; connected to a Brisco-Morley pump. Cost — Motor and pump, $1200; well and casing, $450; additional items, $250; complete plant $1900. Remarks — In 1923 ])lant o])(>rated 4405 hoiirs and iiumi)ed (il.ti acre-feet of water. Plant efficiency estimated 49.0 per cent. Pump i)ulled three times in 1923. Cover crop grown. Plant 70, Location — Six miles southeast of Porterville. Plant — 15-horsei)ower General Electric motor; connected to a Keystone deep-well double acting pump. Cosf— Complete plant $4500. Retnarks — In 1923 plant operated 3(530 hours and i)vuni)ed 69 acre-feet of wati-r. I'^fficiency of plant eltimated at 63.6 per cent. Plant 71. Location — Six miles .south of Tulare on highway. Plant — 15-hor.sepower Rol)l)ins- Meyers motor; direct-connected to a No. (1 Superior inmip in i)it 18 feet deep. Co.sY— Motor and pum]), .$1030; well and casing, $100; complete plant .et and the highest is 73 feet. The cost of the pumping plant, or capital invested, varies from $21.43 to $208.33 per acre. The minimuin duty of water for alfalfa is 1.21 acre-feet per acre while the maximum is 4.80. C^olumns 9, 8. 11, 11, 15, 25, 27, and 29 in Table 30, will be summarized in Table 31. The distillate plants numbers 23, 24, and 25, are not included. TABLE 31 SUMMARY OF COST OF PUMPING FOR ELECTRIC PLANTS TESTED IN SACRAMENTO VALLEY. Lift, feet Time oper- ated, hours Area irri- gated, acres Duty of water per aere, acrc-ft. Cost of plant per aere Annual cost of water I'er ac. ft. Per acre Per aere-ft. per ft. lift Miniiiiuni- . Maxiiuuni . 7:1 213 2,417 7 2(J0 ().()7 4.80 $0 77 20s 33 .S2 M -)-. 31 S3 01 4.5 63 $0 0(5") 1 317 Manv of 1I1C i)lants in this section operate only a small portion of the irrigati<)n season. This would indicate that the capacity of such plants is too large for the acreage irrigated. Tlu> numb(>r of hours operattnl could be increased several times and th(^ acreage irrigated might be expan- ded accordingly. This would decrease the fixed charges per acre irrigated and per acre-foot of water pum|:)ed. The plant efficiency of the 25 pumping i)lants tested ranges from b5.2 to ()2 per cent. Three were below 20 pei- cent while ten were more than 40 per cent. 52 Locatioi Plant— deep- Co.st~y $50. Remark Plant Localio. Plant— turbi Cost—i Remark Plan Locatio Plant- Cost-] plan Retunrl Plan crop Locatic Plant- doul Cost— Remar Effi( Locatii Planl- pun Cost— Remar Effic Luailii Plant- wcll Cost— Reniai Kffii hou COST OK \V.\Ti:i{ ro IKKKIATOIJS. 53 COST OF PUMPING UNDER PRIVATE PUMPING PLANTS. Dcficription of Table 30— This table ha.s l)(>oii picparcd to show the annual cost of wntor to irrip:ators imdor 25 puni|)in{i; plants in the lower Sacramento \'alley for 1922. It also shows other pumping i)laiit data aiul factors affecting the cost of water. Most of the column headings are self-explanatory and will not be taken up in detail here. Column 16, "Power bill," includes minimum chaige pei' hoiscpowtM- installeil. energy charge per kilowatt-hour, and surcharge. Table 27 shows the power rates effective for 1922 in vSacramento Valley. Column 23. under "Fixed charges," includes all estimated fixed cliai'ges except interest on cost of plant which is shown in column 22. Table 29 gives these in tletail. Colmnns 24 and 25 show "Annual cost of water per acre-foot." Column 24 is equal to the summation of columns 20, 21, and 23. Column 25 is ecjual to coknnn 24 plus column 22, "Interest." Coknnns 26 and 27 show "Annual cost of water per acre." Colunm 26 is equal to cohunn 24 nudtiplied by the duty of water show^n in column 13. Column 27 is equal to column 25 multiplied by column 13. Summary of table 30 — Of the 22 electric pumping plants tested, 17 irrigate alfalfa entirely while 3 irrigate some alfalfa. The annual cost of water per acre for irrigating alfalfa ranges from S9.53 to S45.63. The cost per acre-foot varies from S2.91 to S19.09, whiU^ the cost per acre- foo^ per foot lift ranges from S0.065 to $0,355. The lowest lift is 30 feet and the highest is 73 feet. The cost of the punij^ing plant, or capital invested, varies from S21.43 to .S208.33 per acre. The minimum duty of water for alfalfa is 1.21 acre-feet per acre while the maximum is 4.80. Columns 9, 8, 11, 11, 15, 25, 27, and 29 in Table 30, will be summarized in Table 31. The distillate plants numbers 23, 24, and 25, are not included. TABLE 31 SUMMARY OF COST OF PUMPING FOR ELECTRIC PLANTS TESTED IN SACRAMENTO VALLEY. Mininiuni. Maximum. Time Area Duty of Lift, feet oper- ated, hours irri- gated, acres water per acre, acrc-f t . 30 213 7 f)7 73 2,417 200 4 80 Cost of plant l)er acre $.5 77 20S 33 Annual cost of water Per ac. ft. $2 81 .55 31 Per acre $3 01 4.1 63 Per acrc-f t. per ft. lift $0 0(5.5 1 317 M;iny of the i)lants in this section opiM-ate only a small portion of the irrigation season. This would indicate that the capacity of such plants is too large for the acreage irrigated. The numi)er of hours ojierated could be increased several times and the acreage inigat(Hl might be expan- ded accordingly. This would decrease the fixed charges per acre irrigated and per acre-foot of water pumperl. The plant efficiency of the 25 pumping j)lants tested ranges fn^m 15.2 to 62 per cent. Three were below 20 per cent while ten were more than 40 per cent. 54 1>E1'AKTME.\T OF i'i:BJdC WoKKS. Description of Table 32 — Tabulations in this table have been ('oini:)ile(l showing; the annual cost of water to irrigators under 47 pinnpinji; plants in Santa Clara X'alley, San Joaquin Valley, and in other sections of the state, for 1923. Other information on pumping plants and factors which affect the cost of water are also included in the table. The methods of compiling the data for Table 32 were similar to those used for Table 30. The rates for electrical power were diff(M-ent from those in effect in 1922. Table 28 shows the power schedules in detail for 1923. Summary of Table 32 — All the plants tested were driven by electricity. Fair comparisons of cost of pumping water in different sections are difficult to mak(\ as power schedules, local ground water conditions, and number of houi's of op(>ration, have a witle range of variation. The plant efficiency of the plants tested ranged from 19.6 to 65 per cent. Three were below 25 per cent, nineteen 40 per cent or over, and nine 50 per cent or over. Plants numbered 26 to 48, inclusive, in Santa Clara Valley, furnished water for irrigating deciduous fruit trees, and should give a fair indica- tion of cost of pumped water in that territory. Table 33 shows a summary of these plants. TABLE 33— SUMMARY OF COST OF PUMPING IN SANTA CLARA VALLEY. Lift, feet Time oper- ated, hours Area irri- acres Duty of water per acre, acre-ft. Cost of plant per acre Annual cost of water Per ac. ft. Per acre Per acre-ft. per ft. lift Minimum Maximum 29.0 208.0 326 1,910 46 300 36 2 23 $18 75 144 21 $4 04 56 34 .«5 34 33 08 $0 125 378 Pumping plants numl^ered 59 to 72 are scattered throughout San Joaquin Valley. Table 34 sunnnarizes the data for these plants. TABLE 34 SUMMARY OF PUMPING PLANTS TESTED IN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY. Minimum- Maximum. Time Area Duty of Lift, oper- irri- water feet ated, gated, per acre. liours acres acre-ft. 10.5 619 6 1 23 249.9 5,830 145 4.16 Cost of plant per acre $13 30 179 30 .\iinual cost of water Per ac. ft. $1 56 18 42 Per acre $6 96 48 08 Per acrc-ft. per ft. lift $0 040 301 Cost of pumped water for various crops — Only foui- plants in-igating citrus trees were tested, but thes(^ should give a fair idea of the cost of water foi- oranges in Central C'alifornia. TABLE 36 SUMMARY OF PUMPING PLANTS IRRIGATING CITRUS TREES. Lift, feet 'I'iriie iipcr- alcd, hours A rea irri- gated, acres Duty of water per acre, :icre-ft. Cost of plant per acre .\iiinia cost "f \ atcr Per ac. ft. Per aric Per acre-ft. per ft. lift Minimum _ Maximum 81.0 249.9 2,240 4,405 S 50 40.00 2 30 3 . 85 $35 25 179 30 $4 21 18 42 $16 22 48 08 $0 040 227 55 hceu tests ;ating table ■vhich VTRAL Per ;-ft. per t. lift $0 052 06O 061 t full »lants iping ?d to night iping ith a 1 the lount form such total and not. vater lules nt is in is ed if niers ibors nofit ities. ated s of how -ater alla- ial.* ng. TABLE 32. COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION IN CALIFORNIA. Private Electric Pumping Plants in Central Calirornia. 1923. San Jose San Jo9e San Jose Los Gatos - Santa Clara San Jose Mountain View., Santa Clara Santa Clara San Jose Campbell San Jose San Jose Cupertino Santa Clara Cupertino Cupertino Cupertino Los Gatoe Santa Clara Santa Clara Santa Clara Santa Clara Morgan Hill San Martin San Martin Gilroy Gilroy Gilroy Wataonville Watsonville Watsonville Chualar Modesto - Turlock Turlock Delhi.. _ Chowchilla Cbowcbtlla Visalia Exeter Exeter Lemon Cove Linilsay Porterville Tulare McFarlanil 1911 1919 1912 1905 1918 1920 1920 1920 1917 1922 1922 1023 1920 1914 1921 1917 1920 1923 1919 1919 1923 1923 1923 1922 1920 1909 1922 1922 1923 30 15 35 20 40 60 20 25 50 60 75 40 30 50 75 60 75 35 75 100 100 50 30 40 40 15 20 20 30 7H 15 20 20 20 20 16 15 3 10 10 3 10 S 15 15 10 52 404 210 412 495 265 342 254 281 912 1,069 1,001 665 300 355 150 170 Lake 154 170 270 River Canal 74 108 65 139 151 133 300 427 Pump 363 461 937 638 997 738 371 698 740 1,106 798 1,910 326 368 533 186 286 911 532 481 339 806 3,910 1,607 3,330 4,140 619 858 1,084 872 1,638 2,240 3025 4,405 3,030 3,350 5.830 29.0 39.2 48-0 70.0 71.0 74.0 84.0 85.4 88.0 103.8 131 5 139.0 144.5 149.0 162.0 173.0 195.0 208.0 '200.0 '200.0 60.0 207.0 53.0 67.9 41.0 43 5 45.0 20.2 40 48 3 46.2 10.5 27 3 34 a 23.4 25 8 56 28.0 48 5 81.0 104 2 128 249.9 45 90.0 1.98 1.12 2.62 0.48 3.20 1.28 70 1.58 1.07 0.78 2.00 0.86 0.29 0.99 2.13 0.76 2.80 0.42 1.68 1.73 0.88 0.74 1.38 0.48 2.11 1.03 1.12 1.39 1.36 0.81 1-09 1.93 2.18 4.18 1.90 1.56 2 46 0.45 0.46 1.41 0.27 0.11 0.61 0.17 0.22 1.06 0.41 .Acreage irrigated 48 50 90 60 280 82 57 76 300 170 Kind of crops Prunes Nursery... Prunes Orchard Pears, plums Fruit Fruit.. .-- Pears, plums Prunes, apricots.. Prunes, peaches. , Prunes, apricots-. Peaches, apricots. Prunes, apricots.. Prunes, apricots.. Orchard Orchard Prunes, apricots- Prunes, peaches. Prunes, peaches. Prunes, apricots.. Fruit.. Prunes — - Berries Prunes.. --. Prunes Prunes, altalfa... Truck, alfalta Apples, truck Apples, pears Apples, apricots.. AKalla Orchard, alfalfa. . Truck Peaches, apricots. Prunes, aUaUa Grapes Oranges Oranges Oranges Oranges -. .Alfalfa .Mfalfa, grapes 13 a 1.67 0.52 1.33 0.50 1.88 2.23 0.86 0.64 81 0.81 66 71 82 0,36 '0 50 0.57 '1.00 '0.60 44 0.78 0.44 0.43 '1.40 2.12 865 0.32 0.95 1.74 2 20 62 0.32 1.046 5.09 3.88 1 36 1 87 1.23 2 61 3 85 3.08 2 30 3.48 4 16 Cost of plant SI, 500 1,370 3,300 '2,000 f),535 6.400 2.800 7,434 5,000 4,450 12,000 4,100 8,220 7,800 '8,000 6,050 '8,000 4.900 15.400 '15.000 16.400 '9,000 3.250 4,400 4.478 3.130 2,700 2,365 2.710 400 1,000 2,405 2,350 3.403 1.500 1.500 1,200 600 1,300 1,350 1,300 1.521 1,110 1.900 4.500 1,130 1,450 $18 75 21 08 41 25 26 67 72 61 133 33 56 00 82 60 65 00 74 17 42 86 50 00 144 21 102 63 51 33 88 25 85 5b 100 00 70 65 122 22 59 71 62 60 !I6 43 38 80 67 75 6 45 10 42 19 40 16 78 23 48 100 00 41 95 24 55 43 33 179 30 35 25 95 00 150 00 13 30 36 25 Annual costs for plant S284 52 129 00 306 60 199 73 494 27 586 00 269 58 230 76 439 17 417 50 1,127 74 470 63 434 98 338 08 503 U 401 77 847 02 439 17 1.267 17 1,088 06 1,160 44 375 04 493 53 874 40 487 65 134 55 239 05 432 85 404 00 115 30 161 00 398 10 1,200 04 451 04 481 93 446 46 121 42 71 53 202 22 144 65 185 94 90 59 317 99 206 15 405 93 500 77 457 61 J32 80 14 52 18 16 37 48 25 52 39 88 29 52 14 84 27 92 29 60 44 24 31 92 76 40 13 04 14 72 21 32 47 20 35 60 38 08 36 72 43 20 24 92 24 00 76 40 14 76 7 41 11 40 36 44 21 28 19 24 13 56 32 24 1,56 40 64 28 133 20 165 60 24 76 26 24 43 36 34 88 65 52 89 60 121 00 170 20 145 20 134 00 233 20 Fixed charges i90 00 82 20 198 00 120 00 392 10 384 00 168 00 446 04 300 00 267 00 720 00 246 00 493 20 468 00 480 00 363 00 480 00 294 00 924 00 900 00 924 00 540 00 195 00 264 00 268 68 187 80 162 00 141 90 162 60 24 00 60 00 144 30 141 00 204 18 90 00 90 00 72 00 36 00 78 00 81 00 78 00 91 44 81 60 114 00 270 00 07 80 87 00 ■'S SI35 00 123 30 297 00 ISO 00 588 15 576 00 252 00 669 06 4,W 00 400 50 1,080 00 369 00 7.39 80 702 00 720 00 544 50 720 00 411 00 1,386 00 1,350 00 1,386 00 810 00 292 50 396 00 403 02 281 70 243 00 212 86 243 90 36 00 90 00 216 45 211 50 306 27 135 00 135 00 108 00 51 00 117 00 131 50 117 00 137 16 126 90 171 00 405 00 101 70 130 50 .\nnual cost per acre-foot pumped $2 12 3 78 2 88 5 28 2 92 5 48 6 24 4 71 7 04 8 55 6 10 8 14 29 12 52 8 58 11 75 3 08 14 12 9 52 8 24 14 65 9 69 11 45 7 51 8 41 4 59 3 57 5 23 3 07 1 68 80 91 83 96 2 96 4 78 1 41 5 04 4 08 2 06 3 35 5 88 1 69 2 75 SO 24 43 17 99 15 37 68 30 45 61 24 65 1 63 48 22 62 17 1 14 29 28 54 64 1 00 23 45 43 34 2t 60 44 25 22 11 25 31 20 1 08 1 02 34 1 78 4 04 78 2 86 2 10 45 1 40 $0 67 2 42 1 86 3 17 2 31 3 59 3 89 9 10 4 81 5 47 3 89 4 25 10 53 17 33 7 32 10 62 1 75 9 46 6 94 6 81 11 67 13 95 3 45 4 14 11 73 6 09 1 34 1 85 74 1 95 1 11 20 36 17 17 57 1 49 1 »( 79 2 U 4 12 55 1 85 3 91 23 52 23 $1 01 3 63 2 79 4 76 3 47 5 39 5 83 13 66 7 21 8 20 5 81 6 38 15 82 26 01 10 97 15 94 2 62 14 18 10 40 10 22 17 49 20 92 5 18 6 21 17 60 9 13 2 01 2 77 1 11 2 92 1 67 30 51 25 25 85 2 23 2 77 1 18 3 17 6 IS 82 2 77 5 86 34 78 Annual cost of vater «3 37 7 84 5 84 11 03 6 64 11 24 12 75 18 67 14 70 17 36 12 18 15 07 26 74 39 01 19 77 28 31 5 87 29 44 20 21 18 74 32 68 31 25 '12 59 17 63 13 95 26 46 18 54 6 43 7 60 5 28 8 59 4 99 2 20 1 45 1 41 1 39 2 01 6 27 8 57 2 93 9 99 14 30 3 66 8 98 13 84 2 48 4 93 S4 04 10 26 7 70 14 20 8 85 14 S3 16 64 27 77 19 51 22 83 16 07 19 32 37 27 56 34 27 09 38 93 7 02 38 90 27 15 25 .55 44 35 45 20 '15 61 21 08 18 09 38 19 24 63 7 77 9 45 6 02 10 ,54 6 10 2 40 1 81 1 58 1 56 2 58 7 76 10 41 3 72 12 10 18 42 4 21 10 83 17 75 2 71 5 45 SS 63 4 08 7 77 5 51 12 30 25 08 10 96 10 OS 11 90 14 06 8 04 10 70 21 92 14 05 9 89 16 13 5 87 14 72 8 89 14 61 14 3S 13 43 17 62 37 38 12 13 8 47 17 61 11 18 16 72 2 75 2 75 5 24 U 19 5 63 25 28 11 65 5 48 12 28 37 32 14 09 27 67 31 83 8 63 20 52 $6 73 5 34 10 21 7 10 16 64 33 OS 14 32 14 98 15 80 18 50 10 61 13 71 30 57 20 27 13 55 22 20 7 62 19 45 11 95 19 93 19 32 19 43 21 86 41 70 15 73 12 22 23 40 13 ,52 20 79 3 13 3 38 6 41 12 21 7 02 31 28 14 IS 6 96 14 88 48 08 16 22 33 37 40 84 9 43 Per acre-foot per foot lift $0 116 200 122 158 092 152 152 218 167 167 093 108 185 262 122 164 131 097 163 1.56 210 083 263 389 452 148 169 261 215 103 018 138 052 041 086 243 153 105 206 176 033 070 055 055 055 37104— facing p. 54 COST OF WATKK TO IRHKJATORS. 55 Tho cost of iiiiiialioii wnltT tor (Iccidiioiis tn^os has ali'^ady Ix'on shown in Table .S3, for Santa ( 'hiia \'all(\v. Tlicrc were not cnoufiih tests made in other districts to permit fair comparisons. In the summary of Table 30 tho cost of pumped water for initiating altalfa in lower Sacramento X'allev was discussed. The followiiifi table will i!;iv(> sununaiy of three typical plants shown in Table ;^2, which irrigate alfalfa. TABLE 36 SUMMARY OF TYPICAL PUMPING PLANTS IRRIGATING ALFALFA IN CENTRAL CALIFORNIA. Plant No. r,S. Plant Xo. 71. Plant Xo. 72. Time .\rpa Duty of Lift, oper- irri- water feet ated. gated. per acre. hours acres acre-ft. 46.2 3,910 140 5 09 45 3,350 85 3 48 90.0 5,830 40 4 16 Cost of plant per acre $16 78 13 30 .36 25 Annual cost of water Per ac. ft. $2 40 2 71 5 45 Per acre $12 21 9 43 22 68 Per acre-ft. per ft. lift $0 052 060 061 These are excellent illustrations of plants designetl to operate at full capacity. The fixed charges are reduced to a minimum as the plants irrigate larger acreages and operate a greater number of hours. Reducing overhead expenses — IVIany farmers do not utilize their pumping plants fully. Either the acreage under irrigation is small compared to the pump capacity or the plant is run only a portion of the time it might be operated. The irrigator may find it easier to run a large pumping unit for a few hours rather than to irrigate the same acreage with a smaller plant operating perhaps several days. But the interest on the capital investetl in the excessively large plant and the increased amount that must be charged to depreciation and other fixed charges, form considerable items in the total annual cost of irrigation water. In such cases the fixed charges generally amount to over 50 per cent of the total annual cost. Fixed charges such as interest, taxes, insurance, and depreciation go on continuously, whether the plant is operated or not. Some irrigators fail to realize this antl measure the cost of pumped water by the amount of their oil or electric power bills. Many power schedules have a demand or minimum charge which is paid whether the plant is run few or many hours. In cases where a larger pumping plant has been installed than is needed to supply the acreage irrigated, the situation may be remedied if more land can be brought under irrigation. In some instances farmers have increased the numl)er of acres covered by supplying neighbor.^ with water. However, care should be taken not to sell water for profit as private jilants entering such service may be declared public utilities. In some sections of the state mutual water companies or unincorporated associations have been formed to i-educe the overhead expenses of ))um|)ing. The value of the crop grown is the potent factor which determines how- high an irrigator can afford to pump water. However, before water can l)e pumped economically for the irrigation of any crop, the in.stalla- tion of the right type of pumping plant for local conditions is (essential.* *Farmer«.' nnllefin Xo 1404. TV S T) A., Pumping from Well.', for IrriRafion. by Paul A. Ewing. 54 Descrip showing 1 in Santa state, for affect the The mi used for those in ( 1923. Simim< Fair con difficult and num plant effi Three we per cent Plants water foi tion of CO of these TAI Minimum- Maximum. Punipi Joaquin TABLE Minimum.- Maximum,- Cost oj trees wei oranges TAI Minimum. . Maximum. Cost ok watkh to irrigators. o;> The cost ot inijiatioii wiitcr lor deciduous trees luis already been shown ill Table X], for Santa (Mara ^'alley. There were not onousW tests made in other districts to permit lair comparisons. In the summary of Table 'M) the cost of pumped water for irrifiating alfalfa in lower Saci'amento N'alley was discussed. The foUowinji; table will give summary of three typical plants shown in Table 32, which irrigate alfalfa. TABLE 36 SUMMARY OF TYPICAL PUMPING PLANTS IRRIGATING ALFALFA IN CENTRAL CALIFORNIA. Time .Area Duty of Lift, oper- irri- water feet ated, gated. per aere, - hours acres aere-ft. Plant No. 58. , . 46.2 3.910 140 5.09 Plant No. 71... 45.0 3,3.o0 85 3.48 Plant No. 72.. _ 90 5,830 40 4.16 Cost of plant per acre $16 78 13 30 36 25 .\nnual cost of water Per ac. ft. $2 40 2 71 5 45 Per acre $12 21 9 43 22 68 Per acre-ft. per ft. lift $0 052 060 061 These are excellent illustrations of plants designed to operate at full capacity. The fixed charges are reduced to a minimum as the plants irrigate larger acreages and operate a greater number of hours. Reducing overhead expenses — Many farmers do not utilize their pumping plants fully. Either the acreage under irrigation is small compared to the pump capacity or the plant is run only a portion of the time it might be op(M-ated. The irrigator may find it easier to run a large pumping unit for a few hours rather than to irrigate the same acreage with a smallcM- plant operating perhaps several days. But the interest on the capital invested in the excessively large plant and the increased amount that must be charged to depreciation and other fixed charges, form considerable items in the total annual cost of irrigation water. In such cases the fixed charges generally amount to over 50 per cent of the total annual cost. Fixed charg(>s such as interest, taxes, insurance, and depreciation go on continuously, whether the plant is operated or not. Some irrigators fail to realize this and measure the cost of pumped water l)v the amount of their oil or electric power bills. Many power schedules have a demand or minimum charge which is paid wlietlier the plant is run few or many hours. In cases where a larger pumping plant has b(>eii installed than is needed to supply the acreage irrigated, the situation may be remedied if nu)re land can be l)roiight under irrigation. In .some instances farmers have increased the number of acres covered by supplying neighi)ors with water. However, care should be taken not to sell water for profit as private plants entering such service may be declared public utilities. In some sections of the state mutual water companies or unincorporated associations have been formed to reduce the overhead expenses of pumping. The value of the crop grown is the potent factor which dettMinines how high an irrigator can afford to puini) water. However, before water can be pumped (M-onomically for the irrigation of any crop, the installa- tion of the right type of pumping plant for local contlitions is es.sential.* ♦Farmers" Bulletin No. 1404, U. S. D. A., Pumpinjt from Well.s for Irrigation, by Paul A. Ewing. 56 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. CAPITAL COST AND VALUE OF IRRIGATION WATER. Cost of irrigation systems — Under many irrigation districts the cost of developing water and building irrigation works is shown by the total authorized bonded inde])tcdness. However, before attempting to com- pare the bonded cost per acre of two districts it would be necessary to make a detailed study of the conditions in each case. The bonds for one district may cover a drainage system, a pipe or lined canal distribu- tion system delivering water to every 10 acres, and an expensive pumping equipment, while the other extreme may exist where the district bonds only cover a gravity system, without provisions for drainage or storage, and with unlined canals distributing water to every 160 acres. In Table 8, under column 18, the total authorized bonded debt per acre is shown. For northern California it varies from $12.63 to .186.53 per acre. The minimum in central California is $3.84 per acre, while the maximum reaches $107.92 per acre. In southern California the figures range from $26.50 to $100.22 per acre. The par value of the capital stock of mutual water companies ma}' show approximately the cost of developing water and building irrigation woi'ks. However, in some instances part of the construction cost was met by a bond issue, while in other cases the capital stock covered com- missions to promoters, profit to land agents, or cost of so-called water rights in addition to cost of works. In southern California the par value of stock per acre varies from $5 to $400, but the more common amounts are $50 and $100. per acre. For other sections of the state the par value of capital stock varies from $1 to $100 per acre. The investment in private electric pumping plants in Santa Clai-a Valley ranged from $18.75 to $144.21 per acre, with an average of $71.39 per acre. Plants tested in San Joaquin Valley showed costs ranging from $13.30 to $179.30 per acre. In the Sacramento Vallev the average cost of plants tested is $63.04 per acre, with range from $5.>7 to ,$208.33 per acre. Market value of irrigation ivater — Perhaps one of the best indications of the market value of irrigation water may be obtained from the selling price of shares of stock in mutual water companies organized to deliver water solely to their stockholders. In addition to the cost of developing watei", the market value is influenced by the sui)i)ly of and demand foi* the shares of stock, the appurtenance of stock, reliability of water sup{)ly, priority of rights, indebtedness, and annual cost of operation and main- tenance, as well as the value of agricultural crops which may be produced by irrigation, depending on the climate and locality. Probabl}' nowhere in the West has the vahie of irrigation water Ijecome better established than in southern California. The market value of stock of 29 of the 78 mutual water companies shown in Table 18, falls ])elow $100 per acre; 24 have a market vahu> of .$200 oi' mor(\ while 9 reach $300 or more. The late C. E. Tait, Senior Irrigation Engineer of the U. S. Bureau of Public Roads, made studies of the value of water in southern California covering many years, and was of tlu^ ojiinion that "gravity water as a class has a market at $1500 to .$2000 per miner's inch* or its etjuivalent amount, and under the most favorable combination of circumstances *Fifty miner's inche8=l ctuhic foot jier socoiitl. COST OF WATKK TO IRRIGATORS. '•) t $2o00 p pninpcd water is worth -SKHH) to SloOO for the same amount." There are several methods of cletermininfj; tlie market value of water per miner's inch. Perhaps the most common way is as follows: Under many mutual water comioanies a share of water stock is entitled to a definite portion of a miner's inch and this usually ranges from one-tenth to one miner's inch per share, where one share serves an acre of land. Thus the market value of a miner's inch of water may he determined hy dividing- the market value of stock per share, by the amount of miner's inches eacli share is entitled to. For example: If a share of water stock will sell for $300 and each share is entitled to one-fifth of a miner's inch, the market value of one miner's inch would be SI 500. The anK)unt of water to which each share is entitled, is not so easy to determine for some companies, while in others a shareholder may not receive all the water his stock calls for. For these reasons the market value of irrijiation water per acre-foot delivered may be a better means of showino- the value of water. This may be determined by divitling the market value of stock per acre by the average duty of water in acre-feet {ler acre for the system. Using the above method, the market value of iirigation water per acre-foot delivered for a few representative com- panies in southern California for the year 1922 will l)e shown. A syst(>ni delivering 4.3 acre-feet per acre from the Colorado River with a market \-alue of stock of S35.00 per acre has a market value per acre-foot of S8.14. Of the companies having a market value of stock of SlOO per acre, the duty ranges from O.oO to 2.00 acre-feet per acre; hence the market value per acre-foot varies from SoO.OO to S178.57. Another company having a market value of stock of $250.00 per acre and a duty of water of 2 acre-feet per acre would have a market value per acre-foot of $125.00. A company irrigating about 4000 acres of citrus trees, using 1.37 acre- feet of water per acre, and with a market value of stock $300 per acre, has irrigation water worth $218.98 per acre-foot of water. The enhanced value of land due to the intensive cultivation possible when water is used for irrigation, varies widely throughout Ctdifornia. In some sections of the state where rainfall is plentiful, limited crops may l)e profitably grown without irrigation; while in other parts of the sttde with very little rainfall, irrigated land worth several hundretl dollais an acre would l)e i)ractically worthless if deprived of its only available water supply. There are many instances where the increase in the value of land lias amounted to several times the cost of making the water available for its irrigation. From the standpoint of the irrigator, the enhaneetl value of land, due to irrigation, is largely determined by the inci-eased value of ci'ojis grown and by his investment in tlu^ water system. SUMMARY. Types of enterprises — Four kinds of enterprises. Public Utilities. Irriga- tion Districts, Mutual Water Companies, and Private Pumping Plants, have l)een considered in this report on the cost of irrigation water to farnuMs. Cost data for these types of enterprises are not always com- parable as their forms of organization are different, and comparisons between two systems of the same type of enterprise are often difficult to make because factors atTecting the cost of water have a wide lange of variation. 58 DEPARTMENT OF PI'BI.IC WORKS. Annual cost of irrigation watcr~Fov public utility wator companies tho miniinum cost of irrigation water per acre is SO.oti and the niaxiinuni $32.67. The cost per acre-foot varies from $0.30 to $25.14. These figures include interest on capital invested. For inigation districts the lowest cost of water per acre is .$0.90, and the higliest $24.69. The mininuini cost per arec-foot is $0.37 and the nuiximum $22.19. These costs do not include interest on retired l)onds. With the exception of two special districts the inteicst on retired bonds amounts to only a few cents. Under mutual water companies the lowest cost of water per acre is $0.83, the highest $60.07. The cost per acre-foot varies from $0.40 to $50.91. Interest on capital invested is included in these figures. For the private electric pumicing plants tested in Sacramento Valley in 1922 the cost of water per acre ranges from $3.01 to $45.63. The lowest cost per acre-foot is $2.81, the highest $55.31. The plants tested in central California in 1923 show costs varving from $3.13 to $48.08 per acre. The cost of water per acre-foot ranges fi'om $1.56 to $56.34. The lowest cost per acre-foot per foot lift is ^OM, while the highest is $0,601. Annual cost of icater for various crops — The following tal)l(>s give summaries of the cost of wat(>r under different types of enterprises in California for various crops: TABLE 37— SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COST OF WATER FOR CITRUS TREES. Annual cost of irrigation water Types of entfrprise Per acre Per acre-foot Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Public utilitie.s... . . $5 00 90 1 84 16 22 $32 67 24 69 60 07 48 08 $1 47 60 55 4 21 $25 14 16 35 50 91 18 42 Irrigation districts Mutual water companies Private pumping plants' •The figures given for private pumping plants are not comparable with other enterprises as they represent only a few plants in San Joaquin N'alley and are for 1923 while the others are for 1922. TABLE 38 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COST OF WATER FOR DECIDUOUS TREES AND VINES. Annual cost of irrigation water Types of enterprise Per acre Per acre-foot Minimum Maximun^ Minimum Maximum Public utilities. _ Irrigation districts $0 56 90 83 5 34 $25 14 24 69 41 28- 33,08 $0 30 53 40 4 04 $25 14 22 19 .Mutual water companies . 27 67 Private pumping plants'. . ._ 56 34 'The figures shown for private pumping plants are for Santa Clara Nnllej- in 1923 and are not com- parable with other enler|)rises. COST OF \v\ri;K lo ihkigatoks. 59 PLATE IX. Fr;. 1. .Murray J)ani. lielow t?an L>iegf) ; an impoi-laiil uiilt in ilu' t_'u.\anuica irrigation system. ".^.Vi. ./f<^ -* ^^. Fk;. L'. <'ontoiir irric^al i, .n ,.i cUrii.s orchard in tlio Vi.sla section of Sun Diego Co\inly. no DEPARTMENT OF I'l'lJlJC WORKS. TABLE 39 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COST OF WATER FOR ALFALFA. Types of cntpriiriso Public utilities Irrigation districts .Mutual water companies Private pumping plants'. Annual cost of irrigation water Per acre Miainiuni $0 56 90 S3 9 53 Maximum S25 14 21 00 41 28 45 63 Per acre-foot Minimuii $0 30 53 40 2 91 Maximum $2. 14 S !)() 16 82 19 09 'These figures are for 17 tested pumping plants in Sacramento Valley and arc not comparable with other enterprises. Cost of irrigation enterprises — Under irrigation disti'icts the authorized l)onded debt per acre has a wide variation. For northern Cahfornia it varies from S12.63 to S86.53 per acre. The mininuim in central Cah- fornia is $3.84 per acre, while the maximum reaches .$107.92 per acre. In southern California the figures range from $26.50 to $100.22 per acre. The par value of mutual water companies stock may indicate the cost of the main irrigation system. In southern California this value per acre varies from $5 to $400, but the more common amounts are $50 and $100 per acre. For other sections of the state the par value of capital stock varies from $1 and $100 per acre. For private electric pumping plants tested in Sacramento Valley th(^ average cost of plant per acre irrigated was $63.04. The cost varied from $5.77 to $208.33 per acre. In Santa Clara Valley the investment in pumping plants ranged from $18.75 to $144.21 per acre with an average of $71.39 per acre. Plants tested in San Joaquin Valley cost from $13.30 to $179.30 per acre. COST OF WATEK TO IRRKIAToHS. (11 PLATE X. Fir.. 1. Holder irrigation of alfalfa in Imperial Irrigation District. Fig. 2. Dredging silt from Inip the sufficiency and stability of the water supply, th(^ h^gal character of the water right, and last, but not least, the value of the products of irrigation. It is the latter that makes the value of water in soutliern California exceed that of any other part of \\\o arid region. The position has been taken by some who have struggled with ihv problems of fixing water rates under public utiliti(\s that if all tlie facts \v(Me known it would be found that the mai'ket value of water is nothing more than approximately the total spent in developing the water, and that the proper way to value a water right is merely to determine the cost of the woi'ks that mak(^ the water available. Without discussing here the proper basis foi' rate fixing under public utility water comijunies, it is certain that this theory is not suppoi't(Hl by the facts. As already suggested the present value of the stock of the older water compani(>s that constructed gravity systems at low cost por acre, generally nnich ex(;eeds the oj-igiiial cost, wiiile the stock of the later organizations, so many of which must punij) the water at greater annual cost of operation, has not appreciated nuich, if any. (conceding that part of the diffeicnce is due tf) water I'ights and amounts of indebtedness carried, both in favoi- of the okler systems, it is ckvuly aj)parent that the water user gives a r.;^ d that the 1 first f'ost. clop \vat(>r •ascs water loprociatcd d extended 1 coinpaiiy in-oundiiifi- !;ally make wlicrc this isetl to the land, and mt market ;ists under iter appnr- 2m and to andowners any share transfer of sion of its ler the last 3iit on the and they oimt. al in water ?r thev use The'^totai the sum of neluded, is the capital )ital stock; sed at any mpany are deduction the reason not to the ged to the lies do not provement 3 made on g expense. by ass ess- Mr capital mder state le revenues it of water water. i first and stock and .APPENDIX) COST OF WATER UNDER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IRRIGATION C M PANICS -1918. PREPABED Bv C. E TAIT. 2 Location 11 Tj-pc of company Area irrigated Capital stock Factors in coat of water Cost of water 4 1 1 I 5 1 6 D 1 7 i S i 1. 9 1 10 D i - ■ ^ ; 7i 11 11 : a, i i- i a- ; 1 12 g f r 13 rl ; i ■ a it 14 ll ; 2. 15 t s. i ■ 16 ll ll Is 11 17 Water rate 20 1} h For first aorc-foot Per acre for average amount used Per acre-foot for average amount used 1 Name of company 18 r 7 5" 19 1 1 t 21 l|i ; -si- ; a.1 22 4 1.1 ll i i 1 I : § 23 4 t ; t : r 24 a.2. M II ; S i t 25 t! ; S 26 fl ll ■ i : 1 27 4 si. li- lt 1 § Mutunl Mutunl Mutuul Mulunl Mulunl Mutual Mutual Umncorporutcd Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutunl Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutunl Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutuul Mutuul Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Muliml Mulunl Mutual Mutual Mutuul Mulunl Mutunl Mutual Mutuul Mutual DiflUict Mulunl Mutunl Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Muturil Mutual Mutuul Mutual Mulunl Mutual Muluul Muiuul Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mulual Mutual Mulunl Mulual Mutual Mutual Mulual Mulual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mutual Mulunl Mulunl Mulunl Mulunl Mutunl Mutual Mutual Public utility Public utility Public utility Public utility Public utility Public utility Public utility Public utmty Public utility PubUc utility Public utility Public utility Public utility Public utility niijiir utility 100 10 23 100 75 25 95 100 100 too 100 100 25 45 100 100 20 14 25 73 100 100 100 100 10 120 T.500 "V,921) 168 '""ioo" 800 120 8.000 4,000 3.9^9 269 600 2,850 1,000 1,110 1 08 i.ei 2,00 2,00 1,02 1 03 I 90 1 00 70 300 8.004 3.698 11.787 269 14,000 3,245 1,000 630 83,527 3,321 443 11)6 1,500 806 8,005 16.600 421 3.915 2,743 il50 2.160 .1,184 .5,034 600 10,000 3.582 226.000 2.500 no 1.2.59 222,450 2.30(1 2.08*: 3,909 12.288 730 1 ,000 1,282 1.123 400 1.920 500 $80 00 100 00 5 00 J 5 00 20 00 1.5 m .50 00 '31 81] 20 00 100 00 10(1 no IOO MO IOO on IOO 00 .5(1 110 ](j no lOIJ 00 HI 00 1 uo 100 0(1 10 IRI 50 on 10 on 100 00 50 (I'l IIJO (III 10 on 10 on 1(10 111! Hi 1)11 1 1)11 100 0(1 101) on lot) 1)1) 50 00 5 l)(J 50 (10 100 00 100 00 IOO 00 100 00 100 00 iioo'oo" 20 60 100 00 "is'oo 175 00 100 00 "26"66' 150 00 150 00 160 00 100 00 125 00 90 00 15 00 100 00 166' 66" 35 00 175 00 15 00 IOO 00 100 00 100 00 17 00 17 50 100 00 150 00 96 300 00 500 00 200 00 IOO 00 2 00 '"75'66' 100 00 ioo" 66" 200 00 1.00 1.00 0.92 3.00 1.00 10.00 1.14 1 00 57 9. 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1.09 1 00 1.50 B.64 100 4 00 2 00 1 00 5 68 1 00 10.00 1 00 3,00 1,19 12.55 74 20 1 00 150.00 1 to 1 00 1.00 2.00 1 46 1 00 1 28 1 12 1 33 i 00 1.00 S8000 100 00 IB 40 300 00 20 00 150 00 199 50 100 00 18 18 180 00 1.50 00 150 00 160 00 109 00 125 00 135 00 99 60 100 00 40 00 2 00 100 00 11,8 40 175 00 150 00 100 00 300 00 119 00 213 35 12 95 20 00 150 00 142 .50 300 00 500 00 200 00 200 00 2 92 50 00 w 00 112 00 133 33 400 00 200 00 S4 30 6 00 1 10 18 00 1 20 9 00 11 97 6 00 1 UU 10 80 9 00 9 00 60 6 54 7 50 8 10 5 98 6 00 2 40 12 6 00 11 90 10 50 9 00 6 00 18 00 7 14 12 80 78 1 20 9 00 8 55 18 00 30 00 12 00 12 00 18 3 00 5 76 6 72 7 99 24 00 12 00 None None $1 84 4 50 50 Nono 6 73 50 2 74 7 20 6 00 8 00 13 50 7 63 16 00 18 00 37 2 50 3 20 1 00 None 1 19 30 "5' 66" 12 00 9 25 9 41 24 5 00 6 00 None 4 00 80 9 00 None None 1 25 19 25 11 20 10 00 5 00 7 50 91 1 87 4 33 1 57 1 60 2 37 2 50 2 89 1 72 2 66 4 17 2 67 2 00 12 80 None None 1 00 1 68 8 64 None 10 None None 10 00 None 1 00 93 9 65 1 62 7 26 6 80 5 80 80 5 00 Nono 5 70 2 50 3 76 12 10 2 50 1 65 S 00 None 3 00 26 00 40 4 00 7 58 3 05 24 78 17 50 4 00 2 00 None 50 13 40 3 00 10.0015 .0079 ,0069 .0029 0125 0040 None None None None None None None None None None None None None None 0150 None ,0075 0150 ,0350 0021 None None 0208 None None ,0083 None ,0045 None .0100 0O42 0275 0300 0250 None None None $0 90 4 75 4 14 1 74 7 50 2 43 None None None None None None None None None None Noni; None None None 9 00 None 4 50 9 00 21 00 1 26 None None 12 50 None None 5 00 None 2 70 None 6 00 2 52 16 50 18 00 15 00 None None None $1 51 7 65 8 26 3 48 7 65 2 50 Noup None None None None None None None None None None None None None 6 48 None 5 04 24 39 16 .38 1 64 None None 3 75 None None 00 None 10 00 Noue 13 26 3 63 11 22 25 38 20 40 None None None ■"$125" ""675" ■"6'45" 1 13 1 60 55 2 47 75 35 4 33 ""3'35" 3 57 ■"'2"57" 80 1 33 1 00 ""2"6r '"io'oo" 11 20 8 33 4 17 6 00 10 00 4 75 5 98 5 49 8 00 2 43 6 73 60 2 29 $5 70 10 75 7 08 23 49 9 20 11 43 18 70 6 50 3 38 $1 51 6 40 10 12 7 23 8 15 2 50 73 60 2 29 $6 31 12 40 11 22 25 23 9 36 11 50 18 70 6 50 3 38 so 90 3 98 5 06 3 62 7 90 2 43 3 54 50 3 27 $3 76 500 2.500 7 70 Downey 1.500 6 61 12 62 A»u8a IrriBBting Co. 103 1300 2,850 900 10 11 17 Banning 9 85 6 50 4 S3 Bantu Ujtch Association BcafdBic* Water Ditch Co..,- Duarte 24 275 Bear Valley Mutual Water Co H<.il:.ll.l> --1- Rodiiinda Whitlier l.SOO 443 186 1,380 806 3,000 2,500 1,800 443 196 1.38U 806 3,000 2.500 400 1,000 1,350 1.000 380 4.000 400 COO 4,500 3.000 1.800 700 585 1.259 1.941 2,000 1.160 3.820 6,144 500 315 I.OOO 1.000 300 480 500 2 00 2 00 2.00 ■2 00 2 00 1 57 1 00 3 24 90 2 40 72 2 40 1 12 78 1.30 85 1,66 30 1 00 1 20 1 20 1 26 3 71 1 88 2 21 1 44 68 1 41 1 36 1 20 1 51 2,02 4 4Q 7 45 11 03 6 £8 10 65 13 67 37 2 60 3 2U 1 00 g 00 1 19 4 80 fl 00 26 00 91 5 68 41 12 74 2 43 5 20 4 tl7 3 00 3 .50 9 00 3 39 2 52 17 75 27 25 16 00 1 67 2 92 I 60 13 40 16 45 20 63 13 42 16 15 21 77 6 35 8 50 5 60 1 12 15 00 13 09 15 30 18 00 32 00 27 91 12 82 22 21 13 52 3 63 14 20 12 22 21 00 33 50 21 00 15 .39 2 70 20 75 33 01 21 72 9 66 26 92 13 50 4 40 7 45 11 03 6 88 10 65 13 67 37 2 50 3 20 1 00 6 48 1 19 5 34 24 39 21 38 ID 29 5 68 9 41 3 99 2 43 5 20 5 07 3 00 10 80 9 00 10 65 3 63 12 47 34 63 20 40 1 67 2 92 1 50 13 40 16 45 20 63 13 42 18 15 21 77 6 35 8 50 5 60 1 12 12 48 13 m 15 84 33 39 27 38 28 29 12 82 22 21 4 77 3 63 14 20 13 22 21 00 40 80 21 00 22 65 3 81 15 47 40 39 27 12 9 66 26 92 13 50 2 20 3 73 5 52 3 14 5 33 8 71 37 77 3 60 42 9 00 50 4 77 00 27 42 7 02 68 5 67 13 JO 2 43 4 33 4 22 2 38 2 91 4 79 1 82 2 52 18 33 24 58 15 00 1 i'i 1 03 74 6 70 8 23 10 32 6 71 i.!.i.,„ i ,;,.) v^.T-r'and pnwerca.v;.;:::;::: I(.',.i,ir,..i,i UtiJ Bnri Water Co iMiM^icrco .......:::::; f'ali(.inii:i-Micbipin land and Water Co. Cnrnna ... r\illr.Ti S;inta P:,i.la ";;". Moiirnvui North whittier.. .:::;:; \orbo Linda 13 IS 30 300 340 261 "2,661 00 1.065 10 08 9 91 "'"280 04 260 803 19 33 17 96 2! 98 HO ""ioo 9 00 Beaumont Bell " " 18 00 7 50 UmandaPark 20 62 '" 'aoo uoo "363 300 3,000 250 1.800 4.600 60 100 5.000 400 '"■574 550 "256 700 '125 ■ "2i3 ■■"066 250 ' "1,666 430 250 ""5,658 2,150 600 250 3 75 f ii\.,nM..> \\^U-r< u 6«nDicgo 10 89 San GaUi.-! \.,i:,, W .,u , r.. '"" Santa CUra War. , .,„.| im,. ,ri„n Co." Southern Caiif'.ri.L, I..I;-, ,1,1 ,, Sweetwater W^i.tC., Tujunga Water and PowprCo ','.'.'.'.'.'.'. Palndftle San Gabriel Batiooy Ventura National City LosAnaeles.-... 7 60 13 20 4 66 6 00 21 78 4 08 6 24 8 71 9 00 37104— factngp. 62 COST ()!•' WA'I'i:!; TO llJlx'KiAToKS. C)'i] (loei(l(Hl picfcrriicc to the system tlmt is oporatod cheaply and that the vahie, althoiij>;h infhienced hy, is not eiitii'ely dependent upon first cost. It is uiuie('(>ssary to say that no one would undertake to develop water at an (>stiinat(Ml cost exc(MMlin<2; its establislied value. In a few cases water slock has, thi'ou<>;h accidental or unl'orseen cii'cunistances, depreciated below its cost; such as in the case of a city that g,YQw out over and extended its domestic water service to tcM'ritory served by an inif>;ation company with little demand tor the iiTi<>;ation I'iohts because the suri'oundinfi' country was alread}' irrigated. In Califoi'uia a water company may under its by-laws legally make the water it controls appurtenant to the lands irrigatcnl; and where this l^i'ovision of the law, sustaiiK^l by the hiohest court, is exercised to the full extent, the water can not be sold separately from the land, and consequently does not in a natural way acquire an independent market value that is outwardly apparent, although such value exists under cover of the prices of the land. Some compani(\s make the water api)iu- tenant only to the (uitii'e tract to be irrigated by the system and to contiguous lands, and allow transfers of water between landowners within these bounds so that the user may invest only in so many share as he needs for the crop being grown. A third class of companies puts no restrictions on the transfer of stock and safeguards its locality by prohibiting the extension of its service to new territory unless approved by its directors. Under the last two classes of companies it is easy to determine the value put on the water. The water i-ights are worth $100 to $400 per acre and they represent one-eight to one-fifth miner's inch, a sufficient amount. Not only do the fruit growers invest large amounts of capital in water systems, but they also pay heavy annual charges for the water they use or that their shares in mutual companies entitle them to use. The total cost of the water delivered b}^ a conipan}" to a stockholder is the sum of two or three separate items. The first, although not always included, is a proper charge and is the interest on the market value of the capital stock; the second is the amount of any assessments on the capital stock; and the third is the amount paid for the (}uantity of water used at any toll or rate in force. If any part of the revenues of the company are applied to payments on the principal of bonds or loans, proper deduction must be made from the sum of the three items mentioned, for the reason that the payments on the pi-incipal belong to the cai)ital and not to the operating account. Only the interest on intlebtedness is charged to the annual cost of the water. Although in California all stock is assessable, some companies do not assess the stock every y(nu-, but only when some substantial improvement is to be made to their property or when paynuMits are to be made on bonds. They must chaige foi- the water to meet the running expense. Others make no chai'ges for the water and raise all revenues by assess- ments. Other mutual companies distinguish between their capital and operating accounts, as i)ublic service companies must do, under state regulation, and more consistently make the stock the basis of the revenues that affect the property and value of the stock and the amount of water used, the l)asis of the revemie to nuH>t the cost of delivering water. Of the three items that make the total cost of water, the first and second are fixed charges because they relate to the share of stock and 02 ^ The folio California" C. E. Tait, which appe; Department California ( taken from Mr. Tait. ' the end of 1920 by P\ ] and C.^E. T COST O In no par become bett California, water or it i pany. The capit deliyery to 1 reason the ^ title to wate from wells, miner's inch combination is worth $10 southern Ca second, and (1/40) part of making i arc the sufhc the water i-i irritjation. California e> The positi l)i'ol)lem.s of were known more than a that the pro cost of the here the pro] it is certain suss;ested th that const ru exceeds the o of which niu not appiccia due to wa(e) of the older COST OK WA'I'KK I'O IRRIGATORS. 63 (l(M'i(l('(l pictci'ciu'c to the systtMii that is operated clicaply and tliat the vahi(\ although iufhuMicod by, is not ontii'cly dependent upon fii'st cost. It is unnecessary to say that no one would undertake to develo}) water at an estimated cost excee(lin«i; its estal)1ish(>(l \-alue. In a few cases water stock has, tlu'ough accidental or unl'orseen circumstances, d(»preciated below its cost; such as in the case of a city that grew out over and extended its domestic water service to territory served by an irrigation company with little demand for the iri'igation I'ights because the surrounding count I'v was already irrigated. In California a water company may under its by-laws legally make the water it controls apj^urtenant to the lands irrigatcnl; and where this provision of the law, sustain(Hl by the highest court, is exercised to the full extent, the water can not l)e sold separately from the land, and consequently does not in a natural way acquire an indcpentlent nuu'ket value that is outwardly apparent, although such value exists under cover of the prices of the land. Some companies make the water appur- tenant only to the entire tract to be irrigated by the system and to contiguous lands, and allow transfers of water between landowners within these bounds so that the user may invest only in so many share as he needs for the crop being grown. A third class of companies puts no restrictions on the transfer of stock and safeguards its locality l)y prohibiting the extension of its service to new territory unless approved by its directors. Under the last two classes of companies it is easy to determine the value put on the water. The water rights are worth $100 to $400 per acre and they represent one-eight to one-fifth miner's inch, a sufficient amount. Not only do the fruit growers invest large amounts of capital in water systems, but they also pay heavy annual charges for the water they use or that their shares in nnitual companies entitle them to use. The total cost of the water tleliv(M-ed l)y a company to a stockholder is the sum of two or three separate items. The first, although not always included, is a proper charge and is the interest on the market value of the capital stock; the second is the amount of any assessments on the capital stock; and the third is the amount paid for the quantity of water used at any toll or rate in force. If any part of the levenues of the company are applied to payments on the principal of bonds or loans, proper deduction must be made from the sum of the three items mentioned, for the reason that the payments on the principal belong to the capital and not to the operating account. Only the interest on in(.lel)tetlness is chargctl to the annual cost of the water. Although in California all stock is assessable, some companies do not assess the stock ev(My yeai', but only when some substantial improvement is to l)e made to thinr property oi- when payments are to b(> made on bonds. They must charge for the water to meet the running expens(\ Others make no charges foi- tiir water and raise all revenues by assess- ments. Other mutual companies distinguish l)etween their capital and op(M-ating accounts, as public s(M-vic(> companies must do, under state regulation, and more consist (>ntly make the stock the basis of the revenues that affect the property and \alue of the stock and the amount of water used, the basis of the revenue to meet the cost of delivering water. Of the three items that make the total cost of water, the first and second are fixed charges because they relate to the share of stock and ()4 DEPARTMENT OF ITIUJC WORKS. iimst be paid whether any water is used or not, but the third varies accord - iiip; to the amount of water used by tlie stockliolders. This tooetlier with the fact tliat the (j[uautity of water used ])er acre is not uniform makes it a complex matter to fairly comj^are the cost of water under different companies. To compare the cost "per acre" is unsatisfactory where the duty varies, and to comjxire it "per acre-foot" (obtained by dividing the cost per acre b}^ tlie thity of water in acre-feet) is objectionable where fixed and variable charges are added to obtain a total cost. In some respects the truth is more nearly approximated b}^ stating the cost in terms of the "first acre-foot;" that is, assuming that all fixed charges as well as the price of that amount of water are applied against the first acre-foot. A tabulation entitled "Cost of Water under Southern California Irrigation Companies"* has been prepared from cost data collected for the year 1918. It includes about 100 mutual w^ater companies and 15 public utilities water companies. On account of the complications that would arise from the many variable conditions influencing the cost of water, it has not been possible to classify companies and summarize and compare costs according to source of water or crops irrigated, or other plan, but the table prepared gives for each system the approximate proportions of the water pumped and obtained b}^ gravity, the area of each crop irrigated, and the duty of water as w^ell as all of the basic figures relating to shares of stock, assessments, and water rates from which the fiscal costs have been calculated, so the reader may draw his own conclusion as desired. For the purpose of this review the following brief summary is submitted. By far the greater part of the area irrigated under the companies included in the tabulation, exclusive of the Colorado River vallej^s, is growing oranges and lemons. The other crops include deciduous fruits, walnuts, alfalfa and truck. Large areas of lima beans and sugar beets are grown along the southern California coast, but they are onl}^ in part irrigated. The duty of water, excepting a few unrepresentative extremes due to water shortage, ranges from .68 acre-foot under the Garvey Water Company, irrigating deciduous fruits at San Gabriel, to 4.00 acre-feet under the Palo Verde Mutual Water Company irrigating alfalfa and cotton through the long hot and dry season of the desert climate on Colorado River. Generally the duty of water for citrus fruits ranges f i-om one to two acre-feet, the lower amounts being for pumped and the higher for gravity water. The cost of the pumped water is greater than of the gravity w'ater and the results show that the cost and not the requirement is the greatest influence on the duty of water. The cheapest water is found under the old unlined ditches on the San Gabriel River, some of which were constructed by the Spanish. The companies are loosely organized and are capitahzed as low as $10 per acre, although this can not represent the true present value of the water. In the absence of proper basis for interest charges the main expense undiM- them consists of fees paid to the zanjeros and amounts to less than .$3 per acre, or $1.50 per acre-foot under a duty of water of about two acre- feet. Under the representative companies about $6 per acre and $3 per acre-foot may be taken as mininunn cost. These are found under some •This tabic is similar to the one prepared for 1922, wliioh Ikis alrendy been explained in dcliiil undor niulii:d wntor oompaiiirs in the main report. OOST OF WATIIK' TO TKKICATORS. 65 of the smaller gravity systems \vlici(> llie water rights are consorvativoly vahuMl. The hijiliest costs are I'ouikI under se\-ei-al systems near I lie I'ootliills of tlu' San (iahi'iel Mountains, where all the water is |)um|)e(l from wells under lifts of ov(m- 400 fe(>t. I'nder one of these the duty of water is l.Sl acro-foet and the cost of watia- pei- acre $51.87, of whieh amount only $3 is intei-est on the \vater-rif>;ht valuation. Under another the duty is 1.41 acr(»-feet and the cost of water per acre $40.39, of which amount .$5.76 is interest. Under this system the par value of the stock per acre is $128, but owinjj; to the expensive operation the value has depreciatetl to $96 per acre. These are exti-emes, but undcM' many of the older, larj^er and most representative water companies of the orchard conHnuniti(\s tlu> annual cost of water to the user reaches .$30 per acre. Under companies of this class the rights are usually valued highly and often about one-half th(> total cost is interest. The following data relating to a representative .system is given as an example. This company iriigated 17,000 acres of whieh 10,000 acres is in citrus orchard. Most of the water is obtained by gravity. The stock is appurtenant to the land and can be sold by the company only. The shares, of which there is one for each acre, have a par value of only $5 each. After the first year of its life the company fixed the price of its shares by adding to the par value all assessments to date, together with simph^ interest on these. When this information was obtained the price had in this manner advanced to $117 per acre, which amount in this case is the basis of the interest charge in the cost of the water. The interest at 6 per cent is therefore $7.02, which is the first item in the cost. The assessment was $1.65 per acre, but of this amount 86 cents was to retire the principal of indebtedn(>ss, leaving only 79 cents as the second item in the cost. The wat(M- is d(>livered at rates which are equivalent to $1.68 per acre-foot, and the duty of water is 1.85 acre-feet, which gives $3.11 as the third item in the cost. Therefore, the cost of the water per acre under the average duty for this system is $10.92, and the cost per acre-foot, $5.91. If, however, the stockholder used only one acre-foot, its cost would be .$9.49. The average cost of water under the public service companies is less than the average under the mutual companies. This must not be taken as a compai'ison of the merits of the two classes of enterprises. The reason is that the jniblic companies are nearly all of earl}' origin and have gravity water to sell, while so many of the mutual companies, beginning later, can obtain water only by pumping. About 450 incorpor- ated water compani(>s are opei-ating iriigation plants in southei-n Cali- fornia, and of these less than 40 are selling water for profit. The jiopu- larity of the mutual company in this region seems to be due to two main reasons: Nearly all of the valley lands were in Spanish grants and wei'e never owned ])y the govermnent; this promi)ted the a(.' elements of cost exist, although they may be under different names. A question often asked, is: "How high can water be pumped economically?" Considering this only for the irrigation of citrus fruits, it may he stated that numerous plants ai-e lifting water 400 feet, and over, where the territory irrigated is in a prosperous condition. Under two systems iri'igating lemons, water is lifted 700 to 850 feet for small portions only of the lands served. The cost of water, although high as compared to manj- other regions, is a small percentag;e of the total cost of production of citrus fruits. If the cost of production be $150 per acre and the cost of water S20, the latter may be doul)led without matei-ialh' endangering the profits fi-om a well- managed orchard. r!71(l4 '1-2.". 7r.o THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW BOOKS REQUESTED BY ANOTHER BORROWER ARE SUBJECT TO RECALL AFTER ONE WEEK. RENEWED BOOKS ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RECALL LIBRARY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS D4613 (12/76) ^ ^'"^ /^ 1} i 1 ^/ C- w 1 ./ b i '^1 X \' \