LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS ^ , JAV 2 p 1960' '^1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES IS LIBRARY DAVIS COPY 2 FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS BULLETIN NO. 78 INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS TO SERVE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA APPENDIX B EFFECTS OF DIFFERENCES IN WATER QUALITY, UPPER SANTA ANA VALLEY AND COASTAL SAN DIEGO COUNTY UNIVERSITY Or CAi.lFO.'-i. v iA DAVIS EDiMUND. G. BROWN mf-^^^\ HARVEY O. BANKS Governor HS ~-'-l*^$?l Director JANUARY, 1959 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS BULLETIN NO. 78 INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE AQUEDUCT SYSTEMS TO SERVE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA APPENDIX B EFFECTS OF DIFFERENCES IN WATER QUALITY, UPPER SANTA ANA VALLEY AND COASTAL SAN DIEGO COUNTY EDMUND. G. BROWN |lf( ' "?^^^-l HARVEY O. BANKS Governor lp\ \ jMfyr^.] Director JANUARY, 1959 INTRODUCTORY STATEMEOT The Department of Water Resources carried out the investigation of alternative aqueduct systems to serve southern California pursuant to appropriations of funds by legislative sessions of 1956, 1957, and 1958. The enclosed report is published as Appendix B of Bulletin No, 78, the engineering report on the investigation prepared pursuant to the legislative direction. The objective of the Department, in contracting for the investi- gation reported upon herein, was to ha.ve an agency outside the Department evaluate the effects of the quality of urban and agricultural waters being used or potentially available for use in the investigational area and the relation of these effects to those vhich might result from imporc;ation of surplus northern California water to the area, Tlie results of this study of water quality are employed in the over-all analysis of alternative aqueduct systems to serve surplus northern California water to southern California. The enclosed report was prepared by Stsmford Research Institute for the Department of Water Resources under Standard Agreement 8-83O-SI55 dated February 21, 1958, reproduced at the end of this appendix as Attachment No. 1. STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA October ig^S Final Report EFFECTS OF DIFFERENCES IN WATER QUALITY UPPER SANTA ANA VALLEY AND COASTAL SAN DIEGO COUNTY SRI Project 24'/0 Prepared for: STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA Approved: .l\/^' „ , Hydrologic Characteristics of San Timoteo Unit . Hydrologic Characteristics of Bunker Hill Unit . Hydrologic Characteristics of Riverside Unit . . Hydrologic Characteristics of Chino Unit .... Hydrologic Characteristics of San Jacinto Area . Cost of Replacing Unusable Ground Water with Colorado River Water . . « Projection of Dissolved Solids Concentrations — Case I - San Timoteo Hydrologic Unit ...,., Projection of Dissolved Solids Concentrations-- Case I - Bunker Hill Hydrologic Unit ...... Projection of Dissolved Solids Concentrations — Case I - Riverside Hydrologic Unit Projection of Dissolved Solids Concentrations-- Case I - Chino Hydrologic Unit .,,...... Projection of Dissolved Solids Concentrations — Case I - San Jacinto Area , . Projection of Dissolved Solids Concentrations — Case II - One-Tenth Mixing Volume , Projection of Dissolved Solids Concentrations — Case II - One-Half Mixing Volume Population Projections by Hydrologic Units — Upper Santa Ana Basin .... o ....... . Estimated Water Demand ............. Estimated Supplemental Water Requirements . , . Estimated Rate of Absorption of Supplemental Water Chemical Quality of Supplemental Water Crop Production for 1957 --San Diego County . . . Crop Production for 1957 — Upper Santa Ana River Basin, excluding Riverside, Corona, Elsinore, and San Jacinto Areas , 1957 ... Page 16 18 18 19 19 22 55 59 61 62 63 64 65 67 69 70 72 73 75 G2 86 IX List of Tables (Continued) Number Page Table 22 Crop Production for 1957 — Riverside-Corona Area ... 86 Table 23 Crop Production for 1957— Elsinore Basin ...... 87 Table 24 Soil Classes and Acreages of the San Jacinto Basin . 88 Table 25 Crop Production for 1957--San Jacinto Basin (Moreno, PerriS; Hemet) ,.,,..,...... S9 Table 26 Water Analyses of Dissolved Solids of Feather River Project Water and Colorado River Water ....,,. 90 Table 27 Maximum Salinity Tolerance for 10 Percent Reduction in Productivity of Major Crops Within the Upper Santa Ana Basin and Coastal Areas of San Diego County .................. 98 Table 28 Net Leaching Requirements for Western San Diego County and the Upper Santa Ana Basin, California, for 1957 Conditions ..,,..,...,,..... 107 Table 29 Computed Leaching Requirements for Winter Irrigation Water Supplementing Rainfall Deficiencies, Citrus Orchard, Escondldo, California ... ..o .... . 108 Table 30 Leaching Requirements for Use of Ground Water in Chino Basin Related to Projected Ground Water Salinity ...=.........,........ 116 Table 31 Summary of Projected Economic Differences Between Using Colorado River Water and Feather River Project Water in Agriculture in the Study Area ....... 119 Table 32 Estimated Requirements in the Study Area for Total Applied and Supplemental Applied Water by Urban Class of Use ..,,,.,..........,.. 125 Table 33 Characteristics (impurities) Forming the Bases for the Principal Economic Differences Between Colorado River Water and Feather River Project Water in Urban Uses ..................... 126 Table 34 Estimated Industrial IJse-^6f Applied Water by Type of Application . 129 Table 35 Estimated Industrial Requirements for Supplemental Applied Water by Type of Application, 1960-2020 . . . 129 Table 36 Water Quality Tolerances for Certain Industrial and Commercial Applications .,..,.... 130 Table 37 Projected Total Economic Difference Between Colorado River Water and Feather River Project Water if Used Directly in Industry ....... 142 List of Tables (Continued) I I Number Table 38 Table 39 Table 40 Table 41 Table 42 Table 43 Table 44 Table 45 Table 46 Table 47 Examples of Water Applications and Types of Treatment Commonly Employed by Commercial Organizations ............... Estimated Cost of Salt Required for Regeneration of Zeolite Softener Used to Produce Zero Hardness in Commercial Water Uses . Projected Total Economic Difference Between Colorado River Water and Feather River Project Water Used in Commercial Establishments .,......,, Projected Total Economic Difference Between Colorado River Water and Feather River Project Water in Residential and Public Uses ,.,,.,.. Summary of Economic Differences in All Urban Uses . . Estimated Amount of Make-up Water Required in Industrial Cooling Systems ,..,.,.„,..., Estimated Average Cost of Treating Make-up Water for Air Conditioning Systems and Small Cooling Towers . ...o .,..,.,,„,,.,.... , Estimated Cost of Internal Treatment of Colorado River Water in Large Cooling Towers . Estimated Cost of Internal Treatment of Feather River Project Water in Large Cooling Towers Estimated Cost of Chemicals for Treating Boiler Feed Water Page 143 145 145 150 152 153 154 155 156 158 XI Part One INTRODUCTION Part One INTRODUCTION Background Studies of the probable future growth of Southern California in relation to available water supply have indicated that in the foreseeable future substantial quantities of water will be required beyond those that are presently available in the region. The Department of Water Resources is planning the Feather River Project to bring supplemental water to Southern California to meet this projected need. Since Southern California is a very large area. Feather River Project plans will be substantially influenced by decisions as to how the water supplied by the project is to be delivered in the area in combination with presently available sources. In reaching these decisions it is desirable to consider whether different patterns for distribution of water from various sources would have different economic effects on the areas served. As part of its investigations on this subject, the Department of Water Resources asked Stanford Research Institute to compare the economic effects of supplying the Upper Santa Ana Valley and the San Diego County coastal area with Feather River Project water and with other water that could be supplied. The major source of supplemental water presently available to the study area is the Colorado River supply of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Most of the study areas are already in the Metropolitan Water District. In view of this situation, the present study is limited to a comparison of the economic effects of supplying Colorado River water and Feather River Project water to the study areas in the future. The Upper Santa Ana Valley and coastal San Diego County make up only a part of the potential Feather River Project service area in Southern California, but it was not within the scope of this investigation to make comparisons with other parts of Southern California, Such comparisons are nevertheless relevant to Feather River Project planning because water not used in the areas covered here will necessarily be used elsewhere in Southern California. Therefore this report covers only a part of the information on water quality effects that will be involved in final decisions on the allocation of particular waters to specific areas. Method of Approach The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether the use of water from the two sources described above would result in significantly different economic effects on the study areas in the period 1960-2020. It was assumed that water from either source could be supplied in sufficient quantities to meet the projected needs of the areas. The rela- tive costs of supplying the areas from these two sources are not considered here, and the over-all desirability of supplying them from one or the other of the sources is not analyzed. The contract under which this work was conducted distinguishes three broad categories of possible differences in economic effects: (l) agri- cultural use of water, (2) urban use of water, and (3) developments in ground water supply as a result of these uses. These categories repre- sent essentially separate problems that require different analytical treatment, and this report is in three major parts, each dealing with one of the problems. The economic effects derived in each section are brought together in the Summary section. All dollar estimates are in terms of 1957-1958 prices, and no attempt is made to adjust for long-run changes in price levels in dealing with future years. The Department of Water Resources supplied, from the results of its own investigations, many of the data which are basic to the three problems studied here. Specifically, the Department furnished an anlysis of the expected quality of Feather River Project water and forecasts of the future growth of population, economic activity, and watei* use in the study areas. Most of the basic data on the ground water basins were also supplied by the Department. No attempt was made in this study to review or verify this information. Acknowledgments The study was conducted in the Division of Economics and the Division of Physical Sciences of Stanford Research Institute, under the direction of Dr, Neil T. Houston and Dr. Richard M. Foose . The following members of the Institute staff accomplished major parts of the research: James L. Hatchett, Francis R. Hall, and Wesley L, Tennant . The agricultural aspects of the study were handled largely by V. S. Aronovici , soil scientist, who served as consultant to the Institute. This report was written jointly by all of the foregoing participants in the research. Also assisting in the project were Robert Hoy, Sidney Art, and Mary J. Lotridge. The National Aluminate Corporation was retained to make some special analyses of industrial uses of the two waters concerned. Liaison with the Department of Water Resources was maintained through Robert M. Edmonston, Principal Hydraulic Engineer, and members of the staff of the Southern California District offices. The basic information supplied by the Department and the assistance of the staff contributed materially to the work, and are greatly appreciated. A large number of persons associated with both public and private organizations in the study area were interviewed in the course of the work. They provided much valuable information and gave generously of their time in discussions of various aspects of the study. Their assistance is also greatly appreciated. Part IVo SUIIMARY AND CONCLUSIONS t Part Two SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Significantly different economic effects would result, in the areas studied; from use of the two water sources considered in this research. Within the scope and limitations of the investigations summarized below, it may be concluded that there would be a substantial advantage in using Feather River Project water instead of Colorado River water. The Department of Water Resources expects Feather River Project water to contain about 200 ppm of total dissolved solids. Average Colorado River quality for 16 recent years is 726 ppm. The two waters were com- pared on this basis, and no attempt was made to project the future quality of Colorado River water. However, there appears to be no basis on which to expect the average dissolved solids content in the future to be significantly less than in recent years. It became apparent in the early stages of the research that the difference in dissolved solids content of the tv/o waters would have numerous effects on the ground water, the agriculture, and the urban uses of water in the study area. Many of these effects are indirect and very difficult to trace r.nd evaluate accurately in detail , Some of the effects are obviously much more Important economically than others. It was con- cluded that the study effort would be concentrated on those effects which would have the greatest economic impact, and that effects of less importance would be only identified or discussed qualitatively. The study period extends far into the future, thus involving many circumstances that cannot be accurately pi'edicted at this time. The effects of water quality are complex and can vary considerably even within specific categories of water use that are identified for study. It must therefore be recognized that the total economic impact of a given effect cannot be estimated with a high degree of precision even for present conditions. In view of these uncertainties that are necessarily involved in the study, it was decided that estimates of the major economic effects on the study area should be considered in terms of the orders of magnitude involved rather than as sharply defined forecasts. Efforts were made throughout the work to establish these orders of magnitude at levels be- lieved to be conservative in terms of the size of the differences between the two waters. In other words, estimates placed on the major economic effects are believed to be such that actual differences would be at least as great as the indicated amount. Other effects,, discussed qualitatively in most cases, would tend to increase the magnitude of over-all economic differences. These effects are too numerous to describe in this summary but are described in each of the three major parts of the report. The effects on ground water of differences in the quality of imported water are determined in large measure by the geology of the study area. It is not possible to infer that the same or even similar effects would result from use of the two waters in other areas where geologic conditions are different. Similarly, the effects on agriculture are to a considerable degree specific to the particular geologic, climatic, and soil conditions of the study area and should not be expected to be the same if the two waters are used elsewhere. On the other hand, the effects evaluated here for urban water users in the study area would be about the same for urban users in other parts of Southern California, if similar quantities of the two waters were considered for the categories of urban use discussed. This distinction between the ground water, agricultural, and urban use effects may be of some importance in connection with broader questions than those covered by this study. Economic Impact of Effects on Ground Water The analysis of effects on ground water in the study area is confined to the Bunker Hill, Riverside, San Timoteo , and Chino ground water basins in the Upper Santa Ana Valley. The San Jacinto area was not considered because most of it no longer depends on ground water, due to depletion or poor quality. In the San Diego County coastal area, imported water does not find its way into usable ground water basins in significant volume; therefore that area was not considered in the analysis. Calculations made in the study indicate that use of the two waters would produce significant differences in ground water quality. The higher mineral content of Colorado River water leads to higher mineral content in the ground water in the four basins analyzed than would result from use of Feather River Project water. This is true over a wide range of assump- tions concerning the proportion of the ground water in the basins that would be involved in mixing with the imported water. The principal economic effect is estimated on the basis of replacing the ground water used annually with imported water when the quality of ground water renders it no longer suitable for use. It would be necessary to replace not only ground water used in the Upper Santa Ana Valley but also the annual usable flow to Orange County through the Santa Ana Narrows, which is assumed to be of the same quality as Chino Basin water.. Examples given later (Part Three, Table 7) indicate the costs that would be involved in replacing the ground water with imported water. Replacement when ground water quality reaches 1000 ppm total dissolved solids and when it reaches 1500 ppm are both shown. Such replacement would be re- quired only if Colorado River water was used, because Feather River Project water would not cause deterioration of the ground water quality to these levels . The time at which replacement of the ground water with imported water would be required if Colorado River water was used varies with the assumptions selected as to mixing volume in the underground basin and as to the mineral content that can be tolerated. It could be as soon as the early 1980 's for the principal quantities or as late as nearly the end of the study period. When replacement was required, the cost, at $25 per acre-foot, would be about $4,000,000 annually. Additional costs would be involved in providing a surface distribution and regulation system to handle the additional quantity of water, and there would also be costs in disposing of the unusable flow into Orange County to avoid deterioration of the ground water there. Economic Impact in Agriculture When irrigated crops are grown, care must be taken to avoid accumula- tion, in the root zone, of excessive concentrations of salts left behind in the evaporation and evapo-transpiration of the irrigation water. The higher the mineral content of the irrigation water, the greater the problems in this respect are likely to be. Salt accumulation is prevented by applying enough water to leach the salts from the soil and carry them below the root zone. Differences in Che leaching requirements for the use of Colorado River water and Feather River Project water were calculated for the crops grown in the study areas. Since crops differ in their sensitivity to salt accumulation, the principal crops were treated separately. Using the leaching requirements in connection with projected acreages of the various crops, the total quantities of water that would be required in excess of crop consumptive use were calculated. Substantially larger quantities of Colorado River water than of Feather River Project water were found to be required. The cost of this additional water is the major economic difference that would result from the use of the two waters in agriculture. The greater the leaching requirement, the greater the problem in some areas of providing drainage facilities to remove the leachate, and the greater the loss of fertilizer due to the leaching action. Differences in drainage costs and fertilizer losses were also estimated. The estimated additional annual costs that would be incurred if Colorado River water was used instead of Feather River Project water were summarized for the beginning of each decade, again using $25 per acre-foot as the cost of additional imported water (see Part Four, Table 31). These costs are relatively stable through the study period, as projected increases in the acreage of salt-sensitive crops and increased dependence on imported water tend to offset declines in total acreage due to urban expansion. The estimated annual additional cost if Colorado River water is used is in the range from $3,000,000 to $4,000,000. Additional effects discussed qualitatively in Part Four would tend to add to these costs. Economic Impact in Urban Uses Differences between the two waters were evaluated for three categories of urban water uses — industrial establishments, commercial establishments, and residential and public uses. In industry the two waters were found to be significantly different for use in boilers and in open recirculating cooling systems , i .e, , cooling towers. Differences in treatment processes that would be required were estimated and evaluated in monetary terms. For use in industrial processes and for sanitary purposes in industry the two waters are considered to be practically equivalent on the average. Commercial establishments are primarily interested in the hardness of water used. Since Colorado River water is more than three times as hard as Feather River Project water, there is a significant difference between them in, commercial uses. The economic difference was estimated on the basis of the costs of softening. Two approaches were used, one considering the difference in the cost of operating softeners in commercial establishments, and the other considering the cost of softening Colorado River water to the equivalent hardness of Feather River Project water in large central plants prior to distribution. Central plant softening yields the smaller estimates of differences, and these are incorporated in the summary data. For residential and public use the primary concern is again with hardness c Again two approaches were followed in estimating economic differences between the two waters. One approach considers the difference in detergent consumption. The other again estimates the costs of softening Colorado River water to the equivalent of Feather River Project water hardness in central plants before distribution to residential and public users. Again central plant softening yields the lower estimates of difference, and these are incorporated in the figures below. The total annual economic differences between the two waters in urban uses are summarized for the beginning of each decade (see Table 42, Part Five), These differences represent additional costs that would be incurred if Colorado River water was used instead of Feather River Project water. The economic differences increase steadily through the study period, both in response to projected urban expansion and because of in- creased dependence on imported water, and range from $82G ,000 in 1960 to more than $19,000,000 in the year 2020. With the exception of 1960, the largest economic differences are indicated in industrial uses. However „ no evidence was found in the study to indicate that the over-all industrial development of the study areas would be significantly affected by the choice of water provided in the areas. It was repeatedly stated by persons consulted in both public and private organizations that, within the limits of United States Public Health Service standards, the factors of availability, price, delivery pressure, and freedom from sudden changes in quality are of more concern to most industrial users than is the mineral content. 10 Part Three INVESTIGATION OF SALT BALANCE IN THE UPPER SANTA ANA AND SAN JACINTO AREAS » 11 Part Three im^ESTIGATION OF SALT BALANCE IN THE UPPER SANTA ANA AND SAN JACINTO AREAS I Introduction Accumulation of salt in ground water impairs its quality. Conse- quently the movement of dissolved solids in the surface and ground waters of an area is considered to be satisfactory only when as much or more salt leaves the area as enters it. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects occasioned by introduction of supplemental water of two different qualities on the salt balance and quality of ground water of the Upper Santa Ana and San Jacinto areas in Southern California, The investigation consisted of evaluation of earlier reports and analysis of considerable accumulated data. The Upper Santa Ana and San Jacinto areas comprise that portion of the Santa Ana Basin that is upstream from the Prado Dam (Figure l), in western San Bernardino and Riverside counties. There are 428,000 acres of valley lands in the Upper Santa Ana area and 145,000 acres in the San Jacinto area. In recent years, data concerning the chemical quality of water have become increasingly available, and determinations of salt balance con- ditions have been made. For example, in a general evaluation of salt balance in the Salt River Valley area in Arizona, Halpenny and others^ compared quantities of dissolved solids entering and leaving the area in surface water in 1951 and determined the amount of dissolved solids thereby accumulated . With regard to the present study area, the California Department of Water Resources prepared a memorandum^ for the State Board of Water Quality Consultants which presented x'esults of a determination of the effects of imported water upon the quality and quantity of water flowing from the Upper Santa Ana Valley, In this study, the area was considered as a single unit and proper salt balance was maintained by adjusting the quality and quantity of water flowing from the area so that the tonnage of dissolved solids leaving the area at Prado Dam was equal to the tonnage carried by water entering the area. In another study, ^ the Upper Santa Ana Valley area was divided into four units, The quantity and quality of water that would have to be pumped from each unit to maintain proper salt balance under ultimate development conditions was determined. 13 FIG. 1 STUDY AREA IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA *C-!«70-»-l 14 II Hydrologic Units In the project area (Figure l), salt balance is of major importance only in the Upper Santa Ana and San Jacinto areas, and these are the only areas studied here, although a minor salt balance problem exists in the small Elsinore basin, and it is anticipated that there will be lesser problems in the future in some of the ground water areas of coastal San Diego County. A, Basis for Subdivision There are two important requirements for carrying out an effective salt balance study: 1, The hydrologic units should be as small as possible 2. There should be adequate data on the inflow and outflow. Selection of the hydrologic units in the study area was based on a com- promise between the two. The ideal units for a salt balance study in the Upper Santa Ana area would be small ground water basins, such as are described by Eckis'' and Gleason.^ However., the most recent report on the Upper Santa Ana and San Jacinto areas by MacRostie, Dclcini , and others^ presents data for larger hydrologic units, which in the case of the Upper Santa Ana area are combinations of the smaller basins. The population and water use projections of the Department of Water Resources are based on political subdivisions, and the hydrologic units used by MacRostie® are most suitable for a rearrangement of the projection data. Therefore, the hydrologic units chosen for this report in the Upper Santa Ana area con- sist of the San Timoteo , Bunker Hill, Riverside, and Chino units. The San Jacinto area is considered separately, inasmuch as it is physically separated from the others. The hydrologic units selected for this report are the most satisfactory subdivisions permitted, considering that some of the borders are arbitrary rather than natural boundaries, and recognizing that there are complex geologic relationships within the units themselves. In most of the units, faults or ground water barriers that are not shown on published maps have recently been discovered. However, it is not possible to deal with these problems in a short-term study of rather limited scope, although so doing would permit moi'e definitive conclusions- B . Mixing Volumes The storage volumes of the hydrologic units were obtained from the Department of Water Resources; they are intended as a future appendix to the California Water Plan report.' In order to ascertain the total volume of water actually available for mixing, the historically utilized storage was subtracted from the total storage for each basin. This is summarized for each of the hydrologic units in Table 1. The storage terms are defined by the Department of Water Resources as follows: "Historically utilized 15 Table 1 MIXING VOLUMES* HYDROLOGIC (INIT TOTAL STORAGK ( ac re- f ee t ) HISTOPICAI.LY I'TILIZED { ac re ■■ f ce t ) FULL MIXING VOLUME ( aero ■• fee t ) Upper Santa i,;. Area San Timoteo Unit 2,770,000 117,000 2,653.000 Bunker Hill Unit 5,835,000 4Q3,000 5,342,000 Riverside Unit 2,270,000 172,000 2,098,000 Chino Unit 9,815,000 807,000 9,008,000 San Jacinto Area 2,700,000 735,000 1,965,000 * Data supplied by the Department of Water Resources. storage is the amount of ground water storage between historic high and historic low water levels. Total storage is an approximation of the storage capacity between high water level and the base of the fresh water- bearing materials. The figures are in order of magnitude only." Most of the historic low water levels were recorded in 1951 or 1954 or at least during the early 1950 's. The computed mixing volumes approxi- mate the total amounts of water available in 1954. It is unlikely that these volumes have increased since 1954 or that they will increase in the future. More likely, the volumes have decreased somewhat since 1954 and will continue to decrease because of excessive pumping. Nevertheless, the 1954 volume is assumed to remain constant for the study period from 1960-2020. In this study it has also been assumed that perfect mixing takes place in a ground water basin. This requires the ground water basin to be a homogeneous unit unmodified by geologic complexities. Actually, total volume mixing in basins of the size and depth of the hydrologic units used in this report would be at a rate too slow to cause much effect during the 60-year study period. Also, it is evident that there are geologic features such as ground water barriers that further impede the rate of mixing in the total volumes of the units. Therefore, mixing has been considered to take place primarily in the shallower zones of more active ground water circulation caused by pumpage of wel±s. The zone of jnost active mixing probably reaches down to a depth slightly greater than the median depth of wells. For example, in the San Timoteo unit the median depth of wells listed in a recent report of the Department of Water Resources® is about 40 percent of the average depth of the basin. In deep basins such as Chino and Bunker Hill, the median depths are probably less than 40 percent, and in a shallow basin like Riverside the median depth is probably greater than 40 percent. Therefore, effective mixing is considered to take place in the upper one-tenth to one-half of the hydrologic basins during the time of the study period (1960-2020) . 16 C. Description of the Hydrologic Units 1 . Upper Santa Ana Area The Upper Santa Ana area is comparable to the Upper Santa Ana unit of the Santa Ana River Investigation Report;® it consists of the San Timoteo, Bunker Hill, Riverside, and Chino units. These hydrologic units, outlined on Figure 1, are confined to the major ground water basins and exclude the hills and mountains and smalx basins in the mountains. Tables 2 through 5 give the average annual inflow and outflow volume relations and dissolved solids concentrations for the four hydro- logic units. The flow figures were compiled from the Santa Ana River Investigation® and the South Coastal Basin Investigation^ reports. Where possible, 21-year averages (1922-1943) were used. The flow relations and total storage volumes available for mixing are shown in the form of a flow diagram in Figure 2,* The flow data were compiled only up to 1948, but they are also assumed to be valid for the period 1960-2020. The assumption is reasonable for such factors as precipitation and inflow from surrounding hills and mountains. However; it is less certain for import-export rela- tions between the units. Assumption of constant flow "values is also re- quired by the assumption of a constant mixing volume. The volume of water in a basin and the amount of ground and surface water flow are directly related, and a change in one requires a change in the other. Analyses of water samples from wells in the Upper Santa Ana area, as shown in a report^ and in the files of the Department of Water Resources, reveal a wide variability in the quality of ground water within the area. This variation is attributed to many factors, such as quality of recharge water, fluctuation of water level, composition of water-bearing formations, length of time water is in contact with formations, depth of wells, yield of wells, and amount of pumping prior to sample collection. Examination of published analyses^ and those in the files of the Department of Water Resources revealed no significant change in the quality of ground water in the Upper Santa Ana area during the period 1932 to 1957. However, most of the analyses available fall within the period 1951-57. Some wells have shown an increase and others a decrease in specific con- ■ ductance, but no general trend for the area was found, For most of the wells from which several samples had been taken through the years, there was little or no change in specific conductance. The specific conductances of samples from wells in the area were plotted on a map as an aid in establishing a figure for the concentration of dissolved solids in tiie ground water of the four units of the area. The specific conductance of ground water in sections of each unit was estimated by giving consideration to depth of wells, recharge areas, specific yield, thickness of the water-bearing formation, barriers to ground water movement, and geographical distribution of the wells for which * In Figures 2, 16, and 17 the values for the individual hydrologic units have been rounded out to two significant figures. 17 Table 2 HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS OF SAN TIMOTEO UNIT FLOW VOLUME* (1000 ac re- f eet ^yr ) DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION ( tons /acre-- foot ) DISSOLVED SOLIDS ( tons/yr ) Inflow Precipitation on valley floors Surrounding hills and mountains Import from Bunker Hill Total 101 11 16 01 0,10 0.30 1010 1100 4800 127 6910 Outflow Surface Water to Bunker Hill Ground Water to Bunker Hill Export to San Jacinto Total 3 15 2 20 From Gieason and MacHostie and Dolcini . Table 3 HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS OF BUNKER HILL UNIT FLOW VOLUME* >1000 acre* feet/yr ) DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION (tons/acre-foot) DISSOLVED SOLIDS ( tons/yr ) Inflow Precipitation on valley floors Surrounding hills and mountains Surface water from San Timoteo Chino Ground water from San Timoteo Import from Chino Total 118 127,6 2,6 7,8 15 3 13 0.01 0.19 0.11 0.19 0.47 0.15 1180 24244 286 1482 7191 1950 284.3 36333 Outflow Surface water to Riverside Ground water to Piverside Export to Riverside San Timoteo Chino San Jacinto Total 32,8 20,1 70.0 16.0 0.6 2.0 150.. 5 From Gieason' and MacRostie and Dolcini . 18 Table 4 HWROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RIVERSIDE UNIT KLOW VOLUME* (1000 acrp- feet 'yr ) DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION ( tons ac re- foot / DISSOLVED SOLIDS ( tons yr ) Inflow Precipitation on vai:e> iioors 87.8 O.Oi 878 Surrounding hills and mountains 9.9 33 3267 Surface water from Bunker Hill 33.1 44 14564 Ground water from Bunker Hill 20.1 44 8844 Import from Bunker Hill 77 44 338R0 San Jacinto 11 87 Q570 To^al 238 P 71003 Outflow Surface water to Criiiio 43 8 Ground water to Chino 21 5 Export to Chino Total 8 " 74 2 From Gleason^ and MacRostio and Dolcini Table 5 HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CHINO UNIT FLOW VOLUME* (1000 a c r '^ • f e e t ' y r ) DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION (tons 'acre- foot) DISSOLVED SOLIDS ( t o n s .' y r ) Inflow I'recipitaLion on valley floors 278.6 01 2786 Surrounding hills and mountains 78,2 1" 14858 Surface water from Riverside 43,6 68 29648 Ground water from Riverside 14 9 88 13112 Import from Bunker Mill and 19 i 31 5021 Riverside Total 434 4 66325 Outflow Surface water to Lx)wer Santa Ana 80 Bunker Hill 8 8 Ground water to' Spadra 8 1 Santa Ana Narrows 2 4 ExDort to Bunker Hill 13 Riverside 1.3 San Gabriel area' 4.9 Unaccounted outflow 8 Total no 2 * From Gleason and MacBostie and Dolcini . t The Spadra hydroLogic basin Santa Ana Narrows and San Gabriel area are outside of and adjacent to the Upper Santa Ana Basin study area. 19 818,000 ocre-feet of inflow from mountoms and direct rainfall on the units 83,000 ocre-feet ORANGE COUNTY Re-2470 F-3 FIG. 2 MAJOR MOVEMENTS OF WATER IN UPPER SANTA ANA AREA EACH YEAR 21-year Average Rainfall Plus Surface and Ground Water Movements from State Water Resources Board Bulletin No. 15 20 analyses were available. Then the specific conductances of the sections were weighted according to their storage volumes to arrive at a specific conductance for the larger units. Dissolved solids concentrations in parts per million for each of the hydrologic units were obtained by multi- plying the estimated specific conductance in micromhos by 0.64.® Dissolved solids concentrations can be converted to tons per acre-foot by multiplying ppm by 0.00136. The dissolved solids concentrations in rainfall on the valley floors of the various hydrologic units were estimated from the data of Junge.'° The data of Coe , Florian, and others^ were used for making estimates of the dissolved solids concentrations of the other sources of inflow listed in Tables 2 to 5, A weighted average of the monthly specific conductances of the Santa Ana River near Mentone for the period April 1951 to December 1954*^°^ was the basis for the dissolved solids concentration of inflow from surrounding hills and mountains used in most cases. a . San Timoteo Unit The San Timoteo unit is a far from homogeneous hydrologic entity. It consists of three ground water basins (Eckis* and Gleason^): Beaumont, San Timoteo, and Yucaipa. Actually, even these three are cut up into smaller blocks by northwest and northeast trending faults or ground water barriers forming still smaller units. Nevertheless, for the purpose of this report, it has been necessary to disregard the smaller subdivisions and to treat the whole unit as an ideal basin. b . Bunker Hill Unit The Bunker Hill unit is a composite of four smaller basins (Eckis* and Gleason^ ) : Bunker Hill, Devil Canyon, Lytle, and Lower Cajon, each of which could be further subdivided on the basis of internal water barriers. It is recognized that these features modify the manner in which mixing takes place, but the information available for the present study requires that the whole area be considered as a single unit . c . Riverside Unit The Riverside unit consists of eight ground water basins (Eckis* and Gleason^ ) ; Arlington, Bedford, Coldwater, Colton, Lee Lake, Reche Canyon, Riverside, and Temescal . Reche Canyon is nearly isolated and probably is not an important factor in mixing; Colton basin, and Rialto basin in the adjacent Chino unit, belong together, since they are bounded by the same faults. The Riverside and Arlington basins make up a sub-unit which is only partially connected with the Temescal-Bedford-Lee Lake-Coldwater basins, which, in turn, form a nearly separate group. How- ever, the available data cannot be properly subdivided, so it is necessary to consider Riverside as a discrete hydrologic unit. 21 d. Chino Unit The Chino unit is made up of six ground water basins (Eckis* and Gleason^); Chino, Claremont Heights, Cucamonga , Live Oak, Pomona, and Rialto. As in the case of Riverside and the other units, it is necessary to consider Chino as a single unit, although this is not strictly true. Rialto basin logically forms a separate unit with Colton basin of the Riverside unit, as mentioned above. The Cucamonga basin is nearly iso- lated by faults or ground water barriers and the whole unit is crossed by three northeast-trending ground water barriers which have an important influence on ground water movement . 2. San Jacinto Area The San Jacinto area of this report is essentially the same as the San Jacinto unit of the Santa Ana River Investigation Report^ except that it is confined to the major ground water basins and excludes hills and mountains. It consists of the following ground water basins or areas: Hemet-San Jacinto, Lake View, Sunnymeade , Perris Valley, Menifee, Winchester, and Winchester South. The inflow and outflow volume and the dissolved solids concen- trations are shown in Table 6. The flow volumes were taken from the Santa Ana River Investigation Report,^ and wherever possible 21-year averages were used. As in the case of the Upper Santa Ana area, the flow volumes are assumed to be valid from 1960 to 2020, This assumption is probably good for precipitation and inflow from surrounding hills and mountains. The figures for import, export, and surface water outflow may not be valid under present or future conditions, but they are used because no other data are available. Table 6 HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS OF SAN JACINTO AREA FLOW VOLUME* (1000 acre- feet /yr ) DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION (tons /acre-foot) DISSOLVED SOLIDS ( tons ' yr ) Inflow Precipitation on valley floors Surrounding hills and mountains Import from Bunker Hill San Timoteo Total 176,8 48 4 2.4 2.4 01 19 27 0.30 1768 9196 648 720 230 12332 Outflow 1 Surface water to Railroad Canyon Export Total 12 5 2 2 14 7 * From Gleason and MacHoatie and Dolcini 22 The dissolved solids concentration for ground water in the San Jacinto area was obtained from consideration of samples from 40 wells in the same manner as was used for the Upper Santa Ana area. The dissolved solids concentration for inflow from surrounding hills and mountains was assumed to be the same as for the Upper Santa Ana River at Mentone. The dissolved solids concentration of water from Bunker Hill was estimated from Table 3 on the basis of an import of two-thirds surface water and one-third ground water. The dissolved solids concentration of water from San Timoteo was estimated from Table 2 on the basis of an import of one- half surface water and one-half ground water. The San Jacinto area is not a homogeneous hydrologic unit, but consists of a series of small, only partially connected, basins. Also, because of relatively impermeable soils over much of the area and im- permeable material in the subsurface, much of the ground water recharge is restricted to a strip along the San Jacinto River and Bautista Creek south of the town of San Jacinto. The Hemet-San Jacinto area and possibly other areas are crossed by northwest-trending ground water barriers. Therefore, the area close to the San Jacinto River and Bautista Creek re- ceives most of the direct recharge and, when full, spills into the next area to the west. As a result, the western parts of the San Jacinto area receive little recharge unless the eastern ground water basins are full. At the present time, the Perris Valley ground water basin is nearly depleted, and other areas are indicated to be approaching depletion. All of these conditions emphasize that this salt balance study of the San Jacinto area is only an approximation at best; however, it does point the general trend for the future. Ill Projection of Total Dissolved Solids The following is a best effort at projection of total dissolved solids for the period 1960-2020, recognizing that accumulated data are not as complete as is desirable. In the first place, past chemical sampling programs have been neither extensive enough nor of sufficient duration to show long-term changes; second, only a small portion of the total water has been sampled, and generally little information has been collected below average pumping levels; and, third, Colorado River water has been imported for so short a time, and in such a. limited area, that few data demonstrating its effect are available. Al Basic Assumptions The population and water use projections furnished by the State Department of Water Resources were in the form of ten-year increments for the time period 1960-2020, Therefore, the dissolved solids projections were made by the same increments. As is shown in other sections of this report, inflow and outflow vlumes , volumes in storage, and dissolved solids concentrations were obtained and/or estimated from various reports of the Department of Water Resources. The year 1960 was established as the base, and all projections were made from 1960 to 2020. 23 The dissolved solids concentrations of ground water in the hydrologic units were projected over this period by the use of a mixing equation which is described below. In order to use the available data in this equation, it has been necessary to make a number of basic assumptions concerning flow volumes, dissolved solids concentrations, water usage, and time relationships. Many of these assumptions have been discussed elsewhere in the report, but all are listed here. The basic assumptions are: 1. That the inflow and outflow volumes for the hydrologic units as given in Tables 2 through 6 are valid for 1960 and will remain constant from 1960 to 2020. 2. That the total mixing volumes for the hydrologic units which are shown in Table 1 are valid for 1960 and will remain unchanged from 1960 to 2020. 3. That the dissolved solids concentrations for ground water in the hydrologic units, discussed in the section on hydrologic units, are basin-wide values and are valid' for 1960. The values are: San Timoteo - 350 ppm (0.48 tons/acre-foot ) , Bunker Hill - 310 ppm (0.42 tons/ acre-foot ) , Riverside - 490 ppm (0.67 tons/acre-foot ) , Chino - 260 ppm (0.35 tons/acre-foot), and San Jacinto - 700 ppm (0.95 tons/ acre-foot ) . 4. That all outflow from any hydrologic unit, whether ground or surface water, has the same dissolved solids concentrations as the mixing volumes. 5. That all dissolved solids present in inflow to a particular unit and in storage in the unit remain in solution. 6. That the dissolved solids contribution to ground and surface water from urban use is 70 pounds per person per year.^ 7. That there is no dissolved solids contribution from the use of agricultural fertilizers. 8. That an urban outfall sewer will be constructed by 1985 to carry away urban and industrial wastes and waters of high mineral content no longer suitable for re-cycling. The waptes disposed of by the outfall sewer will have a dissolved solids concentration which is the sura of the aissolved solids concentration of the mixing volume of the hydrologic unit at the start of a 10-year period plus 10-25^0, depending on the specific 10-year period, of the contribution from urban usage. This is discussed more fully under significance of results and in Appendix A. 9. That the dissolved solids concentration of 1 ton/ acre-foot for Colorado River water and 0.27 tons/ acre-foot for Feather River Project water, as discussed in Appendix C, will remain constant from 1960 to 2020. 24 10. That the dissolved solids contained in all rainfall on the hydrologic units, and that contained in all surface waters flowing from surrounding hills and mountains as given in Tables 2 through 6, will remain constant from 1960-2020. 11. That for the purposes of the mixing equation each hydrologic unit is considered to be uniform and homogeneous in character, and that perfect mixing takes place in each unit. 12. That the total tons in storage in Bunker Hill (Case I and Case II, described later) and San Timoteo (Case II only) do not change during the early 10-year periods, although the average annual outflow tonnage given by the mixing equation is greater than the average annual inflow tonnage. 13. That there is no contribution of dissolved solids by weathering of rocks within the hydrologic units between 1960-2020. 14. That the same quantities of imported water will be brought into the basins regardless of which source is used. It is recognized that many of these assumptions will not be strictly true for the period 1960-2020. However, it was necessary to make them in the absence of basic data and in order to keep the complexity of the analysis within reasonable limits. The magnitude of errors involved is believed to be no greater than the errors inherent in the study method and the basic data. n B- Mixing Equation It has been necessary to consider mixing for a rather simple and idealized case because of the size and complexity of the ground water basins, and because of the number of approximations and assumptions con- cerning flow volumes and dissolved solids content. A basic equation for a simple case of perfect mixing can be derived as follows: ir = ■-» where X = dissolved solids in the basin at time t I = dissolved solids in = dissolved solids out 25 Further, if all outflow is considered to have the same dissolved solids content as the water of the mixing volume, then the dissolved solids out can be expressed as = (outflow volume)(x) (basin mixing volume) An example of the solution of the mixing equation for the Riverside hydrologic unit is given, assuming that one-tenth of the storage volume is involved in mixing between 1960 and 1970, before the outfall sewer would be in operation. dx dt = I For 1960, X = 0.14 x 10^ tons* For 1960-70, I = 82,000 tons/yr* (7.4 X lO"* af/yr)(x tons) x . , „ For 1960-70,0 = ^ (o.21 x 10^ af) ^ = ^tons/yr* (af = acre-feet; yr = year) Then ^ = 8.2 x 10« dt dx X 2.8 0.23 X 10« 2.8 dt X 0.23 X 10^ - X 2.8 10 Ix 0.23 X 0.14 X 10* ^ — = r 0. t 10^ - X J 36 dt ln(0.23 X 10* - x) I 0.14 X 10* In 0.23 X 10* - X 0.23 X 10* - 0.14 X 10* 10 (0.36 t) I = -3.6 0.23 X 10 6 _ 0.09 X 10* = e -3 .6 X = -0.09 X 10* e~^-* + 0.23 x 10* X = 0.23 x 10* tons, in 1970. e"3-* = 0.027 * The section on Calculations (III, C) , and the Appendixes, give explana- tions of how the values for the various items of inflow and tons in storage were computed for use in the mixing equation with or without the outfall sewer. 26 The dissolved solids concentration in 1970 can be expressed as 0.23 X 10^ tons , , ^ , „ 0.21 X 10« af = ^-^ tons/af or 810 ppm and average annual dissolved solids out for 1960-70 0.14 X 10^ + 0.23 X 10^ 2 2.8 66,000 tons/yr where 0.14 X 10® = tons in mixing volume in 1960 and . 23 x 10® = tons in mixing volume in 1970. When the outfall sewer is in operation, from 1985 to 2020, the mixing equation can be modified as follows: dx ^ ^ „ - . I -0 -S I = dissolved solids in = dissolved solids out S = dissolved solids out by the sewer. In this expression, I and are the same as in the equation without the sewer; however, rather than derive an expression for S similar to that for 0, an approximation was made for the dissolved solids concentration of the sewage. This approximation consisted of taking the dissolved solids concentration for the basin at the start of a 10-year period, adding to it the proper percentage of urban use (Appendix A) , and considering the sewage to be of this quality during the 10-year period. The numerical values for I and S can then be combined, and the equation becomes: dx dt = I ' - where I • = I - S This equation can be solved in the same manner as the first example, 27 C. Calculations The calculations for the dissolved solids projections were made in 10-year increments by the use of the mixing equation, and because they are of a routine nature they are not given in detail. However, the tables in Appendix A include all the data used in the equation as well as the results. The projections for the Upper Santa Ana area were made under two different sets of conditions: a rather restricted set called Case I and a more general one called Case II. Case II provides more satisfactory values of dissolved solids for the 10-year projections in the Upper Santa Ana area. The San Jacinto area is an isolated basin, and as a result Cases I and II are the same for this basin. 1. Case I Each hydrologic unit of the Upper Santa Ana area and the San Jacinto area was considered as an isolated basin, and all of the inflow tonnages given in Tables 2 through 6 were assumed to be constant from 1960 to 2020. The only variables were the amount of Colorado River or Feather River Project water imported and the contribution of dissolved solids by urban use. This restricted approach toward the dissolved solids concentrations provided knowledge of the general trends and orders of magnitude in each of the hydrologic units. The San Timoteo hydrologic unit was chosen for detailed study because it is fairly small and relatively unaffected by neighboring units. This unit was considered with full regard for the following variables: Supplemental water Colorado River Feather River Project Mixing volumes Full One-half One-tenth Outfall sewer None Present, beginning in 1985. The results of these computations are given in Appendix A. The water use projections were furnished by the Department of Water Resources, with an outfall sewer included in them from 1985 to 2020; however, the effect of the outfall sewer was removed so that an idea could be obtained of the differences in dissolved solids with and without an outfall sewer. The other units were considered for import of Colorado River and Feather River Project waters, a mixing volume of one-tenth without the sewer, and mixing volumes of one-half and one-tenth with the sewer. The total tons in storage were computed for each of the units in the Upper Santa Ana area. A weighted dissolved solids concentration for the entire Upper Santa Ana area was obtained for each 10-year interval by 28 adding the tons in storage for the individual units and dividing by the total mixing volume. The results of these calculations are given in the form of curves in Figures 3 through 5, and these are discussed in the section on significance of results. 2. Case II Having established the method of approach and the significance of the variables employed, the dissolved solids projections for the units of the Upper Santa Ana area were improved by considering the effect on each hydrologic unit of changes in dissolved solids of neighboring units. This was done for each 10-year period between 1960 and 2020. The San Jacinto area receives little or no contribution from other units, so it has not been considered^ The contribution from precipitation and inflow from surrounding hills and mountains, as given in Tables 2 through 5, was considered to be constant. The significant variables are: Supplemental water Colorado River Feather River Project Mixing volumes One-half One-tenth Outfall sewer Present . beginning in 1985 Contribution from neighboring units Ground and surface water Export Calculations were conducted on each of the hydrologic units, generally in the direction of their "flow" from one to another, in the Upper Santa Ana area. The general sequence or direction of normal flow is San Timoteo to Bunker Hill to Riverside to Chino to Santa Ana Narrows. A major problem arises in considering flow between units in this general sequence, because water is often exported from one basin to another in a direction opposite to the normal flow. Also, a few streams flow opposite to the usual direction. The flow relations in the general sequence and the exceptions to it are shown in Figure 2. The method of handling the flow is discussed below, and the actual computations for Case II are given in Tables 8 through 14 in Appendix A. The first step in considering contributions from neighboring units was to compute from data in MacRostie, Dolcini , and others^ and Gleason^ the percentage distribution of outflow volumes from each unit to other units, Next, it was assumed that all outflow, ground or surface water, had the same dissolved solids concentration as the mixing volume of the hydrologic unit. When the flow was in the normal direction, the average annual outflow in 10-year increments from a unit was multiplied », by the outflow percentages, and the results were added to the average annual inflow of the units further along in the sequence. For example, 29 2000 1500 1000 800 o o 600 400 300 200 2010 2020 IU'M70'F-e FIG. 3 WEIGHTED DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION IN UPPER SANTA ANA AREA, 1960-2020 One-tenth Mixing Volume for Each Unit, with No Outfall Sewer, Case 1 30 2000 1500 1000 800 o 600 3 o CO 400 300 200 ^ ^^ f COLORADO RIVER ^ c 1 1 FEATHER RIVER PR 1 r OJECT /^ COLORADO RIVER ONLY ni iTF ^ 1 1 ecu/CD I960 1970 1980 1990 YEAR 2000 2010 2020 RA-2470-F-7 FIG. 4 WEIGHTED DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION IN UPPER SANTA ANA AREA, 1960-2020 One-tenth Mixing Volume for Each Unit, with Outfall Sewer, Case I 31 2000 1500 1970 2010 2020 FIG. 5 WEIGHTED DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION IN UPPER SANTA ANA AREA, 1960-2020 One-half Mixing Volume for Each Unit, with Outfall Sewer, Case I 32 flow from Bunker Hill goes to both Riverside and Chino in the general sequence. When the flow was opposite to the normal direction, then an approximation was made by taking the average annual outflow from the cony tributing unit from Case I, multiplying by the outflow percentage, and adding the results to the average annual inflow of the units receiving the flow. This approximation only had to be made for export and stream flow from Chino to Bunker Hill and for export from Bunker Hill to San Timoteo. The tonnages involved in inflow to hydrologic units and a break- down of their sources, and tonnages involved in outflow to other units and loss via the sewer, are shown in the form of bar graphs for one-tenth mixing volume, Case II (Figures 6 to 15). Also, the tonnages involved in the calculations for Case II and the directions of flow are shown in Figures 16 and 17 for both Colorado River and Feather River Project waters, for a one-tenth mixing volume, and for the period 2010-2020. The results in ppm for a one-tenth mixing volume are shown for the Upper Santa Ana area and its four units in Figures 18 to 22. A curve for one-half mixing volume for the Upper Santa Ana area (Figure 23) is included for comparison. A curve for the San Jacinto area (Figure 24) is also given. These curves are discussed in the following section, on interpretation of results. D. Interpretation of Results Figures 3 to 5 and 18 to 24 show the difference in effect on the ground water quality of the Upper Santa Ana and San Jacinto areas as a result of importation of Colorado River or Feather River Project waters under several sets of conditions during the period 1960-2020. The limits of the basic data used and the number of assumptions made are discussed elsewhere in the report. It does not seem possible to evaluate precisely the possible limits of error involved in the absolute values given on the curves and tabulated in Appendix A. If the absolute values should be in error either in magnitude or in time, the difference between the dissolved solids concentrations resulting from the import of Colorado River or Feather River Project waters would still be about the same. Therefore, it is felt that the difference between concentrations from the two types of water is the most significant feature of the dissolved solids projec- tions. It should also be noted that these curves, and Appendix A, give dissolved solids concentrations for certain mixing volumes, and they do not give any information on the dissolved solids concentration in the part of the basin lying beneath the mixing volume. Case I , which is based on the assumption that the tonnage of solids moving into a basin would remain constant between 1960 and 2020, is unduly restricted and is not considered to give completely satisfactory values for the projections. However, three curves from this case are included for comparison. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the effect of an outfall sewer on the weighted dissolved solids concentration in the entire Upper Santa Ana area. The effect of the sewer is to cause a lower dissolved solids maximum for both curves, but the Feather River Project curve receives the greatest benefit. This result is caused primarily by the method of handling the sewer, which 33 70 60 50 z ° 40 < o I 30 20 10 e SUPPLEMENTAL WATER OTHER UNITS URBAN USE □ INFI DIR INFLOW FROM MOUNTAINS AND ECT RAINFALL A -COLORADO RIVER B -FEATHER RIVER PROJECT A mi B i i - 3^ ill I I 1960-1970 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 YEARS 2000-2010 2010-2020 HB-2470F- FIG. 6 AMOUNT AND SOURCE OF DISSOLVED SOLIDS MOVING INTO THE SAN TIMOTEO HYDROLOGIC UNIT One-tenth Mixing Volume, Case n 34 70 60 50 D OTHER UNITS •^A REMOVED BY SEWER A - COLORADO RIVER B - FEATHER RIVER PROJECT g 40 o z Riy_ERSIOE JJNIT7 MtR|ng volume ojFJ 210^000 acre-feet ;^740 pprri'-^ — inc' 75,000 tons^ ^^= — ^CHINO UNIT^^ ■_i^ixing volume_of^ 900,000 acrej^feet ^_650 ppm^--^ OUTFALL SEWER 320,000 ocre feet contoininq 320.000 tons ORANGE COUNTY 83PO0 acre-feet 650 ppm RB-2470F-A FIG. 16 YEARLY MOVEMENT OF DISSOLVED SOLIDS IN UPPER SANTA ANA AREA WITH USE OF FEATHER RIVER PROJECT WATER Average for Period 2010-2020, One-tenth Mixing Volume, Case n 44 SAN TIMOTEO UNIT rMiiing volume of^ ieo.OOO ocre-feeir S% lOOO ppm~^7 BUNKER HILL UNIT jMjxinq volume fii_-_ "530,000 ocfe-feet_ r- 890 ppm ;-RIVERSIDE UNIT: IMixing volume oi_^ JlO.OOO ocre-feel: ■"— 1900 ppm — . CHINO UNIIr^ Miiing volume oiz =500,000 ocre -feel _;r^lBOO ppm^r^ ORANGE COUNTY 83,000 ocre-feet 1800 ppm OUTFALL SEWER 320,000 acte-leei conloining 770,000 tons HC-»70-F-5 FIG. 17 YEARLY MOVEMENT OF DISSOLVED SOLIDS IN UPPER SANTA ANA AREA WITH USE OF COLORADO RIVER WATER Average for Period 2010-2020, One-tenth Mixing Volume, Case EI 45 2000 1500 1000 800 6 00 O 400 300 200 I960 1970 2010 2020 RA-2470-F.9 FIG. 18 WEIGHTED DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION IN UPPER SANTA ANA AREA, 1960-2020 One-tenth Mixing Volume for Each Unit, Case n 46 2000 1500 1000 I 800 600 o 400 300 200 1990 YEAR FIG. 19 DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION IN SAN TIMOTEO HYDROLOGIC UNIT, 1960-2020 One-tenth Mixing Volume, Case EI 47 2000 1500 2020 fi*2470-F-lt FIG. 20 DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION IN BUNKER HILL HYDROLOGIC UNIT, 1960-2020 One-tenth Mixing Volume, Case n 48 W5 O UJ 3 o 3000 2000 1500 1000 800 600 400 300 200 J' 1*^ "^ — 1 ^ ^^,^ c ;OLORADO Rl\ /ER-^ / V^ ^— -^ ,^ / FEATHER RIV ER PROJECT- -""^ J / COLORADO RIVER ONLY h° UTFALL SEW I960 1970 1980 1990 YEAR 2000 2010 2020 RA-2470-r-l2 FIG. 21 DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION IN RIVERSIDE HYDROLOGIC UNIT, 1960-2020 One-tenth Mixing Volume, Case D 49 2000 1500 1000 800 600 400 300 200 2020 fiA-24T0-F-l5 FIG. 22 DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION IN CHINO HYDROLOGIC UNIT, 1960-2020 One-tenth Mixing Volume, Case EI 50 2000 1500 1000 E 800 o a 600 3 o (0 400 300 200 COLORAO RIVER, y J^ ^ FEATH ER RIVER PR J, J OJECT COLORADO RIVER ONLY I960 1970 1980 1990 YEAR 2000 2010 2020 RA-2470 F-25 FIG. 23 WEIGHTED DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION IN UPPER SANTA ANA AREA, 1960-2020 One-half Mixing Volume for Each Unit, Case n 51 4000 3000 2000 a ISOO O CO o UJ ^ 1000 CO 800 600 400 ^ ""^^COLORADO RIVER -^^ A <^ Kn FE ftTHER RIVER PROJECT ^, COLORADO RIVER ONLY I960 1970 1980 1990 YEAR 2000 2010 2020 RA-2470-F-r4 FIG. 24 DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION IN SAN JACINTO AREA, 1960-2020 One-tenth Mixing Volume 52 is discussed below. A comparison of Figures 3 and 4 also shows that the difference between curves is greater with the sewer in operation. Both Figures 3 and 4 are for one-tenth mixing volume. Figure 5 is for one-half mixing volume. The influence of a larger mixing volume may be readily observed by comparing Figures 4 and 5. Obviously, the greater the mixing volume, the lower the dissolved solids concentration. The most satisfactory dissolved solids projections are given by Case II. This is because Case II considers the total "flow" relations between hydrologic units, including that which is exported or imported. The results are illustrated in Figures 18 to 24; and are fully presented in Appendix A. The use of one-tenth and one-half mixing volumes is con- sidered to set approximate limits to the volume in which active mixing will take place. In order to simplify the presentation, a full set of curves is given only for one-tenth mixing volume; one curve for one-half mixing volume is included for comparison. This is done only for simplicity and does not imply that preference is given to either mixing volume. The weighted dissolved solids concentration in the Upper Santa Ana area is shown for one-tenth mixing volume in Figure 18 and for one-half mixing volume in Figure 23. The three most important features shown by these curves are: 1. The rate of increase of dissolved solids is less for one-half mixing volume than for one-tenth; this is because of the effect of mixing in a larger volume of ground water. 2. The slope of the curves decreases gradually, reaches a maximum, and is reversed for one-tenth mixing volume, which is largely due to the effect of the sewer. 3. By 2020 the absolute values and differences are about the same for both mixing volumes. The results for the Chino and Riverside units at one-half mixing volume are similar to the results for the weighted curve for the entire Santa Ana area described above. However, both San Timoteo and Bunker Hill units have lower dissolved solids, and receive greater benefit when the larger mixing volume is considered. The results for the individual hydrologic units of the Upper Santa Ana area, for one-tenth mixing volume, are given in Figures 19 to 22. The quality of water flowing down the Santa Ana Narrows is assumed to be the same as that shown for the Chino unit (Figure 22). Figure 24, for the San Jacinto area, is included to show the trend in that basin. The shapes of these curves are greatly influenced by the method of handling the effect of the outfall sewer. It has been assumed that the tons of dissolved solids disposed of by the sewer are the sum of the tons in the percentage of total urban water removed by the sewer (10-25^ depending on the specific 10-year period) which has the same quality as the mixing volume plus the same percentage of the urban usage. Therefore, water lost to the sewer 53 is replaced by imported water. When the dissolved solids concentration of the imported water is less than that of the mixing volume, the outfall sewer will remove more dissolved solids than are being brought in by the imported water. After a certain time period, depending on the amount of water lost to the sewer, and the dissolved solids difference between im- ported water and mixing volume, the slopes of the dissolved solids curves gradually decrease, the concentration of solids reaches a maximum, and the concentrations may even be reversed. The curves show that the attainment of a maximum occurs sooner for Feather River Project water, since it is of better quality than Colorado River water. IV Eco nomic Considerations The following is a discussion of the economic effects resulting from the impairment of ground water in the Upper Santa Ana area due to importa- tion of Colorado River or Feather River Project waters. The San Jacinto area is not considered because most of the area no longer depends on ground water, because of depletion or poor quality. Important economic effects would result in each of the following situations: 1, If the ground water was no longer usable due to accumulation of salts, its place would have to be taken by imported water. Also, the flow down the Santa Ana Narrows would be unusable in Orange County and would have to be replaced by importing additional water. 2, If the flow from the Upper Santa Ana area to Orange County had to be replaced by imported water, then there would be a problem of disposing of the unusable water coming through the Narrows to prevent degradation of the underground supply in Orange County, Possibly a larger outfall sewer might have to be built. 3, If the ground water became unusable, then additional surface distribution facilities would have to be built and maintained in the Upper Santa Ana area, and existing well installations would have to be abandoned. Tending to offset these costs would be the saving in pumping costs and well maintenance that would accompany the shift to surface supply. It is possible here to estimate dollar values only in the first situation, that is, for replacing unusable water. The other items are also important, but engineering studies of drainage and distribution facilities would be required to set dollar values on them. Even the general nature of distribution works in the Upper Santa Ana area cannot be foreseen at this time. However, it appears probable that both of these items would entail costs of considerable magnitude. In order to estimate the cost of replacing ground water with imported water, it is necessary to establish a limit at which the water is assumed 54 to become unusable. For this study two illustrative limits were chosen in order to obtain a range in values. The first limit used is a dissolved solids concentration of 1000 ppm, which is the U.S. Public Health Service standard for drinking water. ^^ The second limit is a concentration of 1500 ppm, which was chosen because waters with concentrations in excess of 1000 ppm but less than 1500 ppm can be used for many purposes. Also, many people continue to use an inferior water if it is cheaper than a supply of higher quality. The times at which the dissolved solids projections for the hydrologic units of the Upper Santa Ana area would exceed these limits were found from the projec- tion curves discussed earlier. The costs of replacing ground water used in the area were calculated on the basis of $25.00 per acre-foot, and the results are given in Table 7. Table 7 COST OF REPLACING UNUSABLE GROUND WATER WITH COLORADO RIVER WATER (At S25 per Acre-Foot) GROUND WATER SOURCE AFFECTED YEAR FIRST AFFECTED LOCAL SAFE YIELD* (acre f e e t / y r } VOLUME AFFECTED (acre f eet /y r ) COST I Ground Water Exceeding 1000 ppm One tenth Mixing Volume Riverside Chino Santa Ana Narrows San Timoteo 1976 1982 1982 2014 84,260 83,000 8,890 167,260 176,150 4.181 500 4,403.750 One-half Mixing Volume Riverside Chino Santa Ana Narrows 1985 2000 2000 84 260 83,000 167,260 4,181.500 II Ground Water Exceeding 1500 ppm One-tenth Mixing Volume Riverside Chino Santa Ana Narrows 1988 1991 1991 84,260 83,000 167,260 4,181.500 One-half Mixing Volume Riverside Chino Santa Ana Narrows 1996 2016 2016 84,260 83,000 167 260 4.181 500 Local safe yields were supplied by the Department of Water Resources in a letter dated September 10 1958, a portion of which states ^'. . . the derived safe yield of the Riverside Subunit is zero Under conditions existing in 1945 the exportation of water from the Bunker Hill Subunit to the Riverside Subunit exceeded the summation of consumptive use of applied water in and exportation of water from Riverside Subunit by 15 300 acre-feet. Therefore, under these conditions, it was impossible to derive or credit any portion of the use of water in or exportation from Riverside Subunit to water originating therein* Never the less . some water is pumped from we lis in the Riverside Subunit . The loss of use of this water from quality deterioration would be economically significant but the quantities in- volved are not known and the effects are not included in Table 7 55 Table 7 was calculated from the Case II analyses described earlier for both one-tenth and one-half mixing volumes and for limits of 1000 ppm and 1500 ppm„ The results are for Colorado River water only because these limits are not exceeded during the period of analysis with the use of Feather River Project water. The table gives the years in which the limits would be exceeded and the safe yield of the hydrologic units. The flow to Orange County down the Santa Ana Narrows is assumed to become unusable at the same time that the ground water in the Chino unit becomes unusable. The costs shown in Table 7 are all in the order of $4,000,000 per year, and the only major difference is the time when the costs would begin. For example, under the most unfavorable conditions of one-tenth mixing •volume and 1000 ppm limit, the costs would begin in 1982; whereas, for the most favorable conditions of one-half mixing volume and 1500 ppm limit, the costs would not begin until 2016, The time at which the ground water would have to be replaced by im- ported water is also the time at which the effects mentioned in items 2 and 3 above would commence. Although dollar estimates of these effects are not made here, it should be recognized that there would be some costs in addition to those shown in Table 7. With respect to the use of ground water in the Upper Santa Ana area, the difference in economic impact from using Colorado River water or Feather River Project water would, therefore, be substantial in the later years of the study period. From the time that differences in ground water quality began to result from using Colorado River water as compared to using Feather River Project water until the ground water became unusable as discussed above, there would be a period in which varying degrees of difference in ground water quality would exist. No attempt has been made specifically to evaluate the economic effect of these differences. It must be recognized that the assumed quality limits at which the ground water is said to become un- useable in the foregoing discussion will not apply uniformly to all users. Some users would probably seek alternative supplies before these limits are reached, and some would probably delay shifting from the ground water until these limits are exceeded- Thus the cost of an alternative supply will be encountered over a period of time rather than beginning suddenly as in the examples shown above. It is believed that this spreading over time of the costs of replacing the ground water makes a reasonable allowance for gradually changing quality and that no further refinement of the estimates is feasible here. A possible alternative to directly replacing ground water with surface water would be to conduct extensive recharge operations to replenish and freshen the ground water. However, the geology and hydrology of the area would have to be known in great detail in order to be sure that spreading would be technically feasible. Also, such an operation would encounter problems such as drainage in low lying areas and water losses during spreading. Further, there would be economic problems relating to the cost of the spreading grounds, the cost of the recharge water, and the cost of energy to move water to the spreading grounds. In view of these diffi- culties, this alternative has not been considered in this study. 56 Appendix A PROJECTION OF DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS, 1960-2020 The results given in Tables 8 through 14 for Case I and Case II were obtained by use of the mixing equation (Section III,B). All of the data used in the mixing equation are given, and there are footnotes to indicate various adjustments that were made. The general procedures used in ob- taining the data and solving the mixing equation are discussed in the text, but the following notes are added in order to clarify the calculations, 1. For the calculations of the dissolved solids content that will be present without an outfall sewer, the urban use was obtained by multiplying the population by 70 pounds per person per year.^ For the calcula- tions that include the effect of the sewer, the urban use was adjusted as follows: Loss to Year Sewer ("/o) 1985 - 1990 - 10 2000 - 20 2010 - 25 2020 - 25 2. Tons of solids imported were calculated from '■ 1.0 ton/acre-foot for Colorado River water and 0,27 ton/acre-foot for Feather River Project water. 3. The tons of solids in storage were given by the mixing equation, except for the initial values in 1960, which were estimated as explained in the text. 4. The column headed "Loss to Sewer" was computed as follows: the total urban water use was computed from the projection tables in Appendix B, and the amount lost to the sewer was computed from the sewer schedule (above). The dissolved solids concentration of this water was considered to be that of the mixing volume at the start of each 10-year period. 5. In Case II, the adjustment of tons of solids in the average annual inflow to hydrologic units due to changes in neighboring units was based on the following flow relations. 57 Percent From of Total Flow To San Timoteo 90 Bunker Hill 82 Bunker Hill 11 Bunker Hill 6 Riverside 100 Chino 18 Chi no 69 Bunker Hill Riverside San Timoteo Chino Chino Bunker Hill Orange County down Santa Ana Narrows 58 I H « < ij 1) S c u. 3 QJ o u ^ < o t£ CJ O vO o in O r-A a U s = V o ^H Q 41 II J3 u *:> a > O V H -1 E E b^ ■H 3 — ^ w O ►— ( c > a o en U> Lu n o ' '^ t-H •H ^ 5; N^ 41 H M -^ U S -^ u U 3 -1 u. o s a la E Ln S S r- S c^ § m Ln S h- CM 'H ON "2 a. M CO CO CO -«t VO 00 CO CO CO CO -r?- in in UJ o *"' 1 -c > > so \0 O \0 NO so >o so NA NO NO NO NO NO £ c o o o o g o o o o o o O o o >-H fH rH r-H »— 1 r-l .— t X >C X X X X X X X X X X X X >< Q CNJ CM CS CO \o CN» >-< »-^ ■-« f-4 ^H i-H CJ CO CM CM CN CO tn 00 r-* r-4 P-4 ^ ^ ,-( ,-1 CM o o o o o o o O O o O O O O H ^ U » u 5 o s^ o o o o o o O O O O O O »;::^ o o o o o o o o o o o OJ CnJ \D O O O CM CM \0 O O O ^"k^ oC on" on" "-h in o ON On On <—( CO in O *J ^ —1 cs « E O O O O O Q O O O O O O O O -c a. in uo m \o CO ^ Tj* in in in NO t^ o -^t CO CO CO CO CO Tt -^ a. CO CO CO CO CO -^ LO u s « 3 -J -c o 1) > > O ^£ O 'C ^ ^ o NO NO VO NO NO NO NO g o o o o o o -o O O O o o O O X X X X X X X X X X X X X X « - =_^ CM so ^ ^ vo NO r- c> NO NO NO NO NO t^ r- a z "'■ o o o o o o o CC o o o o o o o Lb i S * u » k. UJ O >- « o o o o o o < 3 o in ^ vo o o o o o o o o o o in in NO CO o o z 0\ On On o ■""' co K On On ON On o •"* O -J ^H ,—1 s s < G w M £ a: o o o o o o o o o o o o o o •^ in in in in in r- cs in in in in in r-- o CO CO CO CO CO CO ^ C > CO CO CO CO CO CO -<* e C/) bJ -D Q > V -J > u ,^ e O •£> "O nO "^ 'O ^ ^ NO NO »0 \0 O \0 NO > = z = o o o o o o o cc o o o o o o o 0) u 1 « ■- i u S X X X X X X X ^ ^ CM CM CM CM CM CO LO CM CM CM CM CM CO -^ X Q n ^^ < U- E _] -] £ i t. o >. O O O O O O O O O O O O «s "* "^^ o o o o o o O O O O O O < 3 CM CM CM CM NO O CM CM CM CM NO O On On 0^ On On ""H On On On On On O o ^ U* h u * >- o o o -o o o o o o o o o •< o-^ o o o o o o O O O O O O a -i m NO in o o o o NC in o o o C3 u [b e > z o oo" ON ■— < '*" <— '" oC CO ON --I^ cm" iW CO < — u rH ^ CM CM ^ ^ ^ ^ ^-1 o o o o o o O O O O GO o o co" "—I r- O O O O O On t- ^ cm" '^ §u:-? o o o o o o o o o o o o o o S 2 S § S 2 § o o o o o o o CD cn m ro ^H »-H Tf NO -M -^t ^ CM co' Tt in r-^ 00 ^ cm" CO ■*" in" r-" co' cc o o o o o o o o o o o o o o < ^0 r- 00 ON O '-^ CM NO r- 00 ON o --H CM u ON 0\ On On O O O On On On 0\ O O O ^ ^ ^ J CM CM CM >• ^ ^ -H ^ CM CM CM CO V CO i > 5 § ■o 1" E * u g CC u > CC 3 8 S S S r- '-< r-l ro to CO CO m irt t~- ON s c a: 2 in in in r- t— o CN CO CO CO CO CO -"Jf Tf ^O M5 NO ^ "^ NO ^ s s s s s a 2 a s s s s s ?^ o o o o o o o iXi \0 VO \0 VD vO VO o o o o o o o ,—(,—(,_( ,-H I—I <—«.— I X X X X X X X (M CS CM CO CO -^ to O O O O O O O ClO < 11 o o o o o o o o o o o o CJ C-l 'O o o o ON- CA ON Cj t;£ Ci o o o o o o o o o o o o CM CM ^ O O O ^ oC oC o o ^" <3I o o o o o o o o o o o o nB m o o o o «>" c^" d S' S 9> o o o o o o \0 LO CO 00 o o Cc" On" on on r-i CM o o o o O O O ON o o o ^- NC oj O o o o o o o o ON CM tn o r-T in 00 1— r g X < Ui T3 E a. a. m m in S CO 00 t- co CO « CO CO -^ in S S S in in ^o I- CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 4} -^ 5? « 10 \0 VO ^ "-O "O ^ o o o o o o ^ >c X X >. X >^ "— < 0*3 CS C^l CO 00 •«# X vo VO ^O \£) \0 CO O o o O O O o ■— < \D \C "O "O ^O ^ "^ O O O Q O O Q X X X X X x x CM CM CM CM CM CO in ^O 'O 'O "^ ^ NO ^D O O o o O O O .11 o o o o o o o o o o o o in in sD o CD o 0\ ON Os O ^' ^ o o o o o o in in in in vD c^ ON ON ON On On ON g § g 8 8 § *£i in o o o o CO oC --4 vo ^D in rH f-H OJ CO 00 ON On On >—< CM o o o o O CD o o O O O CJ^ O ON O .— 1 m CO CO O O O CD N*- o o o o O O O On O CM O ,— T in CO o > lb a E a. a. in in in in r- (M CO ro CO CO oo CO ■<* "^ in in in "-O in in in CO CO CO CO CO CO CO \o O "^ '^ '^ ^•o -^ O O Q O O O Q ,-H f—l i-H 1—. r-H 1—1 r-( (N 5 po in r- so 'O NO vO mD VD vo o o O O O O O ?H f-H 1=1 <-l <~l »-H ^ X X X X X X X CM CM CM CM CM CM CM s < g 8 g g g g CM CS C^ ^ O O ON ON oC o •— ' c^ O O O O O O O O O O O O CM CM CM CM CM CM ON On" ON ON ON ON 8 8 § § § S vc in o o o o 00 ON "-H NO NO 1^ o o o o o o o o o o o o NO in 00 ON o o CO ON Ov ON -—I CM «, « « o o O O O O O On O NO O r-i' in so" cm" g g 8 8 O O O ON O CM ON -— <" in co" d^ o o c o o o o o o o o m o o o CNl ^' OO 00 .-H CNl CNO CO o o o O O O NO CO ^ o co' t-' o' Sis o o o o o o o o o o o o o o CO ^^ <— I o m CO fO --H cnT CO -^ ^ in NO o o o o o o o o o o o o o o CO f— 1 f-H O 1/5 CO CO ,-H cm"" co" rt '^" tn NO 5 u >- S ° 03 ON O -H u u u U < -H Q ac '^ (J tfj D u X h- ( ■n _1 >-. CO CI tJl , 1 in Q ^-1 U ■H > a: u J B [m C/) <; —i C/1 -:£ l-H C > D 3 03 M) U. C ' 1-1 V H w o E 0000000 0000000 a. nH .— . ^ i-H 1—4 1— ( CO i:§ a CD ro ro Tt in \D >- CO CO CO CO CO CO CO ve so so ^O ^O VO to >.c ^£> VO <0 ^ vO s ^ ^' 0000000 0000000 r-1 ,— ( ,— t — ^ ^^ cH ,-H 2 '" c ?■ c u Q 'tr ""' 0000000 000000 000000 000000 <=> 000000 000000 X <1^ 5 S ? § S 5 CO fO CO CO CO \o vx; \C ^ ^ \0 ^O £ c^ .— 1 f— 1 r— 1 =Jt u 000000 000000 000000 000000 ?-■"' 000000 000000 g <■*. ? ^o CO 00 ■* \0 00 04 ^ LO -nD -— 1 CC ^H -Cf CN Tt in in '^ -sD "O 1— < fc,^ .— 1 1— 1 r-H --^ 2<^ !:. m * c 0000 0000 0000 UJ cz) (M (/I CM :c ^cX 2 \0 — i -H* ON (M '* tn p \£) ^ '^ r- r- 1 CM CM ■-' -, r^ -^ i- ■* 6 0000000 0000000 d. * f— T-H 1— ( r-- lo r- to r—l f— 1 I— ( i-H 1— t rH r-H 5 a. m po CO ro ■«+ in \o a: CO CO CO 00 CO CO CO •" UJ cn <: \D \o ^0 ^£> \o U- \0 \0 so vO ^C ^ ^0 ?'' H 0000000 * 0000000 F— 1 f-H .— ( 1— ( f— ( r— ( 1— ( 2 i" ■"!| < y >t. x: X X x: >c X Q 01 1— 1 1— 1 r-H CO VO f^ _ ^ ^ ^ ^ (M 04 ^ 'jj CD 000000 > 0, °< c: 000000 000000 000000 cr 000000 m n uo j^ 1— iin in in in in in m •< so ^ ^O ^ ^r> so c o.t. E c -J =*b t- 000000 000000 < * :•< 000000 <: o» 000000 u 000000 u: < c ^ vr> f*^ X ^O 1— . CO ■— 1 rf CT\ "^ ^c CO (r>j •«* '^ ■^ in t-o ^c 'O sc " ,_^ a-v u 0000 0000 0000 »: J M CM C5 CM \D ON m CN ^ \o -^ r- ^H CM CN 2i^ 000000 00 00000 00 00000 000000 0000000 -^ ■>■ CO 'O 00' 0^ CO sc' ^^ . r— sC -^ r- CO CNi in f^ Ln » s, ' -H CN CO -<* St/2 2 C5 o> ^•^00000 0000000 ■^ 't* S= ? lO CO CN -rf >^ ^- *-> ^ ^ r_( ^ CS i E 0 ^D ^ ^ "^ ^ CJ —' i2 c 5f " -^ CO c 2 c X X >^ X >^ X X "< ^ CM (M O) r-( CO 00 CM CM CM CM CO ro "^ in tM CM CM CM •rf 00 C 1— ( 2- CC CM CM CM CM CM CM CT) 0000000 ffl CD s:: r/1 S '" iiE 000000 000000 000000 H -o (T; 000000 "*■ 000000 UJ i '•■ = :2 c - s; s § ro CO ro \c •^" en < 3 S so vo sc vc r~- oD c ^ 1—1 r— ' < ,^ CC S^ i^ u: 000000 * 000000 f- 000000 000000 SS^ < 3: 000000 h UJ U. C siD CO CT\ ^ -vO CC ^^ -^ in UJ ■0 .-( r^' 0' M2 > Z :i c: -^ Tf U-. sc t-- t^ CC <■—..> ' ;"*, n- c: Ci !n 00 00000 > 00 00000 0000000^ \o r- t-H 00 CC oso m . SC -H , t^ •<* ON ^" t^ « - *J CM in r- 00 d I ^ i ^^ ^^ CM CM b J- P < u 0000000 < LU -■^. CD C C — I— ( 5 b b oo f/j ^^ r-4 o Q o 1—4 i -o X CM 1) a -O "■ 91 V I- g (U 3 > — < 'H 3 Q o 1 bo O l-*-H S OH O-H a^^ o — :r; — r — r "^ as ^ •— < in r^ ^ e ^ OT rH iT^ v£> r- a. ^ \0 \0 ^ 'C ^^ ^ so NO so ^ so so so o J!! *> -. 0000000 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 = s = X X X X X X X ^ ^ VO r- CM rH a i « '' 0000000 0000000 ^ .-. 000000 000000 a S. 000000 a ■ = --> 000000 > "^ c GO <0 0> CO CT\ in 00 in en X -< ^ 5 vo <-- en vo \£) ^- so CO as CO t-- r- al z S > >• <: c o C? o- 000000 000000 000000 000000 r-"" en t--" 0* 0" ^' u] CO !— t in vo so r- Soi, 0000 cc 0000 0000 * S S S S '■■C 0000 bJ « ^ m C/1 - ~ - - ^^l ^ -sO en -^ en r- X J2 p rH CJ C^ H * ,^ 0000000 E c^i ON 00 -^t -o CO (M LO r~- ^0 .— ( 1— 1 r— ( >— 1 UJ *i < \0 so so ** ,-, "O SO ^0 '«0 "^O * ^ SO ^O SO ",^ M « ^^00000 a ™ c < ^ ^ t-( rH t-H r-( r-l h- f^ ^ »<: X >' X. :>^ f— rf X X X X ON u *j ~.^ so as CM r- ^^ c*^ CM s m > r-H >— i CM CM CM £ > «■ L 000000 «=^ i >- 000000 & w— ^ 000000 <"Sg r— cn SO OS On CO s< 5 cc in r- 00 CO r- ^D o t^ s 8 cc - 000000 0. 000000 s 000000 u r- c-^ en 00 0" so < c ? GO .-< in CO 00 sc CO Os as CO so in ° so t 0000 c* 0000 0000 tn *> i^ « * C CO O S O CM t-H fo as i-t CS CM ^ .^. 0000000 00 CD S fc >- LO "^ ■<- -^ cn CM t- ■j CM en 0000000 0000000 0000000 CM CM i= g t^ »-H CO en ON ^ ^H r-i CM CM f*^ ■** i>- <-H CO en On ^ ^> 0000000 Os ^ -— t c^ -^ c> g -o 1. a. ■ C « B £ .5 '^ o i^ ^ en ^ in r~- CO X s OT 0000000 * 0000000 X to % 000000 000000 fo 000000 Si •""M^ w (O <=: i « e ri co' aC 0' 0" •* 3 o ^ so OS en CO en a^ O °1 cc ^ ^ CM CM ,.^ UJ« (■< u 000000 * •< 000000 H bj b- c r-- r-l .— t CM CM en > ,^ .^ 0000000 0000000 c: 00 00000 III u 0000 9 in > in CO 00000 X •*cn CM CM so -^ p— 1 ■^ r— CM t~- ^ f-H CM £S •^ Q tu -^ 0000000 0000000 0000000 u. i^i CM t-- >-H CO SO '^ SO m r— 1— 1 00 vo >o so en *i rH i—i CM en '«* in r— ( i-H CM CO ^ in s 0000000 0000000 so r- CO a\ --H CM Oi OS as a. >* .— ( .— 1 r-H .-H CM CM CM O cB E O 3 «J ^'> TJ X n 0. 3 ■H B 3 t) e V u U > •U M B B ■H < bJ »— 1 •M C3 C^ * ^ g U w O a > c/; O c o 3 < H O M) — ' O — H >e o t. o -o U - o ■ > H a u 3 a 3 U. o o o o o o o ^O >- « 00 O O Q CM ■«*• \D Cn CM PC ^ o o o o o o o 'O r- m o\ o CO CO -o CM ■<# in in NO in in «< ^ f-H ^^ f-H ;»■ __ _i ^ so ^O ^£) vO ^O »£> vO \0 »£) NO O _ 2? « O O o ^i3 ^ '^ ^ o o o o o o o S o ^H ^-i .— * o o o o ,—( ,—1 ^H r-l rH i-H rH i « c " c X >i >^ X X X X Q ,-; ^ n eg 00 p-i >v >< 5- V CM 00 in CM -^ fM ^ po u^ oo (N in >o ^- O O O — 1 •-' " -H en in o !^ r- r— r^ o o o o o o o •^ ' o o o o o o o o o o o o » >. o o o o o o O O O O O Q i »-> o o o o o o o o o o o o <^ ■■ S S S? g 2 S o en f-H •^ r-' in X \0 CO ON i;^ ON On 3 -'. ^^ r-» CN| C^ * (. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o » >^ o o o o o o »i;> o o o o o o o o o o o o <;= s o^ o o o o o ON o o o -rj- in OS cNj r- I^ o-j cv^ CO ON C3 O ON o\ -( —. Csj CM CN «-H f—i so i O O O O § 8 § 8 CC O O O O to i; ■^ LL! O O O O c/5 o o o o « « !r w f, C » O O O o o o ■ UJ CNJ -^ o o g 00 CO -o o j<^ r tn CM a\ ON tn r-H in ON "-H ^ OJ t— ( E * o o o o o o o O O O Q O Q O o CM CO ^ o\ ^ r^ £ £ \o en CN >- t-- CO o •o a CS) m Tf in >- On CM CM m en ■«*■<* in in *> * a -■3 cs r— 1 < o ■"* kJ . u y? vo \o UD \o vo ^ » VO \0 VO *0 ^ NO ^O « « «'« t- o o o o o o o O O O Q O O O .:« <= " ^ < nH rH S ?H f^ r-i rH H C . . U. s >-- ^.■ 5-. >c >r, >*: >^ c ^^ >. X >< X X X 2 a " i, ^- X > cc ^ O ^0 m -— O CM f-H CM CN) ro Tt ^D '- i \o o m r- -o en in --^ CM CM CM en en en o > "*. S" o o o O O O o o o o o o * >~ O O O O O O cc o o o o o o o «,-> 1 O O O o o O > o o o o o o 2: it = 0\ CM CM O O O ON oc CO r- in CM X -**• \0 00 <-H -^ CO cc Tt in ^ r~- CO ON 5:, _1 8 ,-H r-. <— * cc .^ U. 3= =*t O O O O O O o o o o o o 9 >• o o o o o o < CD o o o o o <«i;> o o o o o o o o o o o o <2 § a\ o o o o o ON o o o o o' UJ 00 CM -- ro CO O CO ON f-H I— 1 I— 1 rH S r-i ^^ CM CM ro ,_, r-H .— 1 nH .%; Z o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o S^ o o o o o o o o r S n o o o ... o o o ... n ?. e Tf -.D O O CM en CO o 3<».^. .-^ in CM CO '^ -rf r- o 1—1 <— 1 .— ( .^ °i-: o o o o o o o o oo o o o o o o o o o o o o O oo O Q O O O OOrfO O O O O o o o o o o o i|g CO O CO o o o o CO O ih NO m On ^" o CM in CO CM c^ >- V CM ,'—1 en in CO CD (/a *-( _^. -* c^ fO en ^— >/ — ' .— ( T o o o o o o o o o o o o o o i^s^ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o — i O O O O O O --H o o o o o o i« g >- .— t \£J "*#■ O \0 CM ^-" r- < \o -^ o" \o CM 5 "^ '' r-( .— ( CM en ro -^ rH i-< CM en en -^ ., o o o o o o o o o o o o o o u e O =^ O CO o o o CM r* O ON CM \0 ON -o r- po en in o CO T3 a CM ■^ in NO r— ON On > ^■5 - f-1 --. -H -^ "G ^O so vO ^O ^ NO o ^ X , o o o ■« *j:> ^ ^ O O O O O NO ^ i ^ o « "! r-H ^ fH O O O O ,-H f— ( 1— 1 rH ■— ( O O ^ C/3 B f O >'. >^. X i-H 1— i 1— 1 1— 1 cc X X >. ;< X f-1 .— ( ■H •St!" CM 00 r-i V. >- X x u CM CO in r- CM x x X o en in GO CM in o\ CO m in NO h- On r— ( CM s « O O O r-H •— f "-H CM o 2 O O O O O ^ '-H > M o o o o o o O O O o o o o ;-. U3 O O O O O C3 o o o o o o **<-< t- CO o o o o o o o o o o o o -i ^^ c o O CO o o o o £ o~ CM in o CD o UJ < 3 O z vD o\ en CO en co i 5 NO CO On '—* en in § o *-^ cc ^ ^ CM CM ^ ^ r-. ua* S § S § 8 S o o o o o o O * >• f- o o o o o o SS^ < o o o o o o u o o o o o o ■^ la. c ON o o o o o ON o o o o o > 2 c £ CO CM r^ CM CO CM CO On •"" en in t^ < — .. :&: r-1 .-. CM CM en 1— t 1— ( r-H (-H > cc ,^ •*- Sfe^ o o o o o o o > i O Q O O O O O o o o o o o o £ 8 o§ 8 o o S o Si? CO O co' OS C3 o o CM in On m On CM es CO o'ln *o" t-" o ^ aC .CM y ^ CM ■* in Irt v; 1— • ^ 2 <— « ^H CM u 2 ^ $«~^ o o o o o g § 8 8 S 8 8 8 8 as « »■ -^ o o o o o o -^ o o o o o o K O C ^ 1— 1 O -- CO CO JD f- - :s ?5 S' 5 S ^. f-> ^^ CM rO ■*# in jj. \0 t^ 00 ^ O •-^ CM o o o o o o o 3 sO r^ CO On O "—< CM ON On On ON O O O On ON On On O O O >■ rH ^ Xh r-H CM CM CM ^ r-4 .-< r-H CM CM CM »«-r « C O — t ■— , U C O -^ X ►- O < UJ ♦ -^ c<> O en o Q o _j X cs o -H )-H 1/1 o V a 10 (>J ja > eg _i H o D E (/) ' 3 h- 1 1 — 1 Q l-< O > U, CD a o g tiu c h- ( -H s £ij ^~* •n ^^ O s cc u. Q. ■— ' o o o o o o o c- o o o o o o o r- t— in in ^ CM f-i C-- r- "X) "— t SO CM in so CO ao r- uo in CO CO CM CM CM ^ cc o^ »* § 8 § § S S 8 S i: "-^ o o o o UJ 0000 K £ n If] 000 - - - !! J ? i^ s s s s 1— ( r— ( p 2 S ^ S S * o o o o o o o SO o ^ o o o o o Q. * r-- OS CO CO CM so <:^ " r; O. .-H "— i (M CM CN a 5 cc >« yD ss (-5 vO ^O so \£> 'O ^ Q vo so so so so ^O " o «> « •—t rH " (^ c ? c ir X i-H 1— 1 i-H r— 1 r— ( rH h >■: 1— ( i-H 1—* """I »-^ •—' in X X X X X X u Q ON fo CO '* SO Ul ^ $ (0 s > cc f-" ■— t CM fO fO -^ ?' ^ -H --H <-H ^ r-^ ♦. "J 000000 CL 000000 S >~ CC 000000 S^ CM CO -^ ■rf' 1="^ § 000000 UJ > ** ^ o 2 >-H CM CO ^ ■^ m cc rH CM CM CM CM CM s S,t ,s cc Uh ,^ s * (- g S S X «.^~;? 000000 i -< c CO ON 00 t— g -•^ \0 vo so so ^O ^ ^O 00 00^ ^ '-0 0000000 o M O ,-H r-H n-t »-H 2 : i X X X X X X X o-. SO CM tn Tf in -^ K »-( rf -^t -^ in so r^ UJ cc ■-< -H C^4 f c:> £ ._. I/l ft » £ 000000 000000 o >■ u 000000 000000 000000 -'. ^1! o LO in '^^ >— ' in -^ CO 00 M? CO CM CO CO CO -^ in z z CM -^ so 0\ CM in K [^ s^>^ cs < 000000 000000 S2> s 000000 000000 CO 0\ CM Q in so On CO so t^ CO r^ 00 CO CO in CO CO -^ in so > Z ° cc < s .. > c ,— ^ .^. g§^ 0000000 cc 00 00000 0000000 ui 00 00000 s 0000000 > iif o -<* ^ in r~- CO -^ so CO CO -<* in cc ■^ rifCM CO CO in 00 CO ^^f-j, -— « — V— ' ^ i '~ §u,^ 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 u. CQ (A « CO ON t-H CM ON r-H r— ( CO in ^- r— ( CO f— < r— 1 CO in r— •—< CO *J .—1 1— 1 r-H .— < — ' 5 s ? g S 8 s s p C' O' ■O F- CO ON C5 ■— ' CM s; a a s 9 s s § ON On C3N On <- <<5 c Ci. " O "-' d a. ja e o o o o o o o ^H — H Ov -^ ^H VO (M o o o o o o o a. I r-H ^H CM o .-^ :^ Ov 7^ ■•* a. rO CO CO u-j .-- 00 On CO CO CO fO CO CO CO <>0 ^ O vO >0 ^0 vO J3 O «0 so >i> »£) ^O c * c O o o O O O O o o o o o o o X X >: X. X X >■ ^^ ^^ *^H ^"1 1*^ ^^ ^^ X X X X X X X a ■ r- CM CM 00 >- f-4 C^ 'Ci CM CM CO V£> >- >. CO ^->. CM CM eg CO in sc \o CM CM C>J CM CM CM CM «^ V r o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ..t C o o o o o o o o o o o o V M) f >- o o o o o o o o o o o o fc* fl -\ o o o o o o o o o o o o < 4> o C CO <-H CO O O O CO -^ O M3 >- C^ * 3 ® \c >- ON ro ^ CO ND so >- :^ >- .-^ *£> t— ( .— 1 <— * o X *.<] u o o c o o o o o o o o o t»D » r^ o o o o o o o o o o o o en fl o -^ o o o o o o o o o o o o •r: I. -H W cc 0? '-^ c Tj-" oC o" o" o* o fs ^ uo CO r- 00 .-H o > C L/*: ■ — .— ( m 00 ON uo so >- ^- >- 00 < 1— . iJ ,__,_( —1 -H < * i> !- ,-^ E H tJ 3 < o o o o o o o u o o o o o o o « r c * o o o o o o o o O ON O O O vf o o o > cc '^ -sO '^ ^' a ^^ CO ON CO tie > CM -J-. -- r-H CM CO c c: X »lt > 0-^ s S -H C - cc <*-■-.>. o c; o o o o o o o o o o C -C "^ o o o o o o cs o o o o o o E- l-M U « o o o o o o u o o o o o o e p E —. .--" CO CM CO O .-H m \o >-" >-~ >-" ^ &0 o *- > - — CJ -H — H CM CO CO Tj- 5 < *« u. i ^T o O C5 o o o o O C' o o o o cc o o o o o o O CD O O C2 O ^ o o_ o o^ o cc" C' —T -t±' ON tn" -sO o o o o CO O ^' -"h" o" -H :tf c w ^H — 1 f-t .— ( CM -J > (B ^ < « a= - o o o o o o o O OO O O C' o o EC j3 *■ >- O O O O CD O OO o o o o o Li: o o o o o o O NO CO O CD O O ix: *^ >-" CO o' o o noVh , ^- no' --' 00 ro" r? >^ ^ csj in o -^ ^D ^ y ' ^ CM CO T}- ^ C/J ■— ' ^ -— c o o o o o o O O O O O O O ta a, -^ O Q O O O O O ^ ^ o o o o o O Q O O O O O ja -^ ^ -rf* ^ O O O O O U =) c ID O i-O OO CM -^ VC -^ O m OO CM -^ .o >- o ^ ^ ^ ^ CM ■— ! .— 1 -— t — 1 CM _^ c o o o o o o o o o o o o o E Ln r^ CM 00 CM o o CO CO -<* ^ \0 CJN *-! ;r) ^- CM UO CM O LO -o a. a. CO CO -^ Tj- -r* -^ -^ |.^ ^H \0 O ^ •£) \0 ^•D ^^ .D '^C ■■O v£> ^O VO vO &* ^"0 o o o o o o o O O o o o o o 4/ - en c " c XXX >^ x X X X X X X >: X X o ■- ^ c CM CO UO ^- CM CM o CM CO to '■O ■-" -^ NO ^ c r-» "-H <— * 1— t CM CO -^ a; •< o o o o o o o o o o o o o o sT?! >sD o o o o o o o o o o o o O « i:^ o o o o o o o o o o o o VO o o o o o vO O O O CD O >* 0\' ^H C^J LO -— 1 CO On i-H CM CM .—1 CM VO *oi _, ^ —, CM CM o cc o o o o o o IS O O O O O o « o ■"-- o o o o o o < o o o o o o ■V (- — 1 J) cc o o o o o o * o o o o o o E 3 > c o IS — < CM -^ 1— I r— ( \0 H ^' !>i CM ^" <--* -^ < N-. *J < —t ^ ^ CM CO CO o o ^ CiJ > a: 3 ^^ c 2=^ 5^ g o o c o o o o £ o o o o o o o i; -^ c; O O O o o o o M M »^ » cc CO CO o o c CO '^ o o CM "^sC -J*! -n g CM NO O ^H J " ^ -H CM f—i r-( H cc cc o cc i o _ ~ -J s o o o o o o O O O O O O (J ■" E = =^ g g 2 § S § VO \d" Oo" 1— 1 "«t ^ O O O O O O § f "Si O^ On on On On CO NO vo NO NO NO r- *j o a: < i — O - *" 5^ o o o o o o o O O O O O o o ^ i > c o o o o o o O O o o o o o fl ft; -^ o o o o o o o o o o o c o o t 5=1 f^ ,-H ,_H O l^ «*^ <^ CO f-H i-H O UO CO CO r-T cm" CO -rt -^ in -C ^" CM co' ■^" ■** in NC ^ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 5 VD r- 00 ON O <— 1 CM ^ >- CO ON O -H CM ON ON On c^ o o o ON ON ON ON O O O >- ^H ^-1 ^H — 1 CM CM CNJ ^ —• ^ rH CM CM CM E ■H — . — H ft) CiJ K-( ■- O a P ^ O o O O O O O O o o o o o O o E a \0 \£) O o o o p CNJ LC ON iJ^ CT\ 0> i~- CM u-3 r- CO CO ^ \o i^ ^ ^ ^ -H \o \^ \o so ~£ VO VO o o o o o o o " o 5? « ,-H rH "— « ^H »-^ 1— r p-4 x: x X X X >e >^ .2tn ■ss§ C^4 CO CNJ CO o CM [- 2 " CO ^ '-~* CO cn cr> r-i c^ \D 0\ O O ,,-^ - o o o o o o ?^^ o o o o o o o o o o o o «M J- r; «o r-~ o~ o" o' o' o" r- o o o o o " = ° >C CN O^ >- 1— t ON ^H --H Csl CO CM \D '^ c^ en CM rt ^ ^ rt ~ -^ 1 C^ c o o o o o o o "% w * >^ o o o o o o CO O-^ O CD O O O O cc o o o o o o X 1.' **^ c o o o o o o UJ o o" o o" o" o' H ^H C^ m -^ Ov < N-. 4J ^H ^H (M ro CO CN s ■—I r— < m S w o o o o o o o u O O O O Q o o o o o o * o o o o !3 o o o\ o o o £P o o jt^l g CN -^^ O ''C cs r- CO CM r~t CT) CO > 60 > p s e - -S~ g s o o o o s ° - E-^ s o o o o o o o o o o z -^ t2 3 ^ %£) vo M :-! ON in - 1 2 VC O -^ 0^ O ON t~- 1- H ^ ^ _< CNJ —< M* > ^ '-' g; 2 < — _ -^ CJ B — • .^ fc- o o o o o o 't: E X »• o o o o 9 ° ■So ^ CO CO \0 CO vc o \o r-- X "' H t. ; CO -^a-" U-J" t— ON ^H fO CO •* •* • \£- \0 ^ \o *.* r2^ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o X X X X X X X -2 •S S 5 Tj" CO '^ Lfl 0\ NO O •«# CO in c— rf O CM 5 S p-4 CM CO "* in LC uo ^H 03 (M CM CM tf o vo O •«!*■ On 1— ( 0-. \D CO cr a> ** "8- .— I ,-( I—I CM <— 1 esi cc ,_, 4>0 U. o o o o o o ii o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o il a o ■■--. o o o o o o s CM O O O O O CM CO r- -^ o o S 00 CM NO ^ O OO H- oo 00 cr\ CO r- 00 •tf rH rH CM CM ^ u * ,^ £ 2=t- g o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o « ^ c 00 Q O O CO ^ .—1 in & CO CO o o i=552 CM CO CM CM s ^ CO CO H 1 0= ^ g 8 o o o o o o ft o o o o 2 =" o o o o o o <: O O Q o o o S o o o CJ o o o o o o b. R CM CM r- CM CO in lt in r- -H CO LTj g < s >- X o ti>o o o o o o ^ L >- o o o o o o o o oo o o o m o o o o o o ■^'' -^^ o" o" o" o" ^ ^ O O On CO in o CO o o o ■^ ro CM r- -^"^ co" o\ (T. ,^ 1 -H CM in r- CO C .-H CM CM CO g -' ,-, c » >- o o o o o o o o o o o o o o I- =} e 3 o CM O O C O O O CM O O O O o o r- -H 00 CO On ■>* o t-- rt CO CO o\ •* o 4J ^ ^ CM CM CO -^ o o o o o o o O O O O O o o NO P*- 00 On O .— I CM \o r- CO 2» o ON O^ ON On O —1 CM 0^ On On ON O O O o o >• ^H -H ,— ( — < CM CM CM ^H ^H ^H ^H CM -D D- -^ 4) 0) S e a u --^ O .— • mh o (a o s c >■ *- r-^ E CC .2 ^■ < < O E O. W o; — < — . -•- S(^ O CI o 9 -O F- 41 7r. s u: a ^^ o > (J ac 1/5 e C ^-4 X _j ■H O 5= c/1 ^4 C -H u: CO > j: _J O 4) C/5 B .^ CO ^J_J CD ^H t . H U t; -! O X E O O O O O Q O — < -H -H Q .-< iT; ^ o^ ro f^ ^ I/) vc >- O O O O O c? o _^ ,_H r-H ^^ .— I ^ r- a. i^ a. fO m CO CO CO ro (TJ v£ ^fi «0 >0 VA VO \C ^O NO NO NO \0 NO ^ cu 7 O O O O O O O X X X X X X X X X X X X X X a " ° ^ — ■ -i rf ■>* 00 m r^ V M '^ — — 1 — 1 ^ -H CM (N o o o o o o O O o o o o = o SO VO >- On CM U^ NO NO NO nO> NO t~ < o ,^ tA s- o O O O O O X .>. o '^ r- ON CC CM CO~ OO CO On -"^ e CM < l-H *J < i ° ° "=> 8 8 8 8 o o o o o o o o o o o s 1^ CNJ o o o ^ CM O O O > ^«2 UJ ^ O ON NO > CM CO in Cl, bo -— ^ CC X o s ^i"^ S < o o o o o o cc o o o o o o « p = « oo o o o o o cc H .-5! ^ CO r-^ O^ O' in CM 3: 00 o CM "^ in r- -H r-^ CM CM CO H ^ <: < if 1^ c " t o o o o o o o o o o o o o ^ E =-?" c o o o o o < J5 VO 00 o o o o oo CO ON o" rr> m CO CO On ON O O X ^H ^H 3= '- o oo o o o o o cc ' f >- o o o o o o oo o o o o o u: 111 o o o o o o OnO CO o o o o :^ CM in o ^ NO OS;!,^ S S; S? 9 fT* 1— 1 -H .— ( -' ^ O^ >- o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o •^ ■<* o o o o c b. 3 c U^ 00 CM -^ -O >- O ^ ^ ^ ^ CM E o o o o o o o o o o o o o o -J-) NO r- o\ "<* ■>- CO en cr> CO po •X) VO NO "O ^-7% r^"? o o o o o o o o o o o o o o x: X x X. X ^^ >». X X X X X X X - ^ C CM CO :-n ^- ON ^^ -^ f ^ ^ NO NO NO >- O CM \C NO NO NO NO >- >- < 71 "* o o o o o — < ^ o o o o o o o — "^ 1 O O O O CD o C' o o o o o « ^^ t, C « NO CO o o o o « T^ c ON c^ o o '-H r- ^ Sx? S. ^ £ o o o o o o o CD o o o X n !f (0 « 5 c cc O xO o o oc S R CM l-<^ O NO s CM in ON r-H . o £ g R p o o o o o o u ^ E a:-?~ O O O Q O O CM CM CO ^ O O >5 o « CiJ ^ - ti r^ f-" ,•--" CTs" CM "* (*. .-- r- ^- r- r- r- J „ -J ° >; 1 g- < CO ~ c » " i. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o '^ s g S o o o CM 'T^ CO CO NO CO \o o co" >- o" 1 tfi- S ^ CM PO f- Im o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o -a n to e*:i ,-. ^ O IT) n fo :3 o ^H CM n Tf Tf u^ ^ —4 CM CO T^ -^ in NO d o o o o o o o o o o o o o o a Ov bs On On O O O ON bN ON 0^ O O O >« X. ^ S ^ eg CN CM a -H u e w c o F o 4J u J= *J CO a T3 cr * -c -o V * (S tifl fc) c e 3 3 a X O *j n E a c J3 e u U (. i ^-1 V M-t m *«-. o 3 o M >s b< ftf o '^ O oo CO «M c u -o o ^ c o. 4-) o o (fl o 3 w J= ■-^ — - CM U Wh X c c UJ C3 U < rH --H CN o o 8 8 <<§: o.^ J2 « ii •5 -^ T3 t-. ■■^ O C E w 6 CO VO i-H O rH 5 8 8 8 o o o t-H <— * CS o g CO ^c 8 § S S o o o o o 8 8 o O O CO O C? O O CO T-l V^ O r-H CO o o C^l I-H >-0 T-H CM o o 8 8 -* ■* o o o •-I rh O O On rH -H O- o c: s o o o o o o o og o O O -*t CD CO O ^^ NO o o o 8 o o 2 8 o o o ON -^ 00 NO 00 OD 1-H (M ^H O ON rH <— I ^H rH O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 8 8 o o 8 8 o o o r-< CnJ o o ^ o « »^ c O -T3 O CO 0) ,H -H NO D faj M.r. U O ^ o Appendix B POPULATION AND WATER USE PROJECTIONS The population projections from 1960 to 2020 for the Upper Santa Ana basin (Table 15) were furnished by the Department of Water Resources. The projections were made originally by political subdivisions based on the 1957 land and water use survey. It was necessary to recompute the data with the aid of a conversion chart furnished by the Department of Water Resources in order to obtain projections by hydrologic units. Preliminary water use projections from 1960-2020 for the Upper Santa Ana basin were prepared by the Department of Water Resources. The original projections were based on political subdivisions established in the 1957 land and water use survey. However, for this study the projections were recomputed by the Department of Water Resources for the hydrologic units. Table 16 gives estimated water demand projections for the two major categories of water use: agricultural and urban. The latter includes public and residential, commercial, and industrial water uses. The pro- jections are given in the form of acre-feet/ year by 10-year increments from 1960 to 2020. The agricultural figures are for the consumptive use of applied water, and they are derived from crop pattern projections and unit consumptive use figures for the crops. The urban figures are for the amount of water that is irretrievably lost during its use, and the method of derivation is described below. It should be realized that Table 16 does not give total water demand but only the portion of the water which is lost or consumed, and which must be replaced each year. Table 15 POPULATION PROJECTIONS BY HYDROLOGIC UNITS Upper Santa Ana Basin i 1957 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 j San Timoteo 24 100 36,100 61 000 88 100 124 500 159 200 203 500 240 800 i Bunker Hill 112,250 153 400 239 000 353,400 469.000 568,300 668,500 749 200 ; Riverside 169,800 204 900 320,300 515 900 745 300 1,026 000 1 304,400 1,502,700 : Chino 155 150 203 200 307 300 467,100 767 200 1 092,500 1,384,000 1,614,000 i Sub -Total 461 300 597,600 027 600 1 424 500 2 106,000 2 846 000 3 560 400 4 106,700 ; San Jacinto* 31,700 37,200 55,300 87 800 147,900 225,750 302.800 376,300 i Elsinore 5 000 5,700 13 400 24 000 37 600 57,000 85 000 111 600 Total 498 000 640 500 996,300 1 536 300 2,291 500 3 128,750 3 948 200 4 594 600 * Excluding Winchester South area. Source California Department of Water Resources. 69 XI ^ o (^ o o o o o M OJ o r- r— ^H a! CO CO in in in "* '^ (0 t^ ■^~ ON CM CM Ov' ,-H CO VO o CO <-H VO (—1 CO I-H H * ON c:n o ON c^ , m Ox' VO I-H no" < in f— 1 f— ( ^ o o Q o o "o O o lO 00 5 .-1 CM CM fc t— — ' o o (M t^ I~- CO CO w CO CO oo' r^ :? rH ■*' ^ o in CO VO O CM VO E- r—i CO ro .—I CM f-H O o o o o C> O O o (y\ t- o s CM CO e CO CO cs CO CJV o o "<# CD CO i-H 1—1 <— ( Cv) in CM in CO r- in CO CO CM VO 3 CO oo O o o o o o S o o \o r— c— t-H CO 00 '_< 1— ( !-- t— t •* 00 00 ■^ 00 < ro CN» in m cs Ov -h' o r—t i-H ^ I-H o r-H l—i O o O O Q o s s O ON O CS o CO ON to PO o CS CO in in CO h- 4-> o 5 vo" •^t in CO in no' -* H ^ On r- f— 1 r— I-H ON « u o 1— 1 CS CM f— I I-H CO c s o o VD o CM o o o o s o (B CO CO 00 Tt o o '~^ 1-H o ^ ON o 0^ -o VO vd ■* CO :d ro '^ .n in in I-H o D) CM CM r— O o ~^~ Q (3 o o o » CO c^ 3 CO H3 a 'H On t-- CO a\ ■<# CM VO ■^^ in '^'^ .-H cm' ON CM I-H t^ <; cs CM VO f-H CS a I-H f-H f~^ _j o o O o o o o 00 cs in in in VO o ^ a ^ cs CS o ■»*■ ■* VO r-H s. ^-1 r> C^J in o 1— * ON I-H o" ON LO o 4J 4J H CO o o 00 DO CO I-H r-H Q o i-H CM I—) I-H VO K CD o o o O O o o V a c Xf VD CO »— 1 VO VO in r- H v V C7V n VO NO 1— 1 \c O o !-- 00 H U U. B 0^ ja in VJD co' m f— ( I-H r-- cs W> id (N ON in m CO CO r- U OS u a. ""^ r— 1 ■^ Q bJ H § O o § s g o I-H o CO s & -H t^ ^b o Tt CO CO Ov CS hH e o 1= vo" oo" ^' CM oo' in § CM rH 1^ ^ o o o o o O § ^H f=H CO CM o o CO u (0 CO in 1—1 00 oo CO CM CO 4J •* cs cs CD o" \D C-- »-^' >^ H cs t^ ^ CM I— Ov t2 O i-H 1— ( ■^ o o o o o o O o c in in CO o r-H I-H )S ^ ■p4 E •H ao n in CO 1— i CM ro cri o VO a^ •^ oo" r- in in in ^ ■* hi =) in t- CO i-H ''"' S o o o o S o o o Q. in \D in VO ON r~- CO ■ -* r- o in ■>* ^ i-H f-H 6d ON ■^' in m in o" ro CO < 1— 1 VO CO in CO s o O ,--, o o o o o VO in CM m in s » CO ON Wi On CO r— oo o co' ON ^ CO •*■ CO in co" H 04 in cs ON VO t- r- o r-H CO B CD CM § S S 5 § o in s r- n fO m OS CTv CO CO o J— 1 CT^ J3 ON \o vd O ON ON cm" in ^ en •* in m r-H o (-) ~¥" o o o o o ^ ON r—i 1-H LO VO ■H o ^ in cr O ^ r- t^ -*" CO o\ ■^ in '*' co" oo" < 1— t cs •<' in VO cs o o o in o o o ^ u^ o o cs CM t^ -rf « r- in ON o in in VO CO o fm o vo" r-H r-s" in >*" i£ E- cs in OO VO VO CO O 1— ( CO o o (-, o o o s s ! R VO t— t !-- r— ON VO i « cs <— ( ■* r-H r- CO a^ ' in 1— t oo" 00 vo" vd 25 ^ " ea cs CM CO o o o in O o o in ^ cs ON UiO 1-n 03 "? - vO M r — in CO CO 00 ■<' ■o cr* cc' cm" LO CJN co" ^'2 < r— J cs S in in in -M J* .^- -H o OJ ■p ^ |£S •a c -H c •H — 1 M g * CD ^ 1 u 0) c -l-t _6_ M > (0 1 <0 1 CO ^ The amount of water for urban use that is lost is computed for each hydrologic unit by the following steps: 1. The population projection figure for a hydrologic unit is multiplied by a per capita per day factor to give the total water requirements for urban use, which is expressed in acre-feet per year. The factors used are: Per Capita Use Year [gallons per day (gpd)] 1960 225 1970 248 1980 268 1990 283 2000 294 2010 301 2020 304 2. The total water requirement is multiplied by 55^ to obtain the water lost by human use, and in the Upper Santa Ana Basin this 55^ is considered to be consumptive use. In addition to the 55^o there is also a loss of water by the operation of an outfall sewer to the ocean, which is assumed to be in operation from 1985-2020. The loss by the outfall sewer and the total water lost are listed below: Total Water Loss (/o) 55 55 55 65 75 80 80 Therefore, the urban demand figures shown in Table 16 are obtained by multiplying the total water requirement of step 1 by the appropriate water loss percentage. The effect of the outfall sewer from 1990 to 2020 can be removed from the figures of Table 16 by taking the total water requirement calculated in step 1 and multiplying it by 55fo. This procedure was used in the part of Case I which assumed no sewer. In Tabic 16, the figures for San Jacinto exclude the large area to the south known as the Winchester South area. Because of the potential growth of this area, preliminary data for agricultural use in Winchester South were obtained from the Department of Water Resources^ ^ and added to the San Jacinto figures. 71 Year Outfall Sewer Loss ('^) 1960 1970 1980 1990 10 2000 20 2010 25 2020 25 s o *J u (d cc :S IS tw w O H ^-N <■ 4J i^ * «) c a; 0} _l U, R < 1 4^ H v u ;'. u CD UJ o Q. :=■ < o; w ■..^ Q -4 &, b ^ o u C/J •*^ Q u >^ H u <■ ta >■ c 1— 1 •H H £ C/1 ■H bJ Oh -., —, ^3 " o CD o o o C>J c^ o r- r- VD f "^ l-i -^ cr. CO CO in in LO "^ O — ' « 1, fcn M-l o. ti w !:? « ffl r- in CM 0\ oo' in CO CM a. = « o > (- fO \o \D CM CM 03 CM LO 3 1 * OTIS i-H CO CO I-H o o I-H o CD O O (3 o o o , >-. o o o CM ri'a. o o o o o o O o o o 1 o 0^ r- CO ■^"" -*' CO \o J ,5 CO CO t— 00 CO CO VO CM "■ CO CM o o Q o o o O o (M CM o r- 1— I-H yD a\ ro CO in in in -^ o "! r^~ Tj-" oC CM CM (3C f-H OD VO o CO ^ CO I-H f-cS CM ■^ <* 1-H Csl CO , c (-5 o o o o o o 4) '■; fr- 1 *J U-) CM CM r- r- ^ ^ 1 ^ W^ o o c^ r- I^ CO CO Q. ^ *J t t) ffl ?i^°a-s CO -*' -^ c^ r- I-H OS CM ^ CO •■o CM o\ to ^ CO c^ 1-H i-H CO (2> o o o o o O o o -^ -^ o o o o O o "'1 O o o o o o o o -^ o" o\ r- CO -*' 'j'" CO vo" o CM •^^ CO CO r- CO CO CO CN o o Q o o o o o o CO o 4 CM CM CM 5^ CO 5 S co" CO co" r-" 5' ^ •* in" o ^ LO CO CO \o c^ CM VO ^cS .—I CO CO I-H C^] I-H o o o o o o Q o «J ' ' t- » J o o< o CM o o a^ ^ ™ 1> . I- '*^ CO o CM CO m in CO r^ CL ff 4J ^ ttJ <0 O. = £) o o o o o o o O cz> o o o CO o ?! "S. o o o o o o O o c ° 1 o oC f~- CO •*' "* CO y3 -J ,S CO CO r- CO CO CO •-D CN C/7 CM Q o Q o Q o o O __, -o a\ CM c^ CO a\ 3 S CO o CM CO U-) in CO r- o E '^'" ^o" '^*' in c6 in ^o '^ ^cS ^ '^ o\ t^ r- I-H CA r— ( CM CM I-H "— ' 00 (— , o O o CO o o O 4J "^ (i 1 *J CO CN in LO in VO o -• 5 i ^ ►--' ^ CM CM o ■* •* ■~o a. t^ 4j ? V t. CM vo . co" CO LO t-- r-- CO 3 £ * O 13 \o CNJ ON LO o\ in o « ^ 1— 1 CO o~ Q o o Q Q o o , >^ o o o o c^ .la o o o o o o o o OS o e- o" on" t— CO ■* •* co" vo" -J ,n oo CO r- 00 m CO VO -H CO CM (^ o o o <=> o o O _ "D 3^ CO uo Irt in o 2 5 CM CM o •* •* "O I-H ° 1 cm' in s .-h" oC f-H o oC ^,5 CO o o CO CO CO I-H I-H I-H CM I-H •JS , o O o o o CJ o t) "^ u ■ *j r-l CO CM o CO 't — • «i . I. •" in 1— ( CO 00 CvJ LO D. "i S S «) » 3 g S 6 -D co" m r~- ^ r-H ^ r- o CO \o co CO VO i-H o o o o o o o o , 1 >' o CD o o o o o o oo ?! ci. o o o o o o o o o\ = s- o o^. t^ CO 't '* CO •^ -J ,? CO CO r- OO CO CO ^ r-H "^ c/: CM o o ^ o ^ o o c- -^ 'O o 1— ( CM CO ^ St CO in .— < CO CO GO CM CO ° f, -* CM CM o o in r- h- >-£ CM t^ -^ CM t- CJ\ co .—1 t-H ^ , o O o o o o o U ""J tn ; 4J in f— 1 CM u-1 in o CO ^ « u ^ (.•« cr\ in ON CO r- CO in D, " u t u o i CL S 01 '^ ? h 3 1 * 6-13 o On c o ON CO CM ■^ CO CO I-H o I-H Q o (3 o o o o o ^ , ?^ o o o o o o r- 2'a. o o o o CO o o o Ox o §■ o" a\ t— " co" ^ ^•" co" \o" , -Ic^ CO CO r- oo CO CO VO 10 ^ CM CI u o o o o o o o o (« -H "S \D in i-H CM m in OS 3 -: CO a\ in Ov CO r- CO o in CO o\ ■^ CO ■* CO in CO (0 !- ^ f— ( co (0 t) 4-> o O o o o o (0 *J '^^ ^* ' AJ o o CM (N r— OS J= » -1 « I , t. ^ in a\ in in \o LO IJ a." " t; f m 3 Q. ? (0 = ^ u a\ r- I-H CO O o 3 g * O -O I-H CO CN CO oo to CO £ CC lt-> u LO c o o O o o CJ 4J V o CD o o o *J >- E ^ o o o o o o o o W J3 4J 4> M CT^ £■ o on" f- CO 't ■*■■ CO >o -C -o cQ -J ,S CO ro r- 00 CO CO VO u m in \c 0) ^ •IH T3 iJ B o f, i-H o r-H T~^ in •* vo 3 3 Ui s-(S CM CO o \o CO o o '— ' CO U CO M .^ c u J^ o o V « 0) Jj «-> u U iSS ^ ■^ c ■H c ■H flj *■- o a a; 1^2 ■H o U tH to -C ■H t-, M ca CO O 4-) « u bJ H o c 0) -1 -5 ■H f2 01 o c U 1 c > i C/3 c w Q * _.A^ p.. jg_ _A — * s Table 17 gives the estimated supplemental water requirements from 1960 to 2020, These water requirements are computed for each unit and 10-year increment by subtracting the figure for local supply, expressed as acre-feet/ year , from the total demand figure of Table 16 to obtain the column headed "supplemental water or overdraft," If the local supply is greater than the total demand, then no supplemental water is needed and no overdraft occurs. If the local supply is less than the total demand, then supplemental water is needed or else there is an overdraft of the ground water. The local supply is the water available to a hydrologic unit, but the local supply is not necessarily the safe yield of the unit because it may include water from neighboring units. For example, the Riverside unit has a local safe yield of 0,* but it has a local supply of 83,000 acre- feet/ year derived from the Bunker Hill unit. However, the local supplies of all the hydrologic units do add up to the safe yield of the entire Upper Santa Ana Basin, The original projection of supplemental water for San Jacinto excludes Winchester South; so the data from Table 16, including Winchester South, were utilized in Table 17, Table 18 gives the estimated rate of absorption of supplemental water, as computed by the Department of Water Resources. This rate of absorption is considered to be the amount of water that each unit can get in attempt- ing to meet their supplemental water requirements (including overdraft) shown in Table 17 If the rate of absorption is greater than the import, it means that for some reason the unit cannot use all of its local supply. If the rate of absorption is less than the import, it means that for some reason the unit cannot get all of the water that it needs. The rate of absorption for San Jacinto was adjusted to include Winchester South by assuming that adequate supplemental water for Winchester South could be obtained , Table 18 ESTIMATED RATE OF ABSORPTION OF SUPPLEMENTAL WATER (Acre -Feet ) (Preliminary from Department of Water Resources) GROUND l^ATER BASIN 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 San Timoteo Bunker Hill Chino Riverside , San Jacinto San Jacinto* Elsinore Total 8,000 500 30,000 34,000 3,000 6.000 20 . 400 13.900 35,000 44 000 3 000 27,000 58.300 43,700 40 000 65,000 4,000 2,500 58,070 129,760 100,890 44.860 81,000 7 200 14,000 100,230 224.500 195 200 74 800 132 000 12.900 28,000 136,270 317 970 286,880 115,000 172,000 20.900 38,000 158,000 368,000 332,500 118,850 176,000 28 000 41,500 78 300 173,000 343,280 621 630 905,020 1,043,350 t Does not include Winchester S uth a-ea Wincheste.- South added by SRI SOURCE California Department of Water Resources * See note to Table 7 . 73 Appendix C CHEMICAL QUALITY OF SUPPLEMENTAL WATER The average yearly dissolved solids content of Colorado River water delivered to the La Verne treatment plant of the Metropolitan Water Dis- trict has varied from 631 to 821 parts per million during the period 1942 to 1957. The quality of water used in determining the effects of the use of Colorado River water as a supplemental source for the period 1960-2020 is the average of the 16 yearly averages of the chemical quality of water delivered to the treatment plant. The averages for each constituent are shown in Table 19. The quality of water used in determining the effects of the use of Feather River Project water was based on figures and statements furnished by the Department of Water Resources, The figures represent mean annual values that could be expected during an eight-year drouth period when the Table 19 CHEMICAL QUALITY OF SUPPLEMENTAL WATER CONSTITUENTS COLORADO RIVER ( ppm) FEATHER RIVER PROJECT ( ppm ) Si lica Iron Calcium Magnesium Sodium and Potassium Bicarbonate Sulfate Chloride Nitrate Fluoride Boron Total Dissolved Solids 7 4 Trace 86 31 112 141 328 PO 0,4 4 13 20* Trace* 28 + 100 34 + 30 2* <1 5 <0 5 726 200 Hardness as CaCO, (ppm) Total Noncarbonate 343 100 226 20 + Percent sodium Sodium absorption ratio (sar) pH 42 2 6 8.3 38 + 1.2 + 7 S + * Assumed for this report. f Interpretation of Department of Water Resources figures and statements. 75 mineral content would be highest. The values for some mineral constituents have been interpreted from the data supplied by the Department of Water Resources and from a study of water analyses from stations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta. The averages for each constituent are shown in Table 19. It is realized that upstream developments, particularly on the Colorado River, will cause changes in the quality of water imported from these sources in the future. It has not been possible to estimate either the magnitude or time of such changes for this report. As a result, it is assumed that the analytical results given in this appendix, particularly those for total dissolved solids, will remain constant during the study period from 1960 to 2020, 76 REFERENCES 1. Halpenny, L, C. and others (1952), Ground Water in the Gila River Basin and Adjacent Areas, Arizona - A Summary, U. S. Geological Survey, 2. Anonymous (1955), Salt Balance Study, Upper Santa Ana Valley, Memorandum of California State Department of Water Resources. 3. McClurg, J. O. and R. F. Clawson (1956), Preliminary study of planned ground water basin operations of imported water for the Upper Santa Ana River under ultimate conditions, Letter to files of California State Department of Water Resources. 4. Eckis, Rollin (1934), South Coastal Basin Investigation, Geology and Ground Water Storage Capacity of Valley Fill, California State Department Public Works, Division of Water Resources, Bulletin No. 45, 5. Gleason, George B. (1947), South Coastal Basin Investigation, Overdraft on Ground Water Basins, California State Department Public Works, Division of Water Resources, Bulletin No. 53. 6. MacRostie, W., A, J, Dolcini , and others (1956), Santa Ana River Investigation, California State Water Resources Board, Bulletin No. 15. 7. Dolcini, A. J,, 0. Spier, and others (1957), The California Water Plan, California State Department of Water Resources, Division of Resources Planning, Bulletin No. 3. 8. Coe , J. J., F. S. Florian, and others (1957), Quality of Surface and Ground Water in Upper Santa Ana Valley, California State Department Water Resources, Bulletin No, 40-57. 9. United States Salinity Laboratory Staff (1954), Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils, U, S. Department Agriculture Handbook No. 60, p. 69. 10. Junge , C. E. (1958), Atmospheric chemistry, Ch , in Advances in Geophysics, Vol. 4, Academic Press, N.Y. 10a. Plumb, C. E., J. H. Lawrence, and R. W. Kretsinger (1956), Quality of Surface Waters in California, 1951-1954, California State Department Water Resources, Division of Resources Planning, Water Quality Investigation, Report No. 15. 77 11. McKee, J. E., and others (1952), Water Quality Criteria: California State Water Pollution Control Board, Publication No. 3, p. 122-123. 12. Department of Water Resources Staff (1957), Investigation of Alternative Aqueduct Routes to San Diego County, California Department of Water Resources, Division of Resources Planning, Bulletin No. 61. 78 Part Four EFFECTS OF WATER QUALITY DIFFERENCES IN AGRICULTURE 79 Part Four EFFECTS OF WATER QUALITY DIFFERENCES IN AGRICULTURE I Introduction Agriculture is one of the principal economic activities in the study areas. It is therefore necessary to examine in some detail the possible differences in economic impact on agriculture that would result from supplying supplemental water to these areas from either the Colorado River or the Feather River Project. The study of effects on agriculture was approached in three major steps. The first was a comparison of the qualities of Colorado River water and Feather River Project water with respect to agricultural water use. This comparison revealed that the two waters are significantly different for irrigation purposes. The second step was therefore to determine how this difference could be expected to affect the quantities of water required for irrigation, the choice of crops to be grown, and the drainage of the agricultural areas. The third step consisted of estimating the economic significance of the differences in effects found in step two. A discussion of the three steps in the agricultural analysis is given in this section, immediately following a general description of the areas studied and the agriculture which they support. I I Agricultural Areas For purposes of this analysis it is necessary to consider the total study area in parts that are reasonably homogeneous with respect to agriculture. Four such parts are described in the paragraphs that follow. A. Western San Diego County The agricultural lands of San Diego County comprise roughly 96,000 acres, of which the great bulk lie along the coastal plain, in coastal valleys, and in intermediate valleys and uplands. All of these areas are within 20 miles of the coast. Relatively frost free Mediterranean climate, severe water shortages, and high water costs have for the most part limited irrigated agriculture to high-return cash crops. Land utilization is further restricted by the irregular topography and relatively limited acreages of good lands. Many of the soil types are limiting factors in land use. 81 The current status of the agriculture of San Diego County may best be illustrated by summarizing the relative gross income from crops, as in Table 20. Table 20 CROP PRODUCTION FOR 1957 San Riego County CROP GROSS INCOME (oil 1 1 ion 3 of dollars) PERCENT OF INCOME PERCENT OF LAND Tomatoes 19 9 36 7 4 5 Citrus 6 6 12 2 9.6 Nursery 5 1 10 8 1.3 Avocados 4 4 8 1 13 6 Celery 3.6 6 7 1.1 Lettuce 1 8 3 3 16 Green beans 1 7 3 2 1 1 Grapes 1 3 2 2 3 2 Alfalfa 14 2 5 7 8 All others Total 8 2 14 2 56 2 54 100 100 Other agricultural income, from all livestock production including beef, eggs, and poultry, amounts to 40 million dollars. Crop production accounts for 57 percent of the total agricultural income in the county. In the three-year period 1955-1957, some substantial changes in gross returns took place. From a 1955 base, avocados declined 45 percent. Citrus showed a slight gain, 3 percent. Vegetables gained IG percent. Decline in avocado production, increase in truck crop production, and steady encroachment of urban development on the truck lands are significant and must be taken into consideration in water-quality evaluation. Each of the major enterprises is conveniently zoned by general geo- graphic location, soil type, and frost hazard. Truck farming has, in the past, been confined to the immediate coastal plain and the lower stream valleys. Currently truck farming is expanding into the Otay Mesa, Otay Ranch, Boneta, Sunnyside, and Tijuana Valleys, with an acreage potential of approximately 33,500. This is more than twice the present cultivated acreage „ These areas lie southeast of San Diego. Except for the bottom-land soils located in the valley floors, the mesa soils are shallow, with restricted drainage. Soils of this group are mapped by the Bureau of Soils as Los Flores, Kimball, Montezuma, and other coastal plain soils with moderately to strongly developed profiles. A comment worthy of note appears in the Reconnaissance Soil Survey of the San Diego Region, California (U.S.D.A. Bureau of Soils, 1918). It states in regard to these mesa soils; "irrigation has been supplied to part of the areas of deeper soil, as near La Mesa, and citrus fruits. 82 grapes and some other specialized crops are produced in a limited way. Extensive irrigation development on the upland soils, of which this group is a part, is hardly probable,, although a wide range of shallow-rooted crops could undoubtedly be grown were water available. The shallower areas are not adapted to deep rooted crops under any conditions." Referring to the water quality discussion appearing later in this part, one should point out that under restricted drainage Colorado River water is unsuit- able. A paradox lies in a statement by the County Agent, Bernard Hall, who maintains that a farm, using local water containing 900-1,200 ppm , has been in business for 30 years without any serious production decline. It is the opinion of the writer that this particular land may not be repre- sentative, or that the farmers are practicing a systematic leaching program. A common practice in the whole area is to irrigate just prior to planting; this, and the frequent irrigations during the growing season, may keep the salinity diluted. Except for tomatoes., most truck crops are quite sensitive to salinity, and it seems probable that the use of better water would substantially improve the existing salinity and provide for a sustained yield. Unfortunately, there are very few factual data regarding the internal drainability of these soils. Truck crops may be readily divided into two groups, those that are sensitive to salinity and those that are reasonably resistant. Lettuce, potatoes, and tomatoes are comparatively salt-tolerant, whereas carrots, green beans, celery, onions, and other minor crops are moderately to very susceptible to salt damage. It is very likely that this fact, coupled with the marketing time of tomatoes, has had a marked effect upon present practices , Citrus orchards, which include about equal numbers of lemon and Valencia orange orchards, are widely scattered throughout the intermediate uplands of the county. Replanting of citrus in place of avocados is not uncommon. Both soil and slope are variable. Centers of citrus culture are Escondido, Fallbrook, La Mesa, and El Cajon, and some scattered groves along the immediate coastal plain. Citrus groves of the Chula Vista area have given way Lc urban development , Avocado plantings are associated with citrus areas except that good air drainage for frost protection is of greater importance. Avocados are quite susceptible to disease under poor drainage conditions and are con- siderably less resistant to salinity than citrus. Avocado decline is most noticeable in the Vista area. The soils are formed on granitic and metamorphic rock. The depth of the soil and internal drainage vary greatly from area to area and within a single 5-acre orchard. Poor internal soil drainage seems to encourage the development of root rot. Improper leaching practice, when using Colorado River water or any other relatively high- salinity water, results in serious injury, possibly from sodium or chloride or both. To reduce salinity leaching must be judiciously practiced. Currently a number of growers have resorted to tile drain installations. A group of installations are summarized below. 83 CURRENT COSTS OF TILE INSTALLATIONS IN AVOCADO ORCHARDS, FALLBROOK CALIFORNIA ACRES INVOLVED LINEAL FEET COST/ FT COST/ACRE lOTAL COST 2 1 100 $0 65 $357 50 $ 715 00 4 1,220 1 04 343 25 1.273 00 10 1,830 76 139 60 1 396 00 5 976 59 115 00 575 00 1 I recommended) 1 014 45 456 00 456 00 * CDst based upon studies made by the US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Salinity measurements (in terms of electrical conductivity) of the tile effluent in 1958 (Figure 25) have illustrated that rainfall alone does not adequately leach these soils. The past season had above-normal rainfall, and consequently these measurements may be fair, conservative indications that the leaching requirement was not met. B. Upper Santa Ana Basin The Upper Santa Ana Basin in this part of the report is equivalent to the Upper Santa Ana Area as defined in the discussion of hydrologic units in Part Three and shown in Figure 1. However, for agricultural considerations it is subdivided into the Chino and Riverside basins. The Chine Basin consists of the Chino, Bunker Hill, and San Timoteo hydrologic units J and the Riverside basin is the same as the Riverside hydrologic unit excluding the Temescal Canyon area. The northern and eastern boundaries of the Upper Santa Ana Basin are formed by the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountain complex, which rises steeply from a series of piedmont alluvial fans to a mean height of 6,000 feet and a maximum elevation of 11,000 feet. The southern boundary is marked by a low range of hills having a relatively uniform elevation of 1,500 feet. The western boundary is formed by the gently to steeply rolling Puente Hills and the Santa Ana Mountains. The Upper Santa Ana Basin is separated from the Lower Basin by the mountains and hills of the western boundary through which the Santa Ana River has maintained its course , The soils of the Upper Santa Ana Basin may be classified on the basis of their geographic position within the basin. They include the recent, alluvial, sandy-to-coarse-textured soils of the central basin; the reddish brown alluvial soils of the older alluvium on the elevated terraces flanking the central basin, and the extensive residual soils formed on the mountainous and hilly areas. All of the soils of agricul- tural importance are of granitic origin. 84 3.0 o X 2.5 UJ _) li. 2.0 o >- H O o z o o < u (T H O UJ _J Source' Study bv US DA. Soil Conservotion Service RA-2470-F-26 FIG. 25 SALINITY OF TILE EFFLUENT FROM THREE AVOCADO ORCHARDS, FALLBROOK, CALIFORNIA 85 Fair to excessive internal drainage is general; only a few small areas have restricted internal drainage. These areas are associated with the older terrace soils located along the margins of the Riverside-Corona district. The Alvard area five miles southeast of Riverside is a notable example of poor internal drainage. Micro-climate is a paramount influence upon land use within the basin. Areas of good air drainage are relatively frost free and consequently have been planted to citrus, whereas the lowlands have been planted to row and truck crops. The central basin areas are frequently subjected to strong winds, which have limited land use to grapes. Currently, much of the better lands bordering population and indus- trial centers are giving way to residential, commerci-al , and industrial uses. Citrus is being replaced by residential subdivisions. Heavy industry is pushing the vineyards backward, and consuming large portions of the central basin. New plantings of citrus in areas of questionable adaptability are being undertaken by speculators, but the net agricultural acreage is diminishing rapidly. In 1957, citrus was still the major agricultural enterprise (see Tables 21 and 22), providing an income of 38 million dollars, 75 percent of the total agricultural income. Table 21 CROP PRODUCTION FOR 1957 Upper Santa Ana River Rasin, excluding Riverside, Corona. Elsinore, and San Jacinto Areas CROP GROSS INCOME (millions of dollars) PERCENT OF INCOME PERCENT OF LAND Citrus Fruits Grapes Nurseries Deciduous Fruits Potatoes Misc. Field Crops Misc. Truck Crops Alfalfa Sweet Corn Permanent Pasture Total 22.0 4.6 3.1 3.0 2.2 2.0 1.6 1.1 0.9 4 53.8 11.2 7,6 7.3 5.4 4.9 3.9 2.7 2 2 1.0 26.4 24.1 0.3 5 1 4.2 25.3 2 1 5.4 16 5 5 40 9 100 100 Table 22 CROP PRODUCTION FOR 1957 Riverside-Corona Area CROP GROSS INCOME (millions of dollars) PERCENT OF INCOME PERCENT OF LAND Citrus Fruits Misc. Field Crops Misc. Truck Crops Sweet Corn Potatoes Deciduous Fruits Carrots Alfalfa Total 16 8 0.6 0.4 0.4 3 0.3 0.3 83 7 4 2 3.1 2.1 2.1 1.6 1.6 1.6 48.4 36.8 2.7 12 1.1 2.9 1-1 5.8 19 1 100 100 86 C. Elsinore Basin and Temescal Canyon Area The Elsinore Basin and Temescal Canyon area are a small fraction of the area under consideration. This long, narrow graben lying between the San Jacinto Basin and the Santa Ana Mountains provides an emergency spill- way for the San^Jacinto River during winters of exceptional floods, such as occurred in 1938. Except for these flood periods there is little hydrologic continuity between the San Jacinto Basin and this area. Drainage from Lake Elsinore rarely takes place; however, the normal drainage is to the north, Joining the Santa Ana River via Temescal Creek just above the Santa Ana Narrows. Due to lack of adequate water supply and relatively poor soil, agri- culture has been limited to some of the terrace soils bordering the basin, the lowlands being used for pasturage. Irrigated lands are limited to less than 20 percent of the total agricultural land. Table 23 summarizes farm income and land use. With the substantial increase in imported irrigation water, this basin will face serious drainage problems. Table 23 CROP PRODUCTION FOR 1957 Elsinore Basin CROP GROSS INCOME ^milli?ns cf dollars' PERCENT OF INCOME PERCENT OF LAND Grains 80 31 6 79 3 Citrus Fruits 48 19 1.7 Walnuts 40 15 8 3.4 Potatoes 40 15 8 2.9 Alfalfa 25 9 9 7.0 Permanent Pasture 0.09 3,5 3.0 Misc. Truck Crops 05 2 0.7 Olives 03 1 2 1.2 Misc. Deciduous Fruits Total 03 1 2 0.8 1 81 100 100.0 D. San Jacinto Basin The San Jacinto Basin is bounded on the east by the San Jacinto Mountains, on the north and northeast by the San Timoteo Badlands, and on the west and south by gently to steeply rolling granitic hills; it is a geologically old erosion surface. Granite hills jut from the otherwise gently sloping topography. The area is fed by the intermittent San Jacinto River and Bautista Creek. It is completely rimmed by nonporous granitic rocks. Thus, there is little if any groundwater effluent from the basin. Only during exceptionally heavy winter seasons does any of the San Jacinto River water flow from this basin through Railroad Canyon into the Elsinore Basin, The drainage way of the river as it traverses the basin floor is indistinct. This results in occasional flooding of portions of the bottom lands. 87 Except for the areas directly below the point where the San Jacinto River and Bautista Creek enter the basin, the soils have moderately to well developed profiles with restricted internal drainage, or they overlie relatively impervious substrata. The bottom lands are fine-textured and slowly permeable. Studies conducted by the Department of Water Resources on the ground water geology of the basin have indicated the following: "Ground water gradients thus indicate that some movement of water still occurs from upper San Jacinto Valley into basins to the southwest. It is believed, however, that this movement, and indeed, all ground water move- ment in San Jacinto Valley, is slow and small in amount." Recent studies of representative soils in the basin have indicated that ground water recharge potential through these less permeable soils is nonexistent ex- cept for the more porous areas described above. Table 24 summarizes the soil groups as mapped and classified by the U,S, Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in 1955. About half of the soils have restricted drainage, and a considerable percentage of the porous soils overlie impervious bedrock. Table 24 SOIL CLASSES AND ACREAGES OF THE SAN JACINTO BASIN CLASS ACREAGE DESCRIPTION Al 74,807 Soils with permeable profiles, no internal drainage problem. A2 5,978 Soils of coarse texture, no internal drainage problem. B 25.202 Soils with moderately to slowly permeable profiles. Rather shallow profile reouiring special management, fair internal drainage. Small acreages irrigated. * CI 27.224 Soils with slowly permeable profiles. Need special practices and possibly some tile or drainage ditches. C2t 12 454 Soils with very slowly permeable profiles. Only better lands economically drainable. R 10.965 Rough broken lands. * Bottom lands; 16 b45 acres subject to flooding during winter, f Bottom lands 8 881 acres subject to flooding during winter. Local water supply obtained from the ground water basins has been severly overdraftcd. This serious shortage is now being supplemented by the Eastern Municipal Water District, which in turn is purchasing water from the Metropolitan Water District. Water has been allocated to the lands within the district on the basis of one acre-foot per acre. During the past two years, acreages of irrigated crops have substantially increased. By irrigating only portions of individual holdings, sufficient water can be made available to grow a crop. 88 Prior to the availability of Colorado River water, most irrigated lands were confined to the upper Basin or were along the bottom lands. Water of large quality variations was secured from wells, many of which are no longer productive or are of such poor quality that they cannot be used. Now truck crops have expanded to the upper slopes. The raising of potatoes currently dominates the agricultural economy. See Table 25. Table 25 CROP PRODUCTION FOR 1957 San Jacinto Basin (Moreno. Perris. Hemet) CBOP GROSS INCOME V m 1 1 ?. i o n s of d r 1 1 a .■ s ; PERCENT OF INCOME PERCENT OF LAND Potatoes 6 38 5 13 3 Citrus Fruits 2 3 14 7 2 6 Misc. Truck C'-ops 2 1 13 5 3 7 Deciduous Fruits 1 8 11 5 5 2 Barley 1 1 7 43 2 Alfalfa 1 6 4 7 4 Misc. Grains 8 5.1 19 7 Permanent Pasture 4 2 6 4.5 All Others Total ] 7 4 15 6 100 100.0 Fair to poor internal drainage of soils overlying either impervious or very slowly permeable sediments, coupled with the fact that the basin as a whole is closed to subsurface drainage, presents a rather serious problem. If Colorado River water is used for irrigation and the land is maintained at a high production level, both leaching and removal of the leachate from the basin must be accomplished. For each acre-foot of Colorado River water brought into the Basin, a ton of salts is also im- ported. Feather River Project water would bring in a little less than a third of this amount per acre-foot of water imported. The absence of natural drainage ways, together with the lack of hydrological continuity of the segments of the basin, suggests that water quality in this area is highly significant, and that the simple benefit obtained by differences in water requirements for leaching is only a minor factor on a long-range basis. Ill Comparative Water Quality There are numerous detailed analyses of Colorado River water taken at many locations over a number of years. Feather River Project water analysis is based on data furnished by the Department of Water Resources and obtained from study of a number of analyses made of waters similar to that which may be delivered to southern California. Table 26 summarizes the analyses of these waters. Table 26 WATER ANALYSES OF DISSOLVED SOLIDS OF FEATHER RIVER PROJECT WATER AND COLORADO RIVER WATER COLORADO RIVER FEATHER RIVER§ ANALYSIS UNIT SRI* U S D A ^ EC X 10^ (condu'-tivity) millimhos 1 16 1 06 31 TSC (Total salt concentration) me q/ liter 11 6 10 96 3 1 Ca V Mg me q/ liter 6 85 6 90 1 98 Na ^ K meq/liter 4 87 4 06 1 22 Chloride raea/liter 2 54 2 05 85 Bicarbonate meq/liter 2 31 2 64 < 1 68 Sulfate meq/liter 6 82 6 39 <0,71 Boron ppm 13 <0 5 Fluoride ppm 4 <1 5 Cations meq/liter 11 72 10 96 3 20 Anions meq/liter 11 67 11 08 3.24 pH 8 3 7 18 2 SAR (.Sodium adsorption "-atio'i Na 2 6 2 2 1 2 1 'Ca-.\lfi, f 2 J "^ S'^anford Resea-ch Institute JuJy i9S8 based en fiW records at LaVerne t Yuma Arizone, 3/21/43. US Salinity Lab. USDA Handbo-k No 60 p 7? § Department of Water Resources and SRI. July 1958 Sum cf cations and anions as presented in analysis, m£y be compared with TSC (total salt concentrations). There is an obvious and major difference in the two waters in terms of total dissolved cations and anions. The ratio is a little less than 4;1. On this simple basis the Feather River Project water is substantially better than the Colorado River water. The difference in sodium adsorption ratios is not significant. By investigation of the constituent cations and anions, it may be seen that the relationship between calcium + magnesium and sodium + potassium is not significantly different. PERCENT OF SPECIFIC IONS PRESENT IN FEATHER RIVER PROJECT AND COLORADO RIVER WATERS ION FEATHER RIVER PROJECT WATER COLORADO RIVER WATER 58 4 41 6 21 8 19 9 58 4 Ca ••- Mg Na V K Chloride Bicarbonate Sulfate 62 38. 26 2 51 9 21 9 90 Considering only the anions, on a constituent basis the Colorado River water is superior. Sulfates make up the great bulk of anions in the Colorado River water. As chlorides are substantially more toxic than sulfates, this must be taken into consideration in a comparative evaluation. Feather River Project water is high in bicarbonate in relation to total anions, while Colorado River water is lower in this respect. This is again a favorable characteristic of Colorado River water. Various methods have been proposed for classifying the suitability of water for irrigation. Two general schools of thought have developed. The first, and perhaps most widely used, relates water quality to the total dissolved solids and the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) . Others have used the chloride content as an index of quality. The U.S. Salinity Laboratory, Riverside, California, has used the first method.^ The Feather River Project and Colorado River waters are classified accordingly: Colorado River Water (High-Salinity Water) C3-S1 Cannot be used on soils with restricted drainage. Even with adequate drainage, special management for salinity control may be required and plants with good salt toler- ance should be selected. It is a low-sodium water and can be used on almost all soils (provided that total salt concentrations do not reach toxic levels). There is little danger of developing harmful levels of ex- changeable sodium. However, sodium-sensitive crops such as stone fruit trees and avocados may accumulate injurious concentrations of sodium. Feather River Project W a ter (Medium- to Nearly Low-Salinity Water) C2-S1 (Approaches Cl-Sl) Can be used if a moderate amount of leaching occurs. Plants with moderate salt tolerance can be grown in most cases without special practices for salinity control . Sodium concentration same as above. Some workers have pointed out that gypsiferous waters, of which Colorado River water is quite typical, should not be classified on the basis of total dissolved solids. They point out that, as the available soil moisture is depleted by evapo-transpiration , calcium and magnesium carbonate begin to precipitate out of the soil solution, and this is followed by precipitation of gypsum. We may demonstrate an application of this process to the waters at hand. As the soil solution becomes more concentrated, calcium and mag- nesium combine with the bicarbonate, forming calcium carbonate. This precipitates out and thus removes a portion of the calcium from the soil solution. The result is a reduction in total dissolved solids but an 91 increase in the SAP. value. After subtracting the meq/liter (milliequivalent per liter) of bicarbonates from the meq/liter of calcium, in the case of Feather River Project water, there is a balance of 0.30 meq/liter of calcium. The SAR is increased from 1.2 to 3.2. In the case of Colorado River water, the SAR is increased from 2,6 to 2.9. Although neither of these increases influences the class of water, soil structural problems may develop with the use of high-bicarbonate water because of removal of calcium from the exchange complex of the soil particles. Continued use of Feather River Project water may eventually require addition of calcium as a soil amendment. This general thinking can be carried beyond the precipitation of gypsum as the soil solution becomes still more concen- trated. In the case of Colorado River water, this might occur when the calcium sulfate concentration exceeded 30 or more meq/liter, which would again reduce the TSC (total salt concentration) and increase the SAR, However, in this instance the gypsum might be redissolved when the soil solution became diluted. Here we have a secondary difference in the waters. Feather River Project water is low in sulfates, whereas Colorado River water is high in sulfates. The phenomenon of removal of some of the ions from the soil solution by concentration of that solution during the drying process suggests that possibly the ions that remain in solution during periods of high moisture stress should be considered in evaluating a water. This has been desig- nated by some workers as the "effective salinity." Utilizing the "effective salinity" as a means of comparing the two waters does not appear to be warranted because it involves complex problems of handling long-term periods of a relative "steady state" with regard to salt balance within the soil profile. It should be pointed out further that there are some locations within the study area in which the addition of gypsum to the soil by imported Colorado River water is highly desirable. Some wells in the San Jacinto Basin have been abandoned because of the high sodium content. Adjacent lands subsequently irrigated with Colorado River water have shown sub- stantial improvement. Similar improvement of soil salinity and soil structure may be accomplished by adequate leaching with Feather River Project water, but very likely would require an application of gypsum to the soil, particularly in the fine-textured groups with low permeability. There are workers who feel that waters with very low total salts and high percentages of carbonates may present some problems because of the removal of calcium from the exchange complex by precipitation. Studies of excellent water applied to parts of the San Joaquin Valley have indi- cated a need for addition of calcium. There are other parameters involved in comparison of the suitability of waters for irrigation. They may include types of crops, physical and chemical properties of the soil, and irrigation practices. In a study as general as this must be, it is necessary to recognize these special problems but not allow them to dominate the broad, more clearly defined, differences. 92 As will be described later, the problem of maintaining some degree of "steady state" for the salinity in the soil profile necessitates a reasonably simple approach. This method adopted in this study for expressing water quality utilizes the electrical conductivity of the irrigation water and the soil solution; it may be augmented by consideration of some special conditions in localities where there are highly sensitive crops. As was previously pointed out, the 4/1 TSC ratio between Colorado River water and Feather River Project water is not completely realistic from the standpoint of the relative merits of the two waters. Consequently, it is proposed that an arbitrary reduction of about 15 percent in TSC be made for the Colorado River water to allow for its favorable aspects in establishing the leaching requirements for crops. TSC would then be estimated at 10.0 meq/liter for this water. In later computations of the leaching requirements in the study area, Colorado River water will be considered for both the average conductivity of 1.16 millimhos and the adjusted value of 1.0 millimhos. IV Computing the Leaching Requiremen t This chapter deals specifically with the amount of water that must be supplied by rainfall and irrigation in excess of evapo-transpiration to move the salts through the soil profile and maintain an acceptable level of salt concentration in the root zone. Leaching may be accomplished in two ways: by regular application of irrigation water in excess of plant requirements, or by intermittent heavier applications. The first method provides for maintaining a minimum accumulation of salts, and the second allows for a cycling effect with build up of salts over a period of irri- gations. The second method is more efficient from the standpoint of water use, whereas the first may be desirable on the basis of water quality and sensitivity of the crop to salts. Under conditions of restricted internal soil drainage, the first method may be necessary. Under some conditions the intermittent leaching may be accomplished by seasonal rainfall and special treatment may not be necessary. Again this depends upon water quality, soil profile, and crop. There have been several methods devised in establishing a leaching requirement. The technique which appears most applicable to the solution of the problem was developed by Dr. Ronald Reeve of the U.S. Salinity Laboratory at Riverside (see U.S.D.A. Handbook No. 60, page 37). This technique has been used successfully in the Imperial Valley. It involves an equation in which the electrical conductivity of the irrigation water is used as an index of salinity, and provides for a "steady state con- dition in which there is no substantial gain or loss in soil salinity. This may be set up on any given time-scale. The equation is as follows: ECdw Diw = •— — =— — x Dew ECdw - ECiw 93 where Diw = depth of irrigation water ECdw = conductivity (EC) of drainage water ECiw = conductivity (EC) of irrigation water Dew = evapo-transpiration The salt tolerance of the crop is also taken into consideration in the selection of a permissible ECdw, the maximum safe salinity for each crop. From this very simple numerical relationship it is possible to derive the following. / \ Dew ,„ ,„ ECiw Ddw (min) = ^-—^ LR ; LR = ^^^ where Ddw (min) - minimum drainage water required (leachate) Dew = consumptive use, or evapo-transpiration LR - leaching requirement Now, using the electrical conductivity ratios for expressing the leaching requirement, the equation becomes f ■ \ ECiw Ddw (minj = — — — — — Dew ^ ^ ECdw - ECiw Let it be assumed, for example, that a water having 1.0 EC (con- ductivity in millimhos) is used in irrigating citrus and the soil must remain at or below 3.0 EC. Consumptive use is 13.4 inches for the growing season. Then, by substituting: ' 1.0 °^* ^ 3.0 - 1.0 ^ ^2-4 or Ddw = 6.7 inches Two parameters must be established for solution of this equation: 1. Salt tolerance of any given crop 2, Evapo-transpiration for any given crop at a given location. With these basic factors in hand, it is possible to determine how much leachate will be required to maintain salt balance in the root zone. These factors are discussed in later paragraphs. The type of leaching, 94 whether it be intermittent or following each irrigation, must be deter- mined by plotting the rate of salt accumulation against evapo-transpiration. This is in turn modified by the depth of the root zone from which water is extracted and where salt accumulation takes place. Again some very general assumptions must be made regarding the total water-holding capacity of the root zone. This depends upon both crop and soil profile. Figure 26 illustrates how rapidly the EC increases with consumptive use, depending upon depth of soil profile and quality of water. These curves show that soil irrigated with Feather River Project water will seldom require leaching during the irrigation season, even for the most sensitive crops. Such is not the case for the Colorado River water. If the soil profile is shallow, leaching must be started shortly after evapo- transpiration has exceeded 6 inches, and leaching of 8 inches will be required to return the profile to 2.0 millimhos. Figure 27 summarizes the leaching requirement necessary to maintain various degrees of salinity in the drainage water over a range of con- sumptive use values that will include the crops in the areas under study. The leaching requirements for both Colorado River water and Feather River Project water are shown. The considerable differences in the leaching requirements that are necessary to maintain a given degree of salinity with these two waters suggest that some substantial benefits may accrue from the use of Feather River Project water in areas where sensitive crops are grown, rainfall is low, and drainage is poor. The remainder of the study of the agricultural effects of these waters is largely devoted to working out such benefits in more detail for the study area. A , Plant Tolerance to Salinity The previous discussion has pointed out that different levels of salinity may be maintained within the soil profile, depending upon the leaching and the quality of irrigation water. The level of salinity that must be maintained depends on plant response to the total dissolved solids, and to the kind of cations and anions present. This response varies with the type of plant. Although there are many special conditions dealing with specific ions such as boron and fluoride, in general there are three points for consideration: first, the total ions; second, the sodium per- centage; and third, the chloride percentage. Time and available informa- tion do not permit complete evaluation of all crops related to all special conditions. It is necessary to consider the leaching requirements on a broad base and mention only the very significant influences when dealing with a specific area. In salt tolerance tables established by the U.S. Salinity Laboratory, tolerance levels are based upon a 50 percent reduction in productivity. Because this study deals with relative economic benefits based upon water quality, it seems to be more realistic to use a more definitive value for maximum salinity tolerance. Conse- quently, the maximum tolerance values given in Table 27 are those estimated to reflect a 10 percent reduction in productivity. Recent conferences with the University of California Extension Service and with U.S. Salinity Laboratory technicians confirm the reasonableness of this value, and it is used in calculating leaching requirements for the waters compared in this study. 95 3.0 2.5 O X "2.0 I- 3 o o CO u. 1.5 o >- > I- o o z o u < o o 0.5 y 4 6 8 CONSUMPTIVE USE-inches 10 12 Re-j47o-F3e FIG. 26 RATE OF SALT ACCUMULATION WITH NO LEACHING AS INFLUENCED BY SOIL DEPTH, CONSUMPTIVE USE, AND IRRIGATION WATER QUALITY Assuming 2 Inches Water/Foot Soil 96 4 6 8 10 LEACHING REQUIREMENT -inches (Ddw(nnin)) 12 RB-Z470-F-27 FIG. 27 LEACHING REQUIREMENT AS RELATED TO CONSUMPTIVE USE. IRRIGATION WATER QUALITY; AND SALT TOLERANCE OF CROP 97 Table 27 MAXIMUM SALINITY TOLERANCE FOR 10 PERCENT REDUCTION IN PRODUCTIVITY OF MAJOR CROPS WITHIN THE UPPER SANTA ANA BASIN AND COASTAL AREAS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY CROP OF LEACHATE {!-.C X 103 = r,il!inihjs; SPECIAL CONDITIONS Avocados 2,0 Less than 6 meq/liter CI Deciduous Fruits 2 5 Less than 4 meq/liter CI Citrus Fruits 3 Special problem in some areas due to sprinkler irrigation Alfalfa 4 Grains 5 Truck crops Tomatoes 5 Potatoes 4 Carrots 4 Onions 3 5 Celery 2 5 Strawberries 2 Lettuce 4 5 Sugar Beets 10 Ornamental Plants Sensitive 10 Moderately sensitive 2.0 Tolerant 3 B. Consumptive Use Consumptive use (evapo-transpiration) is the sum of the volumes of water used by vegetative growth and the evaporation from adjacent soil. It includes both water obtained from rainfall and water supplied by irri- gation. The State Department of Water Resources has utilized its own experience and the work of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in developing a series of values for consumptive use of applied water for major crops in the areas under study. The values presented are based on the difference between total annual consumptive use and net requirement supplied by rainfall. These data, for the Upper Santa Ana watershed, are given below. CONSUMPTIVE USE VALUES OF APPLIED WATER FOR UPPER SANTA ANA WATERSHED AS ESTIMATED BY STATE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES LOCATION CHOP (Acre -feet/acre > RAINFALL (inches ) Citrus V s ub- tropical ) Deciduous Vines Truck Crops Alfalfa ( i r r . pas.) Gra in Field Mean Rainfall Effective Rainfall* San Jacinto I 6 1 3 14 2 fi 0.7 12.2 6.3 Riverside . Arlington, Corona 1 6 13 1 4 2 8 7 12 6 2 Chino Basin 1 5 1.3 12 2 1 5 17 7 11 8 San Bernardino. Redlands Yucaipa 1 5 1 3 1 2 2 1 5 14 8.0 Elsinore. Temescal 16 13 1 4 2 8 7 16 10.0 * Estimated 98 From such records it is impossible to establish winter-month use. However, it has been shown previously that deep penetration of rainfall during the winter months is sufficient to leach salt accumulation from irrigation water of good quality or where there is a low irrigation requirement . Many citrus groves and other irrigated crops planted on the more porous soils have a relatively high loss to deep percolation, due to in- efficient irrigation. Studies in the Redlands area have shown losses to deep percolation to be as much as 50 percent of the total water applied. In San Diego County efficiencies run up to 70 percent. Losses due to deep percolation and losses due to runoff cannot readily be separated. For lack of adequate information dealing with these factors, it appears equitable to utilize the consumptive use values tabulated above for the whole project area, but to recognize that in some localities some leaching occurs under present irrigation practices. This is particularly true of areas in citrus on the alluvial fan slopes along the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains, C. Rainfall The preceding section has discussed the leaching requirement based upon the quality of water, consumptive use of plants, and degree of plant tolerance. Most permanent crops, such as citrus, depend in part or en- tirely upon rainfall during the winter months. Others, such as truck and field crops, depend in part upon rainfall. This varies greatly for each year because of the considerable variation in quantity and distribution of rainfall. Leaching by rainfall can be accomplished only when losses by surface evaporation and evapo-transpiration have been exceeded. In times of very high rainfall intensities, runoff may occur. In order to determine an average annual leaching by rainfall accurately, these in- fluences should be considered on a monthly basis over an extended number of years. Usually an evaluation of this type starts in the fall when soil moisture is below field capacity (soil water that is retained within the soil profile against the force of gravity). This "fall soil moisture deficiency" is based upon the water required to bring the soil profile up to field capacity. As the winter rains begin, the soil moisture deficiency may be made up. Evapo-transpiration continues throughout the winter months in areas where there are growing crops, and only when these demands are exceeded is there an opportunity for deep percolation. An example of calculating the annual rainfall contribution to leaching is given in the tabulation on page 100. It becomes quite clear that rainfall alone cannot be utilized as an index of deep percolation. It is also quite impossible in a study of this type to make an evaluation of all major crops, and of individual rainstorms which influence these results. A study of this type was made by Dean C. Muckel and V. S, Aronovici^ and earlier by H. F. Blaney.^ Estimates by Blaney indicated that there is no deep percolation or leaching effect on irrigated lands, excluding those planted to deciduous plants 99 LEACHING FROM RAINFALL Citrus Orchard. Chino Basin. 194445 SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAB APR. TOTAL INCHES ITEM Acre inches /acre Rainfall 1 5 6 1 4 3 5 1 4 16.5 Evaporation 8 5 1 4 1 5 4 4 7 Effective Rainfall 4 8 5 2 9 3.6 11.8 Transpiration 2.5 1 7 1 6 1 1 1 2 1 3 2.2 2.1 15 60 * Deficiency 4 5 7 + 2 5 3 1 4 3 2 7 1 3 3 4+ Leaching * Assumed i. 5-inch soil moisture deficiency Sept 1 f Probably would irrigate during these months but deep percolation unlikely with 2-inch irrigation. and vineyards, until a total of 14 inches have fallen, in the upper Santa Ana Basin. His estimate was based upon total rainfall but the surface evaporation parameter was taken into consideration, so the end result is similar to that obtained by the method described. Another study by Blaney,^ dealing with estimates of rainfall pene- tration below the root zone in Ventura County, California, is briefly summarized below. RAINFALL PF.NETRATICW BELOW ROOT ZONE IN VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ( inches ) MINIMUM IRRIGATION PRACTICES SEASONAL RAINFALL ; inches ) CROP Irrigated in Fall Not Irrigated in Fall Clean Cultivation Cover Crop Clean Cultivation Cover Crop 10 Citrus Fruits 1.0 1 14 4 Citrus Fruits 3.1 16 I 1 0, 15 4 Citrus Fruits 3 9 2 1.9 0.1 15 4 Deciduous Fruits 2 10 Grain 2 13.0 Truck Crops 3 1 From this evidence it becomes clear that rainfall penetration on irrigated lands is significant only in areas that have rainfall of 15 inches or more. This may be substantiated further by a study of the "effective rainfall," which is rainfall that is not lost by runoff during a storm and is not lost by evaporation from the ground surface after a storm. Studies by Blaney^ have shown that approximately 0.5 inch of water evaporates from the soil surface after a rain. This may vary considerably, depending upon temperature and humidity, but over a season it is a fair average value. 100 Evaporation losses may then be estimated from the daily rainfall records. Rainfall records were obtained for five key stations in the study area from 1932 to 1957. The Stanford Research Institute staff computed the evaporation losses. It was found that the relationship between seasonal rainfall and effective rainfall was highly significant. Figure 28 illustrates this relationship for the Redlands station. By comparing the average annual effective rainfall with the average annual rainfall at the five stations, it was found that there was a very close relationship be- tween average annual rainfall and effective rainfall (Figure 29). The average monthly effective rainfall for the five key stations is summarized below. AVERAGE MONTHLY EFFECTIVE RAINFALL (1932-1957) FOR FIVE STATIONS IN STUDY AREA LOCATION SEPT OCT NOV, DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG Chula Vista 06 0.26 27 1 21 1 10 86 83 25 T 0. T Escondido 0.07 52 64 2 32 2.22 1 68 1 75 0,59 07 T T T San Jacinto T 28 49 1 60 1 32 1 17 1 28 31 04 0. T Redlands 12 45 60 1 71 1 67 1 39 1 41 0.52 06 T T T Pomona 15 39 86 2 63 3 06 1 97 2 20 58 08 T T T Runoff must. .now be considered. This parameter is extremely complex and can be considered only from a qualitative standpoint. It is controlled by rainfall intensities within a single storm, surface-cover condition, soil type, and antecedent rainfall. Harold C. Troxell^ and others have investigated runoff on the valley floor in the Upper Santa Ana watershed and have indicated that, on the basis of seasonal rainfall, seasonal runoff does not exceed 1.0 acre-inch/acre until the seasonal rainfall has ex- ceeded 25 inches. The San Bernardino County Flood Control District estimated that in the Puente Hills, an area of clay soils, runoff of more than 1.0 acre-inch/ acre did not occur until the seasonal rainfall exceeded 18 inches. (See Figure 30.) Since seasonal rainfall seldom exceeds 18 inches, it is quite apparent, that on an average annual basis runoff may be ignored from the standpoint of estimating average annual effective rainfall . From the foregoing discussion it appears that on lands which are irrigated and are cropped during a portion or all of the winter months deep percolation of winter rainfall is substantially less than might be assumed, although of course there are years in which deep percolation may take place. Pomona, which has the highest average annual rainfall in the study area, may illustrate this point. During the seasons 1932-1957, fifteen inches of seasonal rainfall was exceeded only 5 times. There were consecutive periods of 8 , 5, and 4 years without any substantial leaching, and there were only 3 years in the 25 that were likely to produce any substantial leaching of lands under winter crops. 101 30 25 / / / 'O 1936-37 Y- 20 / / / / -7^ I < I !-■ s z < a: -I < z o V) < 15 v / /o / T" t" 10 O qO^ AVERAGE SEASON 1932-1957 "X / / 7^ / 1954-55 5 10 15 20 EFFECTIVE SEASONAL RAINFALL, SEPT. -AUG.- inches 25 R8-2470F-29 FIG. 28 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OBSERVED AND EFFECTIVE RAINFALL, 1932-1957, REDLANDS, CALIFORNIA 102 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 / /^ / FALLBROOK 1926-1943 / / (3 ) POMONA ^-DCEANSIDE y 1926-1943 ^^ REDLANOS / /®SAN JACINT D / .®CH ULA VIS TA / ® CON O COS HPUTED ^PUTED BY SRI BY us: )A 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 IS 20 22 AVERAGE ANNUAL EFFECTIVE RAINFALL- inches ra-2470-f-30 FIG. 29 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OBSERVED AND EFFECTIVE RAINFALL AT FIVE REPRESENTATIVE STATIONS, 1932-1957 103 2 3 4 RUNOFF — ocre Inches /acre Re-2470-F-SI FIG. 30 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEASONAL PRECIPITATION AND SEASONAL RUN-OFF FROM VALLEY FLOOR, UPPER SANTA ANA BASIN, CALIFORNIA 104 It is believed that this discussion lends a great deal of support to the conclusion that leaching must be an integral part of the irrigation regime in order to maintain a steady state salt concentration in the soil. The farmer will have to rely on leaching specifications required by the particular quantity and quality of irrigation water applied. V Economic Analysis The foregoing discussion is concerned with the factors that are re- lated to water-quality differences in their effect on agriculture. It remains necessary to estimate the economic values which can be associated with these factors and the physical differences which they cause. The following seven categories of difference are considered in the sections of the report that follow, 1. Quantities of water required for leaching to prevent accumulation of excessive salts in the soil 2. Effects on leaching of variations in rainfall from computed average effective rainfall 3. Drainage costs to remove water applied for leaching 4. Fertilizer losses caused by leaching 5. Time intervals between irrigations 6o Effects of ground water contamination on leaching requirement 7. Effects on nursery stock and ornamental plants. Estimates of the dollar value of some of the differences are made, but others can only be discussed qualitatively. A. Leaching Requirements The methods for calculating the amount of water that must be leached through the soil in a particular situation to avoid accumulation of ex- cessive salts were described earlier. Using this approach, it is possible to estimate the difference in the total quantity of water that would be needed for agricultural purposes in the study areas when the two sources of water are considered. This difference in total quantity required represents the principal economic difference involved in the use of the two waters. The following steps outline the derivation of net leaching requirements for the study areas. 1. Determine the land use for each geographical area. 2. Determine the ECdw (maximum safe salinity) for each crop. 3. Determine the irrigation requirement to satisfy seasonal consumptive use for each crop (Dew) . 105 4. Determine the Ddw (leaching requirement) for each crop by the equation: ECiw Ddw = Dew ECdw - ECiw where ECiw = salinity of irrigation water (salinity expressed as conductivity) 5. Determine the effective rainfall for each geographical area. 6. Estimate the winter consumptive use supplied in part by rainfall . 7. Subtract the winter consumptive use from the effective rainfall. If the answer is negative, obviously there will be no leaching by rainfall; if the answer is positive, this value may be subtracted from the com- puted leaching requirement to determine the net leaching requirement. 8. Multiply the net leaching requirement by the crop acreage . 9. The sum of net leaching requirements of the Feather River Project water may then be subtracted from the sum of net leaching requirements of the Colorado River water. If there is a difference in net leaching requirements for the two waters, the economic value of the difference can be estimated. If water applied for leaching purposes is valued at $25 per acre-foot, the total economic difference between the two waters on this score is summarized in Table 28 for 1957 conditions. This cost difference is a reasonable approximation of the difference in water requirements from using the two waters under study. However, a possible qualification should be mentioned. Application of irrigation water, whether it be by furrow, irrigation border, or sprinkler system, is not always 100 percent efficient. As previously described, some water is lost by runoff and some is lost to deep percolation. That water which is lost to deep percolation, or penetration below the root zone, is con- tributing to the leaching requirement. Irrigation efficiency is extremely difficult to evaluate accurately, and it is hazardous to generalize. Not only does the irrigation efficiency vary greatly from field to field and irrigation to irrigation, but the ratio between deep percolation and surface runoff also varies greatly from irrigation to irrigation. 106 Table 28 NET LEACHING HEQUIRFMENTS FOH WESTERN SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND THE UPPER SANTA ANA i'ASIN, CALIFORNIA, FOH 1957 CONDITIONS AREA AVERAGE ANNUAL LEACHING REQUIREMENT (acre-feet) ECONOMIC DIFFERENCE i d -. : ' a s Colorado River Water Feather River Project Water Higher C'j Col orado St of Using River Wat.cr A + R§ A* r5 San Diego County 57,500 45,000 10,600 1,172,500 860,000 Upper Santa Ana Basin 49,530 38,380 8,160 1,034,250 755,500 San Jacinto Basin 37,280 29,840 6,450 770,750 584,750 Riverside, Corona 28,230 21,410 5,650 564,500 394,000 Elsinore 5,770 4,660 1,060 117,750 90,000 Total 178,310 139,200 31,920 3,659,750 2,684,250 Based on difference in amount of water required, .alued at S2b per acre -feet Based on EC of I 16 millimhcs Based on EC of 1,00 millimhcs. When long-range estimates are considered, the trend to increased use of sprinkler irrigation becomes important. Sprinkler irrigation is rapidly expanding, due to both higher irrigation efficiency and lower labor cost. The possibility for inadvertent leaching through the appli- cation of more water than is actually necessary for the crop is thus being reduced, and where leaching is needed it will require more intentional application of excess water. From an over-all viewpoint, it is believed that estimates of total leaching requirements for the study area could not be reduced by more than a small amount to allow for the incidental leaching accomplished through irrigation inefficiency. An allowance of from 5 to 10 percent is probably the most that could be made. Since this would not greatly affect the magnitudes involved, no specific adjustment for this factor is made in the projections of leaching requirements. B '. Yearly Variations in Rainfall The difference in net leaching requirements estimated above is based on the average annual effective rainfall. However, in about two-thirds of the years rainfall is below average, which creates a small additional difference in using the two qualities of water under study. In years of below-normal rainfall, the deficiency must be made up by irrigation. With the increase in irrigation application, the leaching requirement also goes up, and precludes any chance of leaching by rainfall. For salinity- sensitive crops it may become necessary to leach during the rainfall season. The magnitude of the difference between the two waters on this score may be estimated by taking a series of years and adjusting the irrigation 107 water applications according to the rainfall deficiency. In the period 1932-1957, there was a total of 59.6 inches of rain less than normal. Assuming that this had to be made up by irrigation water, the net leaching requirement for Colorado River water on salt-sensitive crops would be 37.5 additional inches of leachate , or a yearly requirement of 1.5 inches. On the same basis, Feather River Project water leaching would require only 7.1 inches, an average annual quantity of 0.3 inch. Thus an added benefit may be obtained by taking the difference between average winter consumptive use and rainfall and computing the winter irrigation requirement and the consequent leaching requirement. This procedure may be worked out for each crop and for each geographical area. One example of this potential benefit is demonstrated in Table 29. Thus, for a 25-year period, 1932-1957, an additional total leaching requirement based upon individual years is: Colorado River A, 53.2 inches; Colorado River B, 36.2 inches; Feather River, 10.1 inches. At $25 per acre-foot, we may compute a cost benefit per acre per year for Feather River Project water of $3.60 and $2.17 as opposed to Colorado River A and Table 29 COMPUTED LEACHING PRQUIREMENTS FOR WINTER IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLEMENTING RAINFALL DEFICIENCIES, CITRUS ORCHARD. ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA (inches) EFFECTIVE RAINFALl." DEFICIENCY* LEACHING REyUIHEMENT SEASON Colorado R i ve r Wa te r Feather River Project Water A§ B" 1933-34 6.05 5.95 3.75 2.55 0.71 1935-36 8.20 3.80 2.39 1.63 . 45 1938-39 10.28 1.72 1.08 0.74 0.20 1942-43 10.67 1.33 0.84 0.57 0.16 1943-44 10.01 1.99 1.25 0.85 0.24 1944-45 10.52 1.48 0.93 0.63 0.18 1945-46 7.89 4.11 2.59 1.76 0.49 1946-47 6.97 5.03 3.17 2.16 0.60 1947-48 3.20 8.80 5.54 3.78 1.05 1948-49 7.28 4.72 2.97 2.02 0.56 1949-50 4.95 7.05 4.44 3.02 0.84 1950-51 4.95 7.05 4.44 3.02 84 1952-53 3.31 8.69 5.47 3.72 1.03 1953-54 9.56 2.44 1.54 1.05 0.29 1954-55 3.10 8.90 5.61 3.82 1.06 1955-56 4.55 7.45 4.69 3.20 0.89 1956-57 Total 8.04 3.96 2.49 1.70 0.47 119.53 84.47 53.19 36.22 10.06 Annual computed effective rainfall. ' Consumptive use (12 inches) from winter rainfall less effective rainfall •^ Rased on EC of 1 1^ millimhos Based on EC of 1.00 millimhos 108 B. respectively. As the original leaching computations were based on average annual rainfall values, and winter rainfall deficiencies were not included, this can represent a substantial benefit, particularly to crops utilizing larger quantities of water during the winter months. Citrus, avocados, fall-planted truck crops, and alfalfa are the best examples. This factor is estimated to amount to about $258,000 annually in water costs alone for citrus and avocados in the study areas under 1957 conditions . C. D rainage Costs The preceding points have dealt with differences in the quantities of water that would be needed for leaching, depending on which of the two waters was used. The problem of disposing of the leachate must now be considered. This problem will obviously be more serious with Colorado River water than with Feather River Project water due to the differences in leaching requirements. Soils that have poor internal drainage or an impervious substratum may be incapable of passing the required leachate through and away from the root zone. Following an irrigation or leaching application, a perched water table may be formed directly below the soil or above any restricting layer, resulting in water-logging of the soil. When this condition exists for any length of time, capillary action may reverse the direction of water flow, resulting in accumulation of salts in the root zone or at the soil surface. Many plants, especially avocados, are subject to damage when the root zone remains wet for prolonged periods, regardless of the soil salinity. The internal drainability of soils then becomes a significant factor in evaluating the effects of water quality differences. Two alternatives are possible in dealing with soils having restricted internal drainability. The first is to provide artificial internal drainage by means of some drainage facility. These facilities may include various types of tile lines, open drainage ditches, or interceptor drains; also, changes may be made in irrigation practices. The second alternative is to change the land use to a crop requiring lower net water use, to plant the irrigated crop less frequently, or to abandon the land for irrigation use. Instances of both alternatives in the study areas can be expected. A quantitative evaluation of this problem is complex. Current knowledge of the soil hydrology of the areas in question is fragmentary. Thus, it is necessary to place drainage facility benefits on an extremely broad base. There are literally hundreds of field site conditions, and each presents individual drainage problems. An accurate estimate of costs would be tantamount to laying out drainage systems for each condition. The author has, therefore, relied upon personal experience and the experi- . ence of agricultural workers studying irrigation problems in the several areas considered. Each area will be discussed briefly from the standpoint of drainage facilities. 109 1 . San Diego Area a. Citrus and Avocados It has been estimated that under favorable conditions about 10 percent of all citrus and avocado orchards need drainage facilities; regardless of the quality of water, and that an additional 10 percent will require drainage facilities with continued use of Colorado River water. Tile installations are now being made in this area. The Soil Conservation Service estimates that adequate drainage, using tile, costs approximately $450.00 per acre. (See discussion on San Diego County.) If there are 22,263 acres of citrus and avocados, 4,452 acres will require tiling when using Colorado River water, and 2,226 acres will require drainage regardless of water quality. This would amount to a capital cost difference of approximately a million dollars for the 1957 acreage. Additional plantings projected by the Department of Water Resources would require additional tile for some 8,700 acres by the year 2020. Before leaving this subject, it should be pointed out that the drainage water must be collected and transported away from the agricultural areas. No estimate is possible regarding these ultimate costs. b . Truck Crops The soils on to which truck crops are being moved have relatively poor internal drainage. Most of the mesa soils are not suitable for tile drainage. It is believed that benefits would be derived from the use of low-salinity water as a result of the possibility of more intensive use of the lands for irrigated crops, and growth of more sensitive plants. It is probably not a coincidence that currently the trend is away from green beans, a very sensitive crop, to tomatoes, a reasonably salt-tolerant crop in this area. It is not feasible to estimate quantitatively the difference in economic impact of the two waters on these crops without a more intensive study of the local area than is possible for this report. 2. Upper Santa Ana Basin a. Citrus and Deciduous Fruit In general the Upper Santa Ana basin has relatively porous soils which are capable of handling all the leaching requirements. There are a few relatively isolated exceptions. These areas occur on old terrace soils associated with the alluvial fans of the mountain slopes. It seems that costs involved in providing drainage facilities for these areas are relatively insignificant. b . Truck Crops An area lying south of the city of Chino, now in truck crops, contains approximately 2,000 acres of land which may need drainage facilities. In the 1920 's, when the pumping draft in the basin was low, portions of 110 the lower Chino basin were tiled, due to an area-wide high water table. Should a saline water be used in this area, it is quite possible that the leaching requirement would necessitate installation of some additional tile. 3. San Jacinto Basin a . Citrus and Deciduous Fruit All citrus and deciduous crops are planted on soils of good to excellent internal drainage and no special facilities will be required for Colorado River water, b , Truck Crops and Grain As outlined under the general description of the San Jacinto Basin, drainage of the leachate is a basin-wide problem, primarily. There are many thousands of acres of bottom xands which are classified as having poor internal drainage. Currently, truck crops, primarily potatoes, are grown on the soils with fair to good internal drainage. It is probable that some of these acreages will require special treatment consisting of less frequent use. The bottom lands, having poor internal drainage, include approxi- mately 39,678 acres. Much of this land is now currently subject to surface flooding, high water table, and consequent salinization. It may be questionable whether some of these lands are of sufficient quality to warrant tiling. Reclamation and irrigation with Colorado River water would certainly require an expensive outlay in tile drains. Soils having moderate to slow internal drainage when used for alfalfa would definitely require tiling under continued irrigation with Colorado River water. Tile drains currently average $0.4G per lineal foot laid down in the field in this area. When tile lines are placed in a 40-acre, or larger, field, they are commonly spaced in parallel lines about 200 feet apart. Variations in this conventional layout are used to compensate for special soil or topographical conditions. A 40-acre conventional layout has five lines 1,670 feet long, with a collecting line 900 feet long. This would cost a total of $4,440.00, or $111.00 per acre. The substantially lower cost per acre of the San Jacinto Basin compared with the San Diego Area is a result of the greater hand labor required for the irregular topography of the latter area. It appears reasonable to assume that tile drainage will ultimately be required on 30,000 acres if Colorado River water is used, and on 10,000 acres if Feather River Project water is used. The net difference in tiling costs, under current prices, would be $2,220,000. All tile systems must have some effluent drainage system. Such a system must, under present conditions, remove 22 to 34 thousand acre-feet from the basin, using Colorado River water, and about 6.6 thousand acre-feet 111 should the basin be irrigated with Feather River Project water. This is a very substantial difference. The drainage water requirement with Colorado River water is approximately one-half of the total consumptive use. Consumptive use of 62 thousand acre-feet must be augmented by 34.5 thousand acre-feet for leaching. This is a total, for 1957, of 97.2 thousand acre-feet. The drainage water will, therefore, contain roughly 3 times the salt concentration of the applied water, or an elec- trical conductivity of 3.48 millimhos. The solution to this drainage problem is not simple. The Imperial Valley, similar in many ways, utilizes the Salton Sea as a salt collecting basin. Where is there a similar outlet for the San Jacinto Basin other than drainage to the ocean? The San Jacinto Basin probably is the most critical area, from the standpoint of drainage and maintaining basin-wide salinity balance, of any in this study. Importation of Colorado River water is too recent in the area to have caused serious trouble yet. However, studies conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, of the salinity trend of irrigated areas in the basin, clearly show that current farm irrigation practices are not providing sufficient leaching of the soil profile to maintain a salinity balance. By not using adequate water for leaching, they have not faced the problem of getting rid of the leachate. Use of Colorado River water for adequate leaching would require annual drainage from the basin of 25,000 to 30,000 acre-feet more than would be required if Feather River Project water were used. It is not possible in this study tc estimate the cost difference that disposal of this water might involve. D . Fertilizer Losses Caused by Leaching There is substantial field and experimental evidence that excessive deep percolation of irrigation and rainwater results in the removal of fertilizer from the root zone. Most Southern California soils are deficient in nitrogen. Nitrogen in the form of nitrate (NO3) is highly soluble and is readily removed from the soil by leaching. It has been demonstrated that Colorado River water requires substantially more leaching than Feather River Project water, and it is reasonable to assume that greater fertilizer losses will occur. In order to obtain specific dollar estimates of fertilizer losses, it would be necessary to have some quantitative relationship between quantity of leachate and fertilizer losses Data of this type are not available. Studies by Chapman and others,' using lysimeters, have demonstrated that under normal conditions, not involving soil salinity, fertilizer losses do occur. Chapman points out that the losses of nitrogen due to leaching are dependent upon three factors. They are: (l) rate of application of fertilizer and concentration of nitrates in the soil, (2) type of crop and crop demand upon nitrogen, (3) rainfall and irrigation water application. Figure 31 illustrates the relationship of total nitrogen loss to the measured leachate. 112 1000 100 - o o o a: 10 1 1 1 1 i |0 1 1 — - - - ^ - - a ^^ D- - O y^ O - A / X y X a - o AA / A - - / - A/ A - o / A - D / O X / o X (V' L X _ _ - _ - - A 10 -YEAR AVERAGE OF WINTER COVER CROPS - ~ O LYSIMETER NO 9 (STRAW + 2001b N ) o LYSIMETER NOI0(VETCH+ 2001b N) X LYSIMETER NO. 12 (MUSTARD+ 200 lb N) ~ DAT4 FROM H.C CHAPMAN, CITRUS EXPERIMENT STATION, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 5 LEACHATE- inches 9 C-a«70-32 FIG. 31 AMOUNT OF LEACHATE FROM LYS I METERS RELATED TO NITROGEN LOSS 113 A study by R. C. Reeve and others® of the Delta, Utah area has indi- cated that there was a loss of $5.00 in fertilizer with each acre-foot of leaching. This is a substantially lower rate than that indicated by the work of Chapman. Well analyses of the Upper Santa Ana River Basin qualitatively sub- stantiate the fact that leaching of nitrogen does take place. Nitrates vary greatly from well to well, with some values as high as 40 ppm. There is little chance that these nitrates are derived from any other sources than fertilizer. However, there does not appear to be any sound technique for establishing costs through the use of well water analyses. The conversion of qualitative lysimeter studies to cost differences is hazardous, and consequently the most conservative estimates should be used. Should the values presented on Figure 31 be used directly, nitrogen losses due to leaching required by Colorado River water would be very great indeed. It is obvious that nitrogen losses will not exceed nitrogen applications. Two to three hundred pounds of fertilizer, applied to high value crops, is not uncommon. Some of this fertilizer is lost by evapora- tion into the air and some is used by the crop. However, it may be assumed that under conditions of high leaching requirements 50 percent or more is lost to deep percolation. Most fertilizers average 20 percent nitrogen. Thus, we may assume an average annual loss per acre of 20 pounds of nitrogen. The current price of nitrogen, regardless of the type of ferti- lizer compound used, averages about $0.13 per pound, plus application costs. Since the Feather River Project water leaching requirement is relatively small , it seems reasonable to assume that the Colorado River water leaching requirement for most crops will cause a greater loss of nitrogen, equivalent to about 50 percent of annual fertilizer applications, The following rough estimate of losses due to leaching with Colorado River water is made on this basis. AVERAGE ANNUAL DIFFEPENCES IN NITROGEN LOSSES FROM LEACHING WITH COLORADO RIVER WATER INSTEAD OF FEATHER RIVER PROJECT WATER 1957 ACREAGES AREA ACREAGE OF CROPs' LOST NITROGEN ( pounds ; COST San Jacinto Basin 20.8 416,000 $ 54,080 Upper Santa Ana Basin 44.7 894,000 116,220 San Diego Coiir ty 35.5 710,000 92,300 Riverside Area 16.6 332,000 43,160 Elsinore District 2.8 56.000 7,280 1313,040 Includes only citrus, deciduous fruits, avocado, and truck crcps. 114 E . Intervals Between Irrigations It is probable that in parts of the study areas it would be necessary to irrigate at more frequent intervals with Colorado River water than would be required with Feather River Project water. This would mean more water lost in irrigation inefficiencies and greater labor costs in applying the water. Plants growing in a soil solution containing moderate to large quantities of salts are restricted in their ability to remove water from a drying soil. Under low salinity, most plants are capable of extracting water from the soil up to a maximum capillary pressure of 15 atmospheres. In the presence of dissolved salts, this maximum is reduced in proportion to the increase in the osmotic pressure of the soil solution. For example, if the soil solution has an electrical conductivity of 6,0 millimhos, the maximum moisture-withdrawing capacity of the plant is reduced from 15 to 12.7 atmospheres. If the soil solution went up to an electrical conduc- tivity of 10 millimhos, the withdrawing capacity would be reduced to 11.1. If this is translated into total available moisture within the root zone, it may mean that instead of 8 inches of available moisture stored in the soil profile, only 6 inches would be available between irrigations. This is particularly true of the finer textured soils, in which the capillary soil moisture is held at higher pressures than in the coarse or sandy soils. Essentially all of the water contained within the pores of sandy soil is available to the plants at relatively low pressures. Thus, good quality of water with resultant low salinity in the soil solution makes available a greater amount of water to the plants and con- sequently the interval between irrigations may be longer. Cost differences arising on this score might be significant, but no quantitative estimate is possible without a much more intensive analysis of local areas than is possible here. F . Ground Water Contamination and Its Effect on Leaching Requirements A substantial portion of the irrigation water utilized in the Chino Basin is ground water. It is assumed that this condition will continue in the future. The quality of the ground water will be influenced by the quality of the supplemental imported water as it enters the ground water through deep percolation. This matter is discussed in detail in Part III, A comparative study was made of the leaching requirements of all irrigated crops projected for the Chino Basin for the period 1960 to 2020, as the ground water quality changes over this period. Table 30 compares the water quality of the basin with the two sources of imported water and relates them to the leaching requirement of the water derived from the basin. As the ground water becomes more saline, the leaching requirement on the less tolerant crops becomes uneconomical. It is probable that all citrus on soils of slightly restricted internal drainage would go out of cultivation when the leaching requirement exceeded four acre-feet per year. It is a fair estimate that by 1990 all citrus using ground water contami- nated by the Colorado River supplemental water would have been so lowered in productivity that continued cultivation would be impractical. Assuming 115 Table 30 LEACliING PRQUIPEMENTS FO'- 'NE OF GBOLINn WATER IN CHINO BASIN RELATED TO PROJ '•!':'; ED GROUND WATER SALINITY YEAR TOTAL IRRIG (acres) WITH FEATHER RIVER PROJECT WATER WITH COLORADO RIVER WATER Basin . Sal ini. ty ( ppm ) Leaching Requ J remen t: (acre feet) Basin , Sa 1 in 1 ty (ppm) Leac hing Requi remen t (acre f ee t ) Total Per Acre Total Per Acre 1960 73,300 260 14,480 0.20 260 14,480 0.20 1970 66,700 560 40,870 0.61 560 40,870 0.61 1980 42,800 740 39,010 0.93 900 47 , 940 1.12 1990 31,800 820 34,710 1.09 1,500 135,780 4.27 2000 18,700 , (3,100 C.R. ') 820 20,260 1.08 1,900 17,880 5.77 2010 11,400 . (1,950 CP.*) 670 9,300 0.82 1,900 1,620 0.83 2020 630 1,700 0. Using the assumption of one-tenth mixing volume as described in Part III. Because of the ground water quality resulting from using Colorado River water, acreage of all citrus, deciduous, and truck crops will go out of cultivation. that this would include one-half of the total citrus acreage in the basin, there would be a net loss of 5,050 acres in producing acreages beyond the predicted reduction by urban expansion. Tabulated below is a rough estimate of the reductions. YEAR STATE ESTIMATE Nacres) LOSS DUE TO WATER QUALITY \ ac res ) 1980 1990 2000 2010 18,860 12,180 7 , 460 2,200 6,000* 6,090+ 3,730 + 1,100 + For five-ytar pericd. For ten-year period. Now, computing this on an acre-year basis from the period 1980 to the year 2020, there is a net loss of 138 thousand acre-years of citrus production. It is quite certain that such lands will be converted to a more tolerant crop which might allow a substantially lower leaching re- quirement. When one considers that citrus culture is also controlled by the degree of frost hazard it is unlikely that other new lands within the basin could be diverted to citrus. Thus, there are added costs of pumping and applying the greater quantities of water for leaching as the salinity builds up, followed eventually by shifts to lower value crops. While no dollar value has been 116 estimated here for these two effects, there is obviously an economically significant result. Estimated costs for replacing the ground water with imported water when ground water salinity exceeds 1,000 ppm and 1,500 ppm are given in Part III and thus cover the most significant range of effects illustrated here. G. Nursery Stock and Ornamental Plants The nursery business, including cut flowers and ornamental plants, is of major proportions in San Diego County and is a relatively large business in the Upper Santa Ana basin. The business ranks third in crop value in San Diego County, producing a gross annual income in excess of 5 million dollars. Many varieties of ornamental plants, such as camellia, begonia, azalea, and large-leafed plants, are moderately to highly sensitive to salinity and pH in excess of 7o0. They also begin to show varying degrees of injury with electrical conductivity of 1.0 millimho. Field-grown flowers, such as sweet peas and zinnias, may stand considerably higher salinity con- centrations. Studies by Harold Pearson^ of the influence of various waters upon ornamental plants have demonstrated these general limitations. Pearson points out that the cation and anion constituents are important, in addition to the total dissolved solids, in the growth of ornamentals. Wall and Cross^° found that waters containing approximately 200 ppm (EC = 0,32 milli- mhos) of total salts are excellent for greenhouse use and that those containing 500 ppm (EC = 0.65 millimhos) of total dissolved solids are likely to cause reduced growth only with the more sensitive plants or under unfavorable conditions of temperature. In southern California most nursery stock of the more sensitive plants is grown in containers. This places special emphasis upon quality of water. Interviews with a number of nurserymen in the San Diego and East Los Angeles areas have revealed some interesting and sometimes conflicting opinions. Nuccio Brothers of Altadena, well known for their camellias, have pointed out that water quality is a vital factor in production costs. Their water quality has over recent years been substantially lowered by the introduction of at least 80 percent partially softened Colorado River water. They have had to make several changes in their operations. They have had to change from sprinkler watering to hand container flooding. This was done to prevent spotting of the leaves and to insure good leaching of the salts from the pots. They have had to transfer plants from smaller to larger containers on a one-year, instead of a two-year, schedule. They have had to apply fertilizer more frequently, because leaching removes much of the fertilizer with the salts. They have been forced to abandon propagation of some of the most sensitive varieties of fuchsias, rhodo- dendron, and azaleas. Cutting propagation has been made more difficult because of the salt build-up on the leaves in the cutting beds. Costlier organic fertilizers have been employed more extensively, A very large nursery has moved its entire fruit tree operation out of southern California because of the quality of the available water. A serious chloride problem has developed in San Diego County where 117 Colorado River water is used. It is claimed that erratic and improper chlorination of the water is very damaging to all sensitive plants. Water requirements for nurseries were investigated. One of the largest in Southern California, located near Glendora, uses 1.78 acre-feet per acre per year, and it was estimated that a nursery near Chino uses 41 acre-feet on a 30-acre field. It was observed that approximately 30 percent of this area is occupied by yards, outbuildings and roadways. This gives a duty of about two acre-feet per acre. In both cases, the water quality was substantially better than that of Colorado River water but not as good as that of Feather River Project water. The Glendora nursery water contained about 500 ppm of dissolved solids. Nurserymen are very reluctant to depend entirely upon any public sys- tem for water and endeavor to locate in an area where they can control their own water supply of above average quality. Interviews revealed that the more successful operations have centered around a good source of local water of reasonably good quality. The almost unanimous opinion of the nurserymen was that Colorado River water is usable but requires special cultural practices that would not be required if a high quality water were available. None of the growers was able to establish quantitatively the cost differences obtained from improvement of water quality; however, : "^ nearly all agreed that these differences were sufficient to warrant a sub- stantial effort to secure local water when possible. According to the projected analysis of Feather River Project water, nurserymen would derive considerable benefit from using it in lieu of Colorado River water, although no attempt to assign a dollar value is made here. VI Summary of Economic Difference s The differences in leaching requirements derived above are based on the land use patterns of 1957, As the study areas develop in the future, the land use pattern will change, and the analysis must be extended to cover estimates of differences in the future. Utilizing the same techniques used in making the 1957 estimates, leaching requirements were computed for future decades on the basis of projected crop acreages supplied by the Department of Water Resources. The projections of irrigated acreage include lands in the Winchester area south of San Jacinto and in the Temecula, Murrieta, and Vail Ranch areas. These lands are not now irrigated and are not included in the analysis of 1957 conditions. It was agreed in conference with the Department of Water Resources that the projected future irrigation in these areas would be excluded from the estimates of future leaching requirements because of the variety of new consumptive use values, soils, and climate data that would have to be studied in order to extend the analysis to these areas. After the difference in leaching requirements between Colorado River water and Feather River Project water were computed for selected future dates, the values were plotted on graphs, and the values for the remaining dates were obtained by interpolation. Totals for the study area by decade intervals are summarized in Table 31. 118 Table 31 SUMMARY OF PROJECTED ECONOMIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN USING COLORADO RIVER WATER* AND FEATHER RIVER PROJECT WATER IN AGRICULTURE IN THE STUDY AREA I YEAR COST ADVANTAGES OF FEATHER RIVER PROJECT WATER (dcllar S / Leaching Requ I .-emen c Hainfal i Var ia t i ens Dra inage Cos r. s Ferci Ixier Lc s ^e s To 1. a i ' 1960 3,198,000 225,000 113,000 273,000 3,809,000 1970 3,110,000 219,000 113,000 266,000 3,708,000 1980 3,390,000 239,000 113,000 290,000 4,032,000 1990 3,460,000 244,000 113,000 296,000 4,113,000 2000 3,398,000 240,000 113,000 291,000 4,042,000 2010 3,104,000 219,000 113,000 265,000 3,701,000 2020 2,919,000 206,000 113,000 250,000 3,488,000 Based en EC of i.i6-raillirahos. These totals wculd a^-erage about $1,000,000 less if leaching requii emen ts were based on the "B" series of data for Colorado River water { ;.e. EC ~ 1.00}, It can be seen in Table 31 that the estimated value of the difference in leaching requirements for the two waters is rather stable over the long period involved despite changes in land use that are expected to occur. The decline in irrigated acreage in the Upper Santa Ana and the Riverside- Corona areas is offset by projected expansion of acreages in San Diego County and by a projected increase in the proportion of salt-sensitive crops that have high leaching requirements. The crop projections made by the Department of Water Resources do not separate grapes from deciduous orchards. There is a large difference in the salinity tolerances of these crops, and estimates of future leaching requirements were made on the basis of present proportions between these crops in the study area. Grain acreages are not included in the estimates, because the Department of Water Resources data do not include grain in the irrigated acreages projected. The future leaching required due to the use of irrigation water to supplement winter rainfall because of deficiencies in dry years will have about the same relation to the basic leaching requirements of the future as these two factors have to each other under 1957 crop conditions. The 1957 relation is therefore applied to the basic leaching requirements to estimate additional future leaching needed because of rainfall deficiencies. Additional costs of this added leaching if using Colorado River water in- stead of Feather River Project water are shown in Table 31. Future losses of fertilizer due to leaching will be about in pro- portion to the amount of leaching required. The relationship between fertilizer losses and basic leaching requirements for 1957 crop conditions is therefore applied to future basic leaching requirements to estimate future fertilizer losses. Additional costs from fertilizer losses if Colorado River water is used instead of Feather River Project water are also shown in Table 31. 119 Total capital costs for installing additional tile drains that will be needed if Colorado River water is used instead of Feather River Project water can be calculated from the data in earlier paragraphs to be about $7,100,000. These costs will be spread over the period of analysis as new acreage is brought under irrigation and as drainage problems develop in the San Jacinto area. Although tile installations could be viewed as lasting capital investments and amortized accordingly, it seems equally appropriate over the long period considered here to average the total cost over the 63 years and treat it as an annual average expense. On this basis, the annual cost would be about $113,000, and this figure is used in Table 31. Any evaluation of economic differences based on broad factors such as are discussed in this section must reflect the approach chosen for the study. Emphasis was placed on the most tangible economic differences that could be substantiated by reasonably accurate data. Other workers, or more detailed study along the lines used here, might produce somewhat different estimates. However, the results of this study clearly show that differences in leaching requirements would have imporcant economic effects. Other differences, both those that could be estimated in dollars and those that could only be discussed qualitatively, can be seen to add to those effects, thus confirming that the total economic differences are substantial . 120 REFERENCES 1. Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils, Agriculture Handbook No. 60, p. 80, U.S.D.A. (February 1954) 2. Muckel , Dean C. and V, S. Aronovici (April 1952), Rainfall and Irrigation Water Penetration in the Upper Santa Ana River Valley, San Bernardino County, California, Mimeographed report published in cooperation with the U.S. Soil Conservation Service and San Bernardino County. 3. Blaney, H. F., Santa Ana Investigation of Flood Control and Conservation, California Department of Water Resources, Bulletin No. 19. 4. Blaney, H. F., Rainfall Penetration, Ch. 6 in Ventura County Investigation, State of California Department of Public Works, Bulletin No. 46. 5. Same as Reference No. 3. 6. Troxell, Harold C. (1954) Hydrology of the San Bernardino Mountains and Eastern San Gabriel Mountains, California, Atlas HA-1 , United States Geological Survey, 7. Chapman, H. D., Leibig, G. F., Rayner, S, D. (April 1949) A lysimeter investigation of nitrogen gains and losses under various systems of cover-cropping and fertilization, and a discussion of error sources, Hilgardia, ^, No. 3. 8. Reeve, R. C, Allison, L. E., Peterson, D. F., Reclamation of Saline-Alkali Soils by Leaching, Delta Area, Utah, Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, Logan, Utah, Bulletin No. 335. 9. Pearson, Harold (March 1949), Effect of water quality on ornamental plants, Journal American Water Works Association, 41, No. 3. 10. Wall and Cross (1943), Greenhouse Studies of the Toxicities of Oklahoma Salt-Contaminated Waters, Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, Technical Bulletin T-20 . 121 Part Five THE RELATIVE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF FEATHER RIVER PROJECT WATER AND COLORADO RIVER WATER IN URBAN USES 123 I Part Five THE RELATIVE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF FEATHER RIVER PROJECT WATER A^fD COLORADO RIVER WATER IN URBAN USES Introduction This section of the report is concerned with the differences in probable economic effects in urban areas from using Feather River Project or Colorado River water. Specifically, it considers the probable economic effects of using water from these sources for (l) industrial, (2) commercial, and (3) residential and public requirements. By way of introduction it is desirable to discuss (l) the supplemental water requirements of the urban areas, (2) the mineral characteristics of Feather River Project and Colorado River water, and (3) the quality of water as a function of the use to which it is put. A. The Supplemental Water Requirements of Urban Areas Although the supplemental water imported into any area is likely to be mixed with water already available from local sources, it is impossible to foresee in detail how this will be done. For the purposes of this analysis it is assumed that, in a given use, water supplied from either the Colorado River or the Feather River Project will not be mixed. Table 32 indicates the estimated applied (delivered) water require- ments of urban water users in the upper Santa Ana River Basin and the Table 32 ESTIMATED REQUIREMENTS IN THE STUDY AREA FOR TOTAL APPLIED AND SUPPLEMENTAL APPLIED WATER BY URBAN CLASS OF USE. 1960-2020 (Acre - Feet ) 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Total Applied Residential and Public Industrial Commercial Total 273.000 42.000 12,000 410,000 103.000 20.000 604.000 185 000 38,000 849.000 304 000 63,000 1.114.000 434.000 111,000 1.316.000 565 000 132,000 1.460.000 697.000 149.000 327.000 533 000 827,000 1,216 000 1,659 000 2.013,000 2,306.000 Supplemental Applied Residential and Public Industrial Commercial Total 100 000 14 000 4.000 204.000 49,000 10 000 353,000 106 000 22 000 582.000 205.000 43,000 857 000 331,000 86.000 1 056,000 450,000 106,000 1,214.000 575,000 123,000 118 000 263,000 481,000 830.000 1,274.000 1,612.000 1.912,000 SOURCE: Stanford Bcsearch Institute baaed on data supplied by the Califcrnia Department of Water Resources 125 San Diego Coastal area from 1960 through 2020. The supplemental applied water requirements are expected to increase from about 118,000 acre-feet in 1960 to about 2 million acre-feet in 2020. It may also be noted that the supplemental portion of the total applied water requirements is expected to increase from 35 percent in 1960 to more than 55 percent in 1980 and to nearly 85 percent in 2020. B. The Mineral Characteristics of Feather River Project and Colorado River Waters^ The dissolved mineral matter or impurities of greatest concern to urban users are listed in Table 33, together with the possible detrimental effects of using water in which they are contained. A comparison of the Table 33 CHARACTERISTICS (IMPURITIES) FORMING THE BASES FOR THE PRINCIPAL ECONOMIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COLORADO RIVER WATER AND FEATHER RIVER PROJECT WATER IN URBAN USES CHARACTERISTIC CHEMICAL DESIGNATION SOME POSSIBLE EFFECTS IN INDUSTRIAL WATER Hardness Alkalinity Silica pH Conductivity Total dissolved solids Calcium and magnesium salts expressed as CaC03 (calcium hardness plus magnesium hard- ness commonly known as "total hardness") Bicarbonate, carbonate, and hydroxide expressed as CaCOs (commonly known as bicarbonate alkalinity) SiO, Hydrogen ion concentration, shown as numerical designation between and 14 Expressed as micromhos. specific conductance No chemical designation, usually referred to as "total dissolved solids" or "IDS" Primary scale-forming constituent; forms curds with soap, interferes with dyeing, clogs pipes in both primary distribution and recircu- lation systems. In boiler feed waters, causes foaming and carry-over of solids, embrittlement of boiler steel and corrosion during steam generation. Forms scale in both steam genera- tion and cooling systems, silica vaporization can cause insoluble turbine blade deposits. pH varies according to acidic or alkaline solids in water, most natural waters have a pH of 6-8. (pH 7 is neutral. ) Conductivity, resulting from the ionizable solids in solution, is credited by some with increasing the corrosiveness of a water. The higher the concentrations the greater the interference with efficient operation of equipment and. frequently, the greater the applied water requirements. SOURCE; Based on data from Betz Labcrat -r ies , Inc. * The general characteristics of any water may be identified in terms of the following categories: (l) turbidity and sediment; (2) color and organic matter; (S) microorganisms; (4) tastes and odors; (5) dissolved gases; and (6) dissolved mineral matter. Of these, the last is the most important for the purposes of this report. 126 characteristics of the two waters that are detrimental in urban uses may be summarized as follows: 1. Hardness . Although neither of the waters is soft,* Colorado River water is approximately 3.4 times harder than Feather River Project water. Furthermore, al- though there is little difference in their carbonate or "temporary" hardness, the noncarbonate or "permanent" hardness of Colorado River water is about 10 times that of Feather River Project water. 2. Alkalinity . The alkalinity of Colorado River water is approximately 1.5 times greater than that of Feather River Project water. Other things being equal, the greater the alkalinity, the greater the tendency of the water to precipitate calcium carbonate out of solution and deposit it as scale. Also, bicarbonate and carbonate alkalinity can produce carbon dioxide in steam, which in turn leads to corrosion. 3. Silica . Although the silica content of river water may vary considerably over the course of a year, limited data indicate that the silica content of Feather River Project water may be as much as 3 times that of Colorado River water. Because of the pronounced scale- forming tendencies of silica in modern high-pressure boilers, both Colorado River and Feather River Project water would have to be treated when used in such equipment . 4. Hydrogen (acid) or hydroxyl (alkaline) ions . Whenever water is analyzed in terms of its scale-forming or corrosive tendencies, a determination of its hydrogen ion concentration (pH factor) is necessary. Values below 7.0, the neutral point, indicate acidity, and values above 7.0 indicate alkalinity. There are opposing views concerning the amount of corrosion which may be expected from the two waters, and available data are insufficient to support either view conclusively. 5. Conductivity . Waters vary in their ability to conduct electric current in direct relation to the quantity of ionizable solids which they contain. Colorado River water has nearly 4 times the ion concentration of Feather River Project water and therefore has 4 times the conductivity. Many water specialists regard con- ductivity as merely a measure of the dissolved mineral content, while others maintain that conductivity is also directly related to corrosion caused by electrolysis. "Softness" of water is a relative condition; it is generally accepted that water containing some 15 ppm (parts per million) of calcium and magnesium is "very soft," water containing 100 ppm to 200 ppm is "hard,' and water containing over 200 ppm is "very hard." 127 6. T otal dissolved solids . The United States Public Health Service has recommended that a potable water supply be limited to 500 ppm of total solids, although if such water is not available 1,000 ppm may be permitted. . Much more severe limits, however, are imposed by the requirements of certain industrial uses.* C. Water Quality as a Function of Use In the remainder of this section, the water characteristics discussed above are referred to from time to time because they are determinants of quality. It is important to note, however, that water "quality" is not a fixed or independent attribute. The quality of water is a function of the use to which it is put. A given water may be "of good quality" if used in one application and "of poor quality" if used in another. The deciding factor is the degree to which the particular application can tolerate the impurities in the water. II Industrial Uses of Water Although the industrial requirements for supplemental applied water in the study area are expected to be only 14,000 acre-feet in 1960, they are projected to increase to about 575,000 acre-feet by 2020 (see Table 32) These estimates indicate that the use of water for industrial purposes may increase between 1960 and 2020 from approximately 12 percent of total urban water requirements to 30 percent. The major applications of water in industrial plants are (l) cooling, (2) boiler feed, (3) processing, and (4) sanitation. Of these, the first two are the most important for the purposes of this study, A percentage breakdown of the annual water requirements for industrial use in the study area is given by type of application in Table 34. In Table 35 this percentage breakdown is converted to amounts of supplemental water required by each application on the basis of the total supplemental applied water requirements given in Table 32. A description of each of the four major types of application is given below, together with their general water quality requirements. A. Industrial Applications and Their Water Quality Requirements Table 36 shows some general standards of impurity tolerance for certain industries and specific industrial and commercial applications. Although only general in nature and containing distinct limitations, these * Beverages and ice production are examples. For another example, see the American Boiler Manufacturers Association specifications for boiler water. 128 Table 34 F.'^TIMATFn INDUSTRIAL USF OF APPLIED WATER BY TYPE OF APPLICATION TYPE OF APPLICATION ESTIMATED PERCENT Upper Santa Ana River Basin San Diego Coast a 1 Area Cooling Processing Sanitation Boiler Feed Other Total 73 20 4 1 2 35 34 16 12 3 100 100 SOURCE Upper Santa Ana River Basin— Ca 1 1 forma Department of Water Resources; San Dicgo Coastal Area — Stanford Research Institute Table 35 ESTIMATED INDUSTRIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPLIED WATER BY TYPE OF APPLICATICW, 1960-2020 (Acre -Feet ) TYPE OF APPLICATION 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Cooling Processing Sanitation Boiler Feed Total 7 000 4,000 2.000 1.000 24.000 14.000 7,000 4.000 54.000 30,000 14,000 8,000 113,000 55,000 24,000 13.000 193,000 86,000 34,000 18.000 273,000 113,000 43,000 21.000 357,000 141,000 52,000 25,000 14,000 49,000 106.000 205.000 331,000 450.000 575,000 ' Includes general housekeeping (and other minor like applications) since the quality requirements are similar for water for both sanitation and general housekeeping. SOURCE. Derived from Tables 32 and 34 tolerance standards can be nelpful in a broad analysis.* Also, when these, tolerances are combined with data pertaining to the particular application, more specific tolerance levels can be determined. 1. Cooling Industrial water may be used for cooling purposes in three basic types of cooling systems: (l) "once-through," (2) "open recirculating," and (3) "closed recirculating." In the first type the water is passed over * There are two principal limitations: (l) lack of sufficient data by type of industry, and (2) lack of a convenient methodology to adjust to variations (in the tolerances among plants in a given industry) caused by such elements as the design of a particular water system and the importance placed upon water re-use at a particular time and place. 129 in u M M U o a < 3 < H u a I u o o < ^'j 00 OQ CD CJ I OO o o U u < tJd < ■^ ro-^ f— I >— 1 r— 1 o o 2 en o 00 rj A-1 jj jj ' o o 6*1 ss (/3 a 1 t 1 CO a. 1 1 1 1 O O U-- O O S a. ooo iTi-rf en I 1 ( "-" _^ I OOlO 1 1 ( 1 £ ^ [ in CO 1 1 g 1 I 1 ,-^ ro a ooo O a. 1 oo-* u a. CN-H ^^ E 1—1 <— 1 r-i CM tu a. a. OO : O o ■— ' ,-, al ; i 1 t 1 1 1 ) 1 1 1 1 t •-' 1 SS*^ ; ' ' ' fO— LO O B Lorn o 04 o. 1 -* a ooo <^ "^ «'s in cs ■-H i-H MCM CO CM in CM CM -"^i o o 1 I 1 I I : OO OO o O o o d _ « e in CM r-^ ^—^ CS CM CM CM in CM CM ■3 o o OO do o O o o o „^ f i in (N I-H f— I CMCS CM CM in CM CM ■^ a o O 1 < OO dd o" O o o o ■— • OO OO - E cviin o £ 1 1 1 ! : o o , ! 1 1 ■-' ss OOO ^2i ooo Otn r-H OO o o TOT SOL] (pp oo in o oo o ino CO (— ( 1 ooo r-H OLoin roCMr-H o X Oun O r- o o a. ' ' CO 00 ON AAA inr-- • • A ' ' >* -^ H " = ^ f-H ^ I < 1 t ino o 1 ^ z S" 1 1 i 1 r-in in 1 •^ hH " r-H < _J -^ ,_^ in ill c^ r- lOO CO o o o t— rf in in in in CM CM o , , , . J s s s s s 1 » , ' 1 J ; ^^ 33 o J J ' Q "2 DISSOLVE OXYGEN (ml/lite: ■ • csioo 1 5 3 E 1 : 1 I gsi USD. mo** ! ] in 5 a. 1— (rH 1 1 f— 1 1 1 (NCO ^ O OS --- o e u a o OO'-'^ o o a ! o ^^ .S-s rr L_, E o OOlO OO o o CM o o rH CS)t-H r— ( f-^ r-* rH ' in ' CO 4^ « 0) W) CO 5 do c §■ is ■H > e- c •H-T3 i' P^ s o ■H -O'H a s i 4J " 0.0 -H -o y WD ^ •H «r-1 01 c c a. -o t*H in w o qi CO 4-' ■H ^■ 0) ■H a. O CS Q. ^W)W bD 1 U CO 4J t>D So Ui < ao t,in 1 C-iS-^ C p OJ c u C lU u e 4)— lO O 11^ .8 01 ■ H -c t- ■H -H t in in ■rtO--( CM ljj -a o ■^ 1 £ :& a (3 6 a t£ J o the heat exchangers only once and then through to waste; in the second and third types the water is recirculated as many times as is practicable. Once-through cooling is of ten used in power plants, oil refineries, and other plants requiring a large volume of cooling, when they are located at sources of very abundant and inexpensive water. In the few plants of this type in the study area, sea water is generally used. Once-through cooling with fresh water is used in a variety of plants where cooling requirements are small. These latter represent only a small part of total fresh water cooling, and differences between Colorado River water and Feather River Project water are of minor importance in these cases. Closed recirculating systems are used mostly in diesel and gasoline engines. Though these systems require fresh water, their total water requirements are comparatively small because the cooling water is never exposed to the air. They are not important for purposes of the present study. Open recirculating systems are used when substantial cooling is required and abundant inexpensive water is not available — for example, in automobile, aviation, and missile plants, steel mills, and chemical plants. This type of cooling system is the one most commonly found in the study area. It consumes far more fresh water than the closed recirculating type because its cooling water is exposed to the air. For the purposes of this report, only the open type of recirculating cooling system need be considered . A primary requirement of cooling water in open recirculating systems is that it contain a minimum of mineral impurities which cause scale and corrosion. The critical limitations on the minerals depend on the kind and size of the cooling installation. These systems may be con- sidered in two principal sizes: the air conditioning or small cooling towers requiring up to 25,000 gallons of make-up water a day,* and the large cooling towers requiring substantially more than 25,000 gallons of make-up water per day. In either of these, it is desirable that the water used permit the greatest number of recirculations before excessive scaling or corrosion occurs. For a given system, the number of times recirculation is possible depends on the original concentration of the dissolved mineral matter in the water and the rapidity with which the design of the cooling system causes a further concentration of this dissolved mineral matter to * Make-up water is the amount which must be added each time the water is recirculated to make-up for that lost by evaporation, windage (drift of water particles away from the tower or pond because of wind action), and blowdown (draining off of sludge-loaded water). 131 the point of oversaturation , i.e., precipitation of one or several of the minerals .* The point of precipitation of calcium carbonate (the principal scale-forming material) is only 15 ppm at 32°F, and 13 ppm at 212 F. Calcium carbonate is formed by the decomposition of calcium bicarbonate with temperature increases. With waters high in calcium bicarbonate and low in free carbon dioxide (a condition characterizing Colorado River water more than Feather River Project water) , even a slight elevation in temperature may be sufficient to induce the formation of scale. In large cooling systems the bicarbonates can be treated with sulfuric acid to form sulfates. Calcium sulfate remains soluble to 1,250 ppm — some 80 times the solubility of calcium carbonate. It is the nature of all open recirculating cooling systems to encourage the most common form of corrosion -- that resulting from oxida- tion of ferrous metals by the oxygen in the dissolved air, Colorado River and Feather River Project water are presumed to be of equal quality in this regard. 2. Boiler Feed Boiler systems may be open or closed, and steam may be generated at low, medium, or high pressures. The concept of an open or closed system is the same whether the system involves cooling or boiler feed; the essential factor is the re-use of water. In the open boiler system, the steam is dissipated through use. In the closed boiler system, some of the steam is condensed and returned for re-use. The amount of recovery varies from 15 percent to as high as 98 percent, depending on the efficiency of the system, the amount of treatment given the water to keep it of sufficient quality to be re-used, and the pressure of the steam required. The quality criteria for boiler feed water are similar to those for recirculating cooling water. Boiler operations, however, involve the additional elements of high heat and pressure, which place more critical limits on impurities. The principal problems are created by the carbonate and noncarbonate hardness, the pH, the silica content, and the quantity of total dissolved solids. * The speed with which the concentration takes place depends on the amount of water evaporating and the amount of both water and dissolved mineral matter lost through blowdown and windage. The ratio of the concen- tration of dissolved mineral matter in the recirculating water to the concentration in the original water is sometimes referred to as the "cycle of concentration." Thus, if the concentration of the dissolved mineral matter in the recirculating water reaches twice that of the original water, the recirculating water can be said to have two cycles of concentration. 132 With low-pressure boilers the major problems with Colorado River water are (l) scale formation due to the high hardness content, and (2) carry-over of boiler water into the steam because of the original high content of the dissolved solids and because of the potentially high con- tent of the suspended solids which may result when chemicals are added to precipitate the dissolved solids. As the boiler pressure increases, problems of scale formation and carry-over of boiler water also increase. In boilers with more than 250 psi , the hardness should not be over 8 ppm , pH should be more than 9.0, silica content should be less than 5ppm, and total dissolved solids should be less than 100 ppm at the highest pressures (see Table 36) . 3. Processing Water may be used industrially for numerous processing purposes such as cooking, transporting, washing, and dissolving. The quantity of water used in processing varies greatly from plant to plant. Some plants may use the water only once, whereas others may re-use a considerable portion of it. In industrial processing the impurity tolerances of the water used are widely divergent. For example, the requirements for brewing differ between light and dark beers; the requirements for both differ from those of the carbonated soft drink industry; and all three differ from the needs of the canning industry (see Table 36). In many cases it appears that the cheapness of the source is more important than chemical factors. Though it is recognized that specialized industries have definite needs, both Feather River Project water and Colorado River water are considered to be within the tolerance limitations for most of the water used in industrial processing. 4. Sanitation Water used for purposes of sanitation or general housekeeping is most commonly handled on a once-through basis. Although intra-plant re-use of some general housekeeping water is practiced and will likely be practiced even more extensively in the future, this factor is not of sufficient importance to require attention in this study. Sterility (freedom from harmful microorganisms) is a primary consideration in sanitation and general housekeeping applications. Other factors include taste, odor, and color. Any properly treated public water supply is satisfactory for industrial housekeeping and sanitation purposes. Therefore, either Feather River Project or Colorado River water would be suitable . B. Methods and Costs of Treatment The foregoing discussion indicates that the two industrial applica- tions with critical quality needs are cooling and boiler feed. The following discussion deals, therefore, only with the methods and costs of 133 treating water, from the two sources under study, for use in these two applications. It is a fundamental tenet in water systems planning that water should never be overtreated, and, furthermore, that the use should determine the extent of treatment. 1 . Methods of Treating Cooling Water In open recirculating cooling systems, scale can be inhibited by both external and internal treatment. External treatment consists of treating the water after it has been received into the industrial plant but before it enters the cooling system. Internal treatment consists of treating the water after it enters the cooling system.* External treatment may be accomplished by a number of methods, representative of which are: the cold lime, sodium zeolite, or lime- zeolite process. The cold lime treatment reduces the total dissolved solids while it reduces the bicarbonate hardness. This process frequently employs soda ash (where the reduction of noncarbonate hardness is required) and sulfuric acid (where alkalinity must be adjusted). The sodium zeolite process differs in that it softens the water but does not reduce the total dissolved solids. The softening permits the water to carry higher concentrations of dissolved mineral matter by replacing the calcium ion with a sodium ion. This process also reduces the amount of treated make-up water needed. The lime-zeolite process, as its name implies, combines the actions of the cold lime process and the sodium zeolite process. The internal treatment employs acids and surface active agents of both inorganic and organic types. The commonly used sulfuric acid changes the bicarbonates to sulfates, thereby raising the calcium pre- cipitation point to some 80 times its former level. The polyphosphates, one of the inorganic surface active agents, react with the scale-forming impurities, such as calcium, by distorting crystallization and thereby holding the calcium in solution for a longer time. Organic inhibitants such as the lignins or tannins, though perhaps more commonly used in connection with boiler feed water treatment, are also used in -cooling water to retard the deposition of scale. For inhibiting corrosion, the chromates may be used alone or with other chemicals, such as calcium carbonate, in the method known as "eggshell" scaling. Nitrates, silicates, and various organic agents are also presently employed as corrosion inhibitors or are undergoing research for future use. In the collection of information on cooling water treatment, opinions on the extent of use of the various methods of treatment were found to differ from one professional source to another. In addition, information from individual industries, where available, was often incom- plete. However, the following general statements are a reasonable summary of practices in this field. * External treatment is sometimes referred to as "pretreatment and internal treatment as "af tertreatment . " 134 1. Most of the cooling water used in large cooling towers is given only internal treatment. 2. Water used in air conditioning and small cooling towers is apparently more frequently given external treatment than internal treatment be- cause of the costs of equipment used in the acid portion of internal treatment and the danger in handling the acids. 3. Some of the water treated externally for air conditioning and small cooling tower use, and most of the water treated externally for large cooling tower use, is also given some form of internal treatment. 2, Cost of Treating Cooling Water Examples of fairly typical costs for treating water from the Colorado River and from the Feather River Project to render it suitable for cooling purposes were developed by the National Aluminate Corporation for this study. These are presented in Appendix A. In all cases the costs cover only chemicals used and are based on 1958 prices. In the case of air conditioning systems and small cooling towers, the examples in Appendix A show that it would cost approximately $0,135 per 1,000 gallons of make-up to treat Colorado River water for scale and corrosion control at its maximum permissible cycle of concentration, whereas it would cost approximately $0,059 for similar treatment of Feather River Project water (a 65 percent lower cost). Treating for both scale and corrosion control, the difference amounts to $0,076 per 1,000 gallons of make-up when using Feather River Project water. On the assumption that certain users will treat for scale only, an over-all estimate of $0.07 per 1,000 gallons is used to represent the average difference for the purposes of this report. In the case of large cooling towers, the examples in Appendix A show that it costs approximately $0,047 per 1,000 gallons of make-up to treat Colorado River water at its maximum permissible cycle of concentration and approximately $0,027 to treat Feather River Project water, a difference of about $0.02. Estimates obtained from industrial sources, and from the litera- ture in general indicated a somewhat larger over-all percent cost differ- ence in using Feather River Project water then is shown by Appendix A, particularly in the case of large cooling towers. In view of these other estimates it is believed appropriate for the purposes of developing pro- jections of differences in economic effects from using the two waters to assume that; 135 1. The costs of chemicals for treating Feather River Project water for use in all cooling applications will average about 70 percent less per 1,000 gallons than for treating Colorado River water. 2. The cost difference (savings) from using Feather River Project water would be approximately $0.07/1,000 gallons of make-up water in air conditioning systems and small cooling towers and $0.02/1,000 gallons of make-up in large cooling towers. 3 . Methods of Treating Boiler Feed Water The most frequently used method for treating boiler water in the study area appears to be an external treatment with sodium zeolite plus an internal treatment with organic and inorganic chemicals. In order to discuss methods of treating boiler water in detail, it is necessary to relate these methods to the pressure ranges of the boilers. In special work done by the National Aluminate Corporation for this study it was considered appropriate to classify boilers in the following pressure ranges: below 300 psi . 300-900 psi , and above 900 psi . In boilers operating at below 300 psi, Colorado River water would require external treatment as well as internal treatment, except in boilers having a higher than average tolerance to impurities and in boilers with a closed system, in which a high percentage of the steam is condensed and returned for re-use as feed water. Even with an external treatment, such as sodium zeolite ion exchange,* blowdown requirements with Colorado River water would still be very high because the sodium zeolite treatment does not reduce the total dissolved solids. On the other hand, Feather River Project water could be satisfactorily used in many boilers operating at pressures below 300 psi without any external treatment. Also, although the extent of difference would depend on the operating conditions in the specific plant, the use of Feather River Project water would probably require 10 to 30 percent less water because of reduced blowdown requirements. Feed water for boilers operating at between 300 psi and 900 psi would require both external and internal treatment no matter which water was used. Boilers operating at the lower end of this pressure range could satisfactorily use Colorado River water pretreated with sodium zeolite. Most boilers in this group, however, particularly those operating at the upper end of the pressure range, would require pretreatment of Colorado River water by either demineralization or evaporation. In a much larger number of cases, Feather River Project water could be used after only an external treatment with sodium zeolite; in some cases Feather River Project water would require treatment by demineralization. When the feed water * The National Aluminate Corporation reports that the use of sodium zeolite reduces the requirement for chemicals for internal treatment by some 50 to 70 percent . 136 was pretreated either by demineralization or evaporation, blowdown losses would be comparable for both waters. Above 900 psi , the most logical choice of pretreatment for Colorado River water is probably evaporation, and, for Feather River Project water, demineralization . 4 . Cost of Treating Boiler Feed Water Appendix B gives some typical costs for the chemicals used in treating Colorado River water and Feather River Project water for boiler use. Although the costs given are considered typical, there are wide variations in specific plants because of widely differing operating conditions. As may be seen from these estimates, substantial savings in treatment costs would be realized by using Feather River Project water in boilers of all pressures. The cost savings range from $0.05 to $0.75 per 1,000 gallons of make-up water. Estimates of savings in treatment costs which could be realized from the use of Feather River Project water in boilers were obtained from several large users of boiler feed water in the study area: 1. A chemical firm estimated that an over-all savings of $50,000 to $60,000 per year (of which the greatest portion would be for boiler feed) would be possible in chemicals and in operation and maintenance of equipment. In addition, a 10 percent reduction in water requirements was estimated. (Though the total water requirement for this firm was reported as 261.5 million gallons per year, the exact boiler feed water requirement was not disclosed.) 2. A research and development organization esti- mated its probable savings at some $2,000 per year on its use of approximately 4 million gallons of water. 3. A large airframe manufacturer estimated that it could save about $5,000 per year on the use of approximately 9 million gallons of water. 4. The Eleventh Naval District estimated some $20,000 per year could be saved at its various installations south of Camp Pendleton. For both external and internal treatment of boiler feed water, costs would be 65 percent to 85 percent lower for Feather River Project water than for Colorado River water. The average savings in chemical costs only from use of Feather River Project water for boiler feed pur- poses is estimated at $0.17 per 1.000 gallons of make-up. When using either internal treatment alone or in combination with sodium zeolite external treatment, it appears that water volume requirements might be 137 some 10 percent less with Feather River Project water because of reduced blowdown requirements, and that blowdown heat losses would also be reduced proportionately. C . Additional Economic Factors in Industrial Uses The preceding discussion covers only differences in the cost of chemicals that would be needed to treat the two waters under study. To arrive at estimates of the total difference in cost associated with the use of these waters for industrial purposes, it is necessary to consider a number of additional factors. These are listed below and discussed briefly. Only the last of the factors listed is subject to estimation in dollar terms for purposes of this report. Nevertheless, it is well to be aware of the other influences, 1 , Cost of treatment equipment 2. Heat losses during blowdown of boilers 3. Operation and maintenance costs 4. Losses due to plant shut-down 5. Waste treatment and disposal costs 6. Effects on general industrial development of the area 7. Effects of possible municipal water treatment 8. Differences in make-up water requirements. 1 . Cost of Treatment Equipment Somewhat larger capacity in treatment equipment would probably be necessary with Colorado River water than with Feather River Project water, due to handling larger volumes of both water and chemicals. How- ever, it appears that cost differences on this score would be minor in relation to the other cost factors involved, and it is not considered feasible to estimate the magnitude of such possible differences here. 2. Heat Losses During Blowdown of Boilers The necessity for more blowdown of boilers when using Colorado River water is discussed in a later paragraph. Obviously, heat is lost from the boiler during blowdown, requiring additional fuel consumption. Sufficient data to make dollar estimates of the difference between the two waters in relation to this factor were not readily available, and it was believed better in the present study to concentrate on the larger factors than to pursue this subject in detail. 3 . Operation and Maintenance Costs The opinion of persons consulted during the study was that some slight advantage in operation and maintenance costs for cooling equipment 138 and boilers would be obtained with Feather River Project water, but no definite estimate of monetary values could be obtained. A similar situa- tion prevailed with respect to maintenance of water distribution lines. One large San Diego industrial plant reported that its use of Colorado River water has been associated with an increase in maintenance costs that has led to a complete pipe replacement program. This plant estimated that if it had not replaced these pipes the repair costs would have continued at about $8,000 per month and that Feather River Project water would have allowed savings of about 70 percent of this. Several engineers in other plants concurred that this magnitude of savings could well be possible, but their own records did not permit so precise an estimate. A somewhat different view was expressed by persons in major public water distribution agencies, who indicated that repair costs trace- able to water quality seem to be related to a considerable extent to changes in quality. They were unable to establish clearly whether it is the quality itself or the change in quality that cause system problems. Therefore, no conclusive data were obtained on differences in the effects of Colorado River and Feather River Project waters on maintenance and repair costs of distribution systems. 4 . Losses due to Plant Shut-down Plant shut-down can be one of the most costly results of im- purities in industrial water. Though this was generally emphasized by the water treatment specialists consulted during the research, no quanti- tative data could be obtained. Also, it was recognized by most informants that poor planning of the system or inefficient control could be as responsible for shut-downs as the impurities in the water. Therefore, although it was generally agreed that Colorado River water would tend to cause more shut-downs, no dollar value is estimated here for this effect. 5 . Waste Treatment and Disposal Costs There was also general agreement among water specialists con- sulted that use of Feather River Project water instead of Colorado River water could result in savings in the treatment and disposal of industrial waste. However, the extent of such savings could not be established on the basis of data obtained from these consultants or from the study area or the literature. 6 . Effects on General Industrial Development Both governmental and private organizations and individuals consulted were of the opinion that the use of either Colorado River water or Feather River Project water would not adversely affect the industrial development of the study area. It was repeatedly stated that, within the limits of United States Public Health Service standards, the factors of availability, price, water pressure, and freedom from sudden change in quality are of more concern to most industrial users than is the mineral 139 content of the water. Further, the literature survey did not disclose a body of opinion in disagreement with these views. For most industrial operations water quality is likely to be less important in location decisions than a number of other factors. With respect to industrial development the two waters are considered to be equivalent. 7 , Effects of Possible Municipal Water Treatment The extent to which water imported into the study area will be softened or otherwise treated by water distribution agencies before delivery to industrial users cannot be foreseen. It is possible that some industrial plants will get raw/water, while others will get treated water. From the standpoint of this economic analysis the significant question is v/hether treatment costs incurred by a distribution agency would make possible a saving in industrial treatment costs that is greater than the amount spent by the agency. In evaluating economic differences the cheapest method of rendering the waters suitable for industrial uses should be used . The principal treatment that would affect cooling and boiler uses of water is softening. Since softening does not change the total dissolved solids content of the water, not all of the problems discussed in earlier paragraphs would be solved by softening prior to distribution. Important differences between Colorado River water and Feather River Project water would still remain because of the difference in dissolved solids. There seems to be no doubt that for most applications Colorado River water would be improved by softening to an equivalent quality of Feather River Project water. However, it was not possible to obtain estimates of the effect that such softening would have on the differences in treatment costs discussed earlier. The best assumption for present purposes appears to be that treatment accomplished prior to distribution to industrial users would be worth as much as the costs of treatment. Following this assumption, no adjustment is made to the estimated costs of chemicals previously shown for industrial treatment. 8 . Differences in Make-up Water Requirements Data developed in Appendix A indicate that in air conditioning and small cooling tower uses requirements for make-up water would be approximately 50 percent greater with Colorado River water than with Feather River Project water. This is because the higher initial mineral content of Colorado River water does not permit as much recycling before an undesirable level of mineral concentration is reached. Similarly, data in Appendix A show that in large cooling towers about 10 percent more make-up water would be required with Colorado River water. It was brought out in the discussion on boiler water treatment that blowdown losses would be about 10 percent greater with Colorado River water than with Feather River Project water. It is therefore obvious that some significant differences would exist in the total quantities of water used. 140 In Table 37 the basic quantities of water projected by the Department of Water Resources for cooling purposes in the future are separated into quantities estimated by the Institute to be needed in large cooling towers and in air conditioning and small cooling towers. The future boiler water use projected by the Department of Water Resources is also shown. These basic projections are assumed to represent requirements if Feather River Project water is used. They have been increased by 50 percent in air conditioning and small cooling towers and by 10 percent in both large cooling towers and boiler use to show estimated Colorado River water requirements. The additional quantities of water that would be required if Colorado River water was used are shown in the table and valued at $25 per acre-foot. Chemical costs for treatment in the three uses as dis- cussed earlier in this report and developed in Appendixes A and B are applied to the estimated quantities of each of the two waters. The higher chemical cost associated with Colorado River water is determined and added to the cost of importing the additional quantities of water required if that source is used. The total represents the economic difference between the two waters and is shown in the last column of the table. D. Summary of Economic Differences in Industrial Uses Table 37 shows the estimated additional costs that would be involved for various years in the future from the use of Colorado River water in- stead of Feather River Project water. Both costs of treatment and costs of additional make-up water are shown for cooling and boiler uses. The total cost differences range from about $266,000 in 1960 to more than $12,000,000 in the year 2020 ^ While these are the only items for which dollar estimates were prepared, it should be recalled that several other items discussed in earlier paragraphs tend to add to the amounts shown. The economic differences between the two waters for industrial use are therefore significant . Ill Commercial Uses of Water To a considerable extent, the factors for which dollar estimates could not be made in the discussion of industrial water apply also to water used in commercial enterprises. However, two factors require separate analysis in dollar terms: (l) the estimated unit cost differential of water treatment and (2) the estimated difference in total economic effects in the study area between the use of Feather River Project water and Colorado River water. To establish these factors in their proper per- spective, a brief examination of the quality requirements by type of use, and of the methods of treatment, is required. The major commercial applications can be identified as , (1) boiler feed and hot wash uses and (2) sanitation and general cold water uses. Table 38 lists 23 types of commercial organization and shows their applications of water by these two principal uses. All but one of these types use boiler feed and hot wash water and all have sanitation and cold water systems. 141 Table 37 PROJECTED TOTAL ECONOMIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COLORADO RIVER WATER AND FEATHER RIVER PROJECT WATER IF USED DIRECTLY IN INDUSTRY; ANNUAL RATES FOR SELECTED DATES 1960-2020 YEAR QUANTITY OF WATER (acre feet) COST OF EXCESS COLORADO RIVER WATER (6 $25/acre-feet) TREATMENT COSTS § TOTAL ADDITIONAL COST FOR COLORADO RIVER WATER (col 4 & col. 7) Feather River Project Culoradc Ri-ert Excess of CR over FRP Feather Ri-er Project Water Colorado R.-ver Water Excess cf CR ever FRP AIR CONDITIONING AND SMALL COOLING TOWER USES 1960 3,000 4.500 1 500 37.500 39,000 162,000 123,000 160.500 1970 11,000 16,500 5.500 137 500 143 000 594 000 451,000 588, 500 1980 24.000 36,000 12.000 300 000 312.000 1.296,000 984,000 1.284,000 1990 51,000 76.500 25 500 637.500 663,000 2 754.000 2,091,000 2,728,500 2000 87,000 130.500 43. 500 1.087 500 1,131,000 4,698 000 3,567,000 4,654,500 2010 123.000 184. 500 61 500 1.537.500 1,599.000 6 642.000 5,043 000 6,580,500 2020 161,000 241,500 80,500 2 012.500 2 093 000 8.694.000 6,601 000 8,613,500 LARGE COOLING TOWER USES 1960 4 000 4,400 400 10,000 36 000 66 000 30,000 40 000 1970 13,000 14, 300 1.300 32. 500 117,000 214.500 97,500 130.000 1980 30,000 33.000 3.000 75,000 270 000 495.000 225.000 300,000 1990 62.000 68,200 6 200 155.000 558,000 1 023.000 465,000 620,000 2000 106.000 116.600 10,>)00 265,000 954.000 1,749.000 795 000 1,060,000 2010 150,000 165.000 15 000 375 000 1.350.000 2 475,000 1.125.000 1,500,000 2020 196,000 215,600 19,600 490 000 1 764,000 3,234,000 1.470,000 1,960,000 BOILER FE ED USES 1960 1.000 1.100 100 2.500 26. 000 89,100 63, 100 65,600 1970 4.000 4.400 400 10.000 104,000 356,400 252,400 262 400 1980 8,000 8 800 800 20 000 208 000 712,800 504, 800 524, 800 1990 13 000 14,300 1.300 32,500 338.000 1.158,300 820,300 852,800 2000 18,000 19,800 1,800 45,000 468.000 1,603.800 1.135.800 1,180,800 2010 21,000 23,100 2 100 52.500 546 000 1,871,100 1,325,100 1,377,600 2020 25,000 27,500 2.500 62, 500 650,000 2,227.500 1,577,500 1,640,000 TOTAL COOLING Al ND DOILER FEED 1960 8,000 10.000 2.000 50.000 101 000 317 100 216. 100 266, 100 1970 28.000 35,200 7 200 180.000 364.000 1,164 900 800,900 980.900 1980 62.000 77.800 15,800 395 000 790.000 2 503.800 1,713,800 2 108,800 1990 126,000 159.000 33.000 825 000 1 559.000 4 935,300 3, 376, 300 4,201,300 2000 211,000 266 900 55.900 1,397,500 2 553.000 8.050,800 5,497,800 6,895,300 2010 294.000 372,600 78.600 1 965,000 3.495.000 10,988,100 7.493 100 9,458,100 2020 382,000 484 600 102,600 2,565,000 4.507 000 14,155,500 9,648,500 12.213,500 * Basic quantities for cooling and boiler feed frim Table 35 Di ision between small and large cooling tower use estimated by Stanford Research Institute. t Basic quantities in ' above plus allowances for additional quantities required because of higher mineral coatent- S0% in air conditioning and small cooling '..owers, 10% in large cooling towers.. 10% in boiler feed § See Appendixes A and B for costs per acre-fcct. 142 Table 38 EXAMPLES OF WATER APPLICATIONS AND TYPES OF TREATMENT COMMONLY EMPLOYED BY COMMERCIAL ORGANIZATIONS 1 " -■'■ ■ TYPE OF WATER TREATMENT ORGANIZATION BOILER FEED AND HOT SANITATION AND GENERAL COLD COMMONLY USED 1 WASH APPLICATIONS WATER APPLICATIONS Zeol i te Lime De mineral 1 z a t i on Asylums X \ X Bakeries X X X Banks X X X Beauty and Barber Shops X X X Broadcasting Stations X X X X X Cafeterias and Restaurants X X X Camps (Various) X X X Chambers of Commerce X X X Colleges and Universities X X X X X Doctors' Offices and Clinics X X X Elevators. Grain X X X Homes: Fraternal. County X X X X Institutions (Various) X X X X Laboratories (Various) X X X X X Laundries X X X Post Offices X X X Stores (Retail, All Types) X X X Studios, Photographic X X Swimming Pools (Various) X X X Telephone and Telegraph Companies X X X Theatres and Auditoriums X X X Warehouses X X X YMCA's and YWCA' s X X X SOURCE: Stanford Research Institute based on data from Norde 1 1 and Eskel The table also indicates that some type of water treatment is commonly employed in these types of commercial establisnments . It was estimated by persons consulted during the field survey that the amount of water treated, as a percentage of all water metered in, is approximately as follows for certain of the major commercial users: TYPE OF USER Laundries Hotels Medical Buildings Hospitals Office Buildings Retail Stores PERCENTAGE OF WATER TREATED* 95 75 75 60 25 20 * Estimates in the literature generally average about two-thirds of these values. Since no detailed data are available however the estimates shown here may be accepted, especially since it may be assumed that there will be an increase in the proportion of water treated in the future 143 For the majority of cold water applications, the water is not treated. Contrarily, the general rule is to treat water used in boiler and laundry equipment and water going through hot water heaters and hot water systems. It appears reasonabxe to assume that all water supplied for commercial use should meet Lf,S. Public Health Service standards for potable water. The impurity tolerances beyond that point are most generally those established for low pressure boilers and all types of washing (human, equipment, and fabrics). The emphasis, therefore, is on freedom from dissolved minerals causing scale, corrosion, and soap scums. As shown in Table 38, certain special requirements do exist for removing dissolved solids by deminerali- zation (colleges and universities, broadcasting stations, laboratories), but in general, requirements are primarily for reduction of total hardness and for some readily accomplished corrosion control. A. Methods and Costs of Treatment It is indicated botn in the literature and in the results from the field research that, of those commercial organizations that require water treatment, by far the majority use zeolite softening. Some commercial users may employ other processes in addition to zeolite, but their water demands are not normally of major proportions. For the purposes of this portion of the study ^ therefore, the sodium zeolite softening process has been selected as the basis for comparing the costs of treating the two waters . Within the sodium zeolite softening process the item of cost most representative of the differences in Colorado River and Feather River Project waters is the common salt consumed in the regeneration of the zeolite exchange bed.* Table 39 shows the salt required for total removal of various water hardnesses. The costs for complete softening of a water of 343 ppm hardness (approximate hardness of Colorado River water) and one of 103 ppm (approximate hardness of Feather River Project water) are such that the difference in unit costs exceeds $0.06 per 1,000 gallons of water used. B. Estimated Magnitude of Total Economic Effect Because softening is by far the most important treatment given to water for commercial establishments, the salt consumption cost is the only factor considered here in estimating economic differences between the two waters. Based on a $0.06 per 1,000 gallon savings when Feather River Project water is used, the economic advantage accruing to the user of Feather River Project water is $19,55 per acre-foot. It has been * Theoretically, the consumption of salt is 0.17 pound per 1,000 grains of hardness removed. It is reported tnat in actual practice, however, the most efficient operations are generally in the municipal treatment plants where approximately 0.3-0.35 pound of salt are needed for each kilograin of hardness removed. Industrial and commercial operations run about 0.4-0.45 pound, and households some 0.6-0.7 pound. 144 Table 39 ESTINiATED COST OF SALT REQUIRED FOR REGENERATION OF ZEOLITL SOFTENER USED TO PRODUCE ZERO HARDNESS IN COMMERCIAL WATER USES H.ARDNESS OF INPUT »ATEB SALT REQUIRED , FOR REGENERATION (lb/1 000 gallons) COST OF SALT REGENERATION Parts per Million (ppm ) Gra ins per Gallon (gpg) PER 1 000 GALLONS WATER USED BASED ON SALT PRICE OF $0 01/LB 86 103 120 326 343 360 5 6 7 19 20 21 2 25 2 70 3 15 8 55 9 9 5 $0 023 0.027 0.032 086 090 095 * Salt consumption based on 45 lb per kilogram of ha'dness removed SOURCE Nordell and EskeU ^ established, however, that no commercial establishments, other than per- haps laundries, soften 100 percent of the water they use. As a rough estimate it appears that perhaps 50 percent of the water used in commercial establishments can be considered as needing softening. On this basis the difference in costs between using Colorado River water and Feather River Project water are shown in Table 40. In this tabxe the supplemental water requirements for commercial establishments projected for future years in Table 32 are shown in the first column. Half of this amount is shown in the second column and is assumed to be the quantity that establishments would soften. The additional cost that would be entailed with Colorado River water is computed on the basis of $19.55 per acre-foot. Table 40 PROJECTED TOTAL ECONOMIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COLORADO RIVER WATER AND FEATHER RIVER PROJECT WATER USED IN COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS SELECTED DATES 1960 2020 YEAR ESTIMATED SUPPLEMENTAL WATER BEOUIREJdENT I acre f ee t ) SOFTENING DONE BY COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ADDED COST FOR COLORADO RIVER WATER IF TOTAL QUANTITY MUNICIPALLY SOFTENED fl $5 40/ACRE FOOT Quantity Softened e 5 0% of Total {acre feet,' Added Cost for Cclorad^ River Water 9 $19. 55/acre foot i960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 4.000 10.000 22.000 43 000 86,000 106.000 123 000 2 000 5 000 11,000 21,500 43 000 53,000 61.500 $ 39,100 97.750 215,050 420.325 840,650 1,036,150 1.202.325 t 21.600 54 000 118,800 232.200 464.400 572,400 664,200 145 Although future practice with respect to softening public supplies before delivery to users cannot be foreseen, it is possible that some commercial users will receive softened water from public systems. If so, the relevant economic difference would be the difference in cost between softening Colorado River and Feather River Project water in central softening plants. Costs in such plants vary considerably over the United States. The Metropolitan Water District plant at LaVerne has one of the lowest softening costs, currently about $5.40 per acre-foot for reducing the hardness of Colorado River water to approximately the hardness of Feather River Project water. This figure, therefore, provides a conserva- tive basis for evaluating economic differences if public supplies are softened. When the water is softened before delivery to users, the total quantity must be softened. In Table 40 the $5.40 per acre-foot cost is applied to the total quantities projected for commercial uses in the future. This still makes no allowance for line losses in the distribution system and thus gives quite conservative figures for economic differences with municipal softening. It can be seen in Table 40 that if commercial users soften their own water the added cost for using Colorado River water instead of Feather River Project water will range from about $39,000 in 1960 to about $1,200,000 in the year 2020, With central plant softening of the total supply, the economic differences will be about one-half as great. The lower figure is used in presenting summary results for all urban uses in order to insure that differences are at least as great as the indicated amounts. IV Residential and Public Uses of Water Residential and public uses must be viewed somewhat differently from industrial and commercial uses, because they are for other than economic gain. The users' reasons for desiring water of a particular quality are probably psychological as well as economic, and the values attached to any of these reasons vary from person to person. The total applied supplemental water requirements for residential and public use, projected for the study area, are shown in Table 32. The public category includes military establishments. These uses include water which is metered to a house, apartment, or public building, water which is not metered but is used for public purposes, and water which is lost or wasted in distribution systems.* On the basis of present data it is not possible to estimate the amount in Table 32 which is residential and the amount which is public; however, the distinction is not important since much of the public water is used for purposes similar to residential uses. Therefore, the estimates of cost of water treatment are developed in this discussion on the basis of the quality requirements for household uses . . * Public use water is quite often not metered. The productive uses include water for public institutions, public buildings, street sprinkling, fountains, parks, and fire-fighting. General line losses and wastage take a considerable portion of the total water entering distribution systems. 146 Household water is generally used in the following housekeeping applications . 1. Drinking and cooking 2. Cleaning (personal bathing and all other cleaning except laundry) 3 . Laundry 4. Sanitary needs 5. Space cooling 6. Gardening The amount of water used by each type of household application is only generally known for any area, and varies between city and suburban areas and between high and low income households. One of the more meaningful studies in this regard reports that in several southwestern cities surveyed the total water requirements and the average per capita requirements by type of application might be expected to be as follows:* APPLICATI(»« GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY Adequate Supply Abundant Supply Drinking and Cooking 10 15 Cleaning 30 40 Laundry 15 15 Sanitary Needs 20 30 Space Cooling 5 10 Gardening 40 40 Other Uses Totals 30 50 150 200 It may be noted that about 30 percent of the water needed for household applications requires heating (see cleaning and laundry). For practical purposes it is largely in these applications that the psychological and economic factors that establish the "value" difference between Feather River Project water and Colorado River water apply. Another useful study develops information on the uses of water in fifteen midwestern cities.^ In this study it is indicated that approxi- mately 20 percent of the total water allocated for residential and public uses is actually water which is lost or wasted in the distribution system. A. Requirements for Water Quality The principal quality factors important to residential and public users are potability (safety), pleasantness (temperature, appearance, taste, and odor), softness, and corrosiveness . As previously stated, it * liastrup, C. F.,^ Terminology altered to correspond to applications listed above. ._ is assumed that Colorado River water and Feather River Project water will be equally potable and pleasant. This leaves only softness and corrosive- ness as characteristics to be evaluated. All else being equal, there is no doubt that household needs are most economically served by the water that is least -Tiard and least corrosive. In laundering, hard water increases soap consumption* causes scums and curds to form on equipment , and causes fabrics to yellow, in bathing, shampooing, and dishwashing, it causes scums and curds to be deposited; in cooking, it causes vegetables to toughen.** Hard water also causes scale to form in hot water heaters, pipes, and cooking utensils. + Corrosion was mentioned in both the literature and in the comments obtained during the field research as being as detrimental as hardness, if not even more detrimental to hot water heaters, automatic washing machines, dishwashers, and general plumbing fixtures. However, the actual extent of such corrosive damage has apparently never been measured. As mentioned earlierin the discussion of industrial water, it does not seem feasible in this study to estimate the possible difference in corrosive effects of Colorado River and Feather River Project waters, and no allow- ance for this factor is made in estimating economic differences between the two waters. On the basis of presently available information, the only quality factor that can be measured is hardness. Since Colorado River water is approximately 3.4 times as hard as Feather River Project water, the" latter is obviously of better quality for residential use. The economic differ- ences between the two waters for this use are therefore estimated solely on the methods and costs of treating the waters to reduce hardness. B. Methods of Softening Softening is accomplished by: Municipal treatment of the water before delivering it to the individual meter; * It takes approximately 0.03 pound of pure soap to neutralize the hardness in one gallon of Colorado River water and only 0.009 to neu- tralize the hardness in one gallon of Feather River Project water. ** From the recommended ranges of hardness established for the food canning and freezing industry, it appears that water above 200 ppm total hard- ness is substantially less desirable in preparing of fruits and vegetables than water below 200 ppm. + All sources emphasized the greater tendency of the Colorado River water to deposit scale in domestic systems, and specimens of this problem were frequently shown, but no statistical data were available to support estimates of the extent and rapidity of scaling. 148 Individual treatment of the water by means of home- owned or home-serviced softeners; Use of soap. Only a small part of the water that is presently used for residential and public purposes in Southern California is softened at all by municipal softening plants. The only municipal water softening plants affecting water in the study area are the Metropolitan Water District's Weymouth Softening and Filtration Plant at LaVerne and the Alvarado Filtration Plant in San Diego. Both of these plants handle Colorado River water, and the softening is a part of an over-all treatment program. At the Weymouth plant, the hardness in the water is reduced to between some 125 ppm and 140 ppm.* At the Alvarado plant the hardness is reduced to between some 280 to 290 ppm. Practically ail home-used softeners are of the zeolite type. There is no dift^reme in principle and litt_e difference in design between softeners used in homes and those used in commercial establishments except for size. Both the homs-owned and home-serviced units reduce hardness to essentiax^^y zero. Hardness can aj.so be removed by using sufficient quantities of soap; no lather wij.i result until sufficient soap has been added to precipitate ail the calciam and magnesium carried in solution. C . Costs of Softening Municipal treatment is substantiaxj-y cheaper than home water softening over a wide hardness range, although the difference is xess as the hardness to be removed increases. Operating costs vary considerably among municipal softening plants themselves. It seems rather well established, however, that the costs of softening water of some 35G ppm hardness to approximately 125 ppm hardness range from $0.02 to $0.10 per 1,000 gallons. The Metro- politan Water District softening of Colorado River water at the Weymouth plant is one of the least expensive of such systems in the United States. Its 1957 cost of softening from some 346 ppm to nominally 125 ppm (i.e., very near Feather River Project water hardness) is estimated to have been just under $0.02 per 1,000 gallons, or $5.40 per acre foot.** This figure was used earlier in connection witn commercial water use and is used again be^ow to estimate economic differences between the two waters in resi- dential and pubiic uses. Because Weymouth is a low cost plant, this results in a conservative estimate of economic differences wnen the $5.40 figure is used. * Municipal water treatment plants sexdom soften a water below L5 to ICC ppm because a large percentage of the supply is used for watering lawns and gardens where softening may be detrimental , or for cold water purposes, sucn as sanitation, wnere nardness is not a concern. ** Estimates of the Weymouth plant softening costs are based on an average of the 195/ monthly direct costs and of 25 percent of tne indirect costs. 149 To soften water through the addition of soap involves a significant expense. It appears to have been convincingly demonstrated that savings in both soap and synthetic detergents (both together referred to hereafter as detergents) can result from use of presoftened water. Estimates of the savings possible in detergents from using water of approximately Feather River Project hardness instead of water of Colorado River hardness range from $7 to 4>20 per household per year.® D. Magnitude of Total Economic Effect Two methods are now available to estimate the aggregate economic difference in the study area from using the two waters in residential and public uses. One is to estimate the additional cost of detergents that would be required if unsoftened Colorado River water was used instead of Feather River Project water. The other is to estimate the cost of softening Colorado River water to approximately the same hardness as Feather River Project water. Both approaches are followed below to illus- trate the magnitudes involved. The Department of Water Resources furnished preliminary projections of future population in the study area, from which an approximation to the future number of households in the area can be made. The 1950 Census of Population indicates the average number of persons per household at the time of the census was as follows: San Diego County 2.99, San Bernardino County 3.11, Riverside County 3.06. It is believed reasonable to allow for slightly larger households as these areas develop in the future, and an average of 3.2 persons per household for the entire study area was Applied to th6 population projections to estimate the future number of households. These data are shown in Table 41. Table 41 PROJECTED TOTAL ECONOMIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COLORADO RIVER WATER AND FEATHER RIVER PROJECT WATER IN RESIDENTIAL AND PUBLIC USES, SELECTED DATES 1960 2020 YEAR PROJECTED POPULATION^ ( thousands ) ESTIMATED NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDSt ESTIMATED !^L•USEH^Lns bSllNl. SUPPLEMENTAL WATER§ ESTIMATED SAVING ON .'!,Ts:rgENTS '■'.■ . USING FEATHER RIVER PROJECT WATEIiC- PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL AND PUBLIC USE OF SUPPLEMENTAl, WATER* (ac ; ■■ feet ) ESTIMATED COST TO SOFTEN TOTAL QUANTITY OF COLORADO RIVER WATER TO FEATHER RIVER PROJECT WATER HARDNESS IN CENrRrtl, PLANTS* 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 1,673 2.477 3,531 4.821 6.121 7,188 8,080 522,813 774.063 1,103,438 1 506,563 1,912,813 2,246.250 2,525.000 191.350 385,483 644 408 1,033,502 1,470.953 1 801 493 2.100,800 $ 1.339,450 2,698,381 4 510,856 7 234,514 10,296,671 12.610,451 14,705,600 100,000 204,000 353,000 582,000 857.000 1,056,000 1,214,000 S 540.000 1,101,600 1,906,200 3.142,800 4,627,800 5,702,400 6,555,600 * Preliminary population projections furnished by the Department of Water Resources t Based on average of 3.2 persons per household as discussed in text § Based on percent of total app.lied water represented by supplemental water in Table 32. C At $7 per household per year as discussed in text. ^ From Table 32 ♦ At $5. 40 per acre-foot as discussed in text. 150 A rather wide range of estimates was given above for differences in the value of detergents required with the two waters. A question there- fore arises as to which is the best single estimate to use in projecting future economic differences. Several points should be considered in this respect. Actual practice in the use of detergents in households may not be so closely adjusted to water quality as to realize the full potential savings afforded by the softer water. Households with water softeners or softening service may continue to soften regardless of which water is delivered to them and will thus not be affected in the same manner as households without softening. Military and other public agencies will have a lower purchase price on detergents due to quantity purchasing, and thus will not be affected to the same degree as private households. These factors suggest that a value near the lower end of the range should be used in order to provide a conservative estimate of the economic difference between the two waters. For this purpose the value of $7 per household per year is used to compute the differences shown in Table 41. On this basis there appears to be no risk of overstating the differences. It can be seen in the table that economic differences estimated in this manner range from $1,339,000 in 1960 up to $14,706,000 in the year 2020 as popu- lation builds up in the study area. If the economic difference is estimated on the basis of softening Colorado River water to a hardness equivalent to that of Feather River Project water, a conservative estimate requires that the most economical method of softening be used as a basis. As described above, softening is accomplished most cheaply at large central plants prior to distribution of water to users. The estimated cost of the Metropolitan Water District at the Weymouth plant, $5,40 per acre-foot, is applied in Table 41 to the total quantities of supplemental water projected for residential and public use in the future. Economic differences estimated in this manner range from $540,000 in 1960 up to $6,556,000 in the year 2020 as supplemental water use increases. The economic differences based on softening in large central plants are somewhat less than one-half the differences estimated on the basis of detergent savings. In actual practice some distribution systems might soften, while others would not. The total economic differences in resi- dential and public uses could therefore be at some intermediate level. However, the analysis appears to indicate clearly that significant differences would exist regardless of which approach was taken. For summary purposes in connection with effects in other uses, the estimates based on softening in central plants will be used to insure that differ- ences would be at least as large as those stated, V Summary of Economic Differences in All Urban Uses Combined The projected economic differences between using Colorado River water and Feather River Project water in urban applications as developed in earlier paragraphs are summarized in Table 42. The amounts shown indicate additional costs estimated to be incurred in the study area if Colorado River water is used instead of Feather River Project water. It can be 151 Table 42 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC DIFFERENCES IN ALL URBAN USES YEAR INDUSTRIAL USES COMMERCIAL USES RESIDENTIAL AND PUBLIC USES TOTAL 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 j 2020 $ 266,000 981,000 2,109,000 4,201,000 6,895,000 9,458,000 12,214,000 $ 22,000 54,000 119,000 232,000 464,000 572,000 664,000 $ 540,000 1,102,000 1,906,000 3,143,000 4,628,000 5,702,000 6,556,000 $ 828,000 2,137,000 4,134,000 7,576,000 11,987,000 15,732,000 19,434,000 seen that the economic effects of differences in water quality are sig- nificant in urban uses. One difference between the estimates for urban uses and those given in earlier parts of this report for ground water effects and agricultural uses of water should be noted. The ground water conditions are specifically associated with the study area and its geology. The same ground water effects from using the two waters would not be found in other areas. Similarly, the agriculture of the study area is unique in many respects, and the same effects from the use of the two waters would not be expected in other areas. However, in urban uses the two waters would have about the same relative effects in other parts of Southern California as in the study area itself. This difference among the three broad categories of effects covered in this report may be of some importance in planning supplemental water service for the entire South Coastal Area. 152 Appendix A EXAMPLES OF COOLING WATER TREATMENT COSTS The costs developed below are for a typical air conditioning system or small cooling tower requiring 300 gallons of water per minute recircu- lation with a temperature drop of 15°F. If Colorado River water was used for this hypothetical system, the concentration of the dissolved mineral matter in the recirculating water should not exceed 1.5 times that in the natural water. At a concentration of 1.5, the cooling system would re- quire 13,5 gallons of make-up water per minute, or 19,440 gallons per day (see Table 43). The cost for chemicals to treat the water would be Table 43 ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF MAKE-UP WATER REQUIRED IN INDUSTRIAL COOLING SYSTEMS (No. of Gal. per 1,000 gal./min. Recirculation) CYCLES OF CONCENTRATION TEMPERATURE DROP 15"F ,ga! ■ 20°F iga! / 25-F ^gal ., 30°F ^gal ) 35°F (gal ) 1.5 45. 60 75 90. 105. 2.0 30. 40 50 60 70. 2 5 25 33 42 50. 58 5 3.0 22 5 30 37 5 45 52.5 3.5 21 28 35 42 49.1 4 20 26 7 33.2 40 46.9 4 5 19 2 25 7 32 38.7 45.1 5.0 18.7 25 31 8 37 5 44. 5.5 18 3 24 5 30 7 36 8 43. 6.0 18 24 30 36.1 42.1 6 5 17.7 23 7 29 5 35 5 41.5 7 17.5 23 3 29.1 35. 40 9 SOURCE: National Aluminate Corporation approximately $0.04 to $0.14 per 1,000 gallons make-up (or some $0.75 to $2.75 per day) depending on whether the water was treated only for scale control or for both scale and corrosion control (see Table 44). If Feather River water was used in the same cooling system, a maximum of 3.0 concentrations could be tolerated, and the make-up water require- ments would therefore be about half those for Colorado River water, or 6.7 gallons per minute, or 9,648 gallons per day (see Table 43). The cost for chemicals to treat the water would be approximately $0,013 to $0.06 per 1,000 gallons make-up (or some $0.10 to $0.60 per day), depending on whether the water was treated only for scale control or for both scale and corrosion control (see Table 44). 153 Table 44 ESTIMATED AVERAGE COST OF TREATING MAKE-UP WATER FOR AIR COMDITIONING SYSTEMS AMD SMALL COOLING TOWERS CYCLES OF CONCENTRATION COST FOR TREATING COLORADO RIVER WATER (cents per 1 000 ga.'. . ) COST FOR TREATING FEATHER RIVER PROJECT WATER (cents per 1, 000 gal. ) Treatment for Scale and Corrcsion Control 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 13.5 13.5 7.8 6.6 5.9 Tieatmen- f.;: S_a,\t Ccni-c'L Only 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.7 3.7 1.9 1.6 1.3 Scu:-e: Nat.:cna.'. Alum naXe Co.'-pa'^ a" i jn . Some users would probably treat for scale only, while others would treat for both scale and corrosion control. To allow for such variations, it appears reasonable to assume that average treatment costs would be about $0.11 per thousand gallons of make-up for Colorado River water and about $0.04 for Feather River Project water. On this basis, the respective costs of treating make-up water would be about $36 and $13 per acre-foot. In large cooling towers, sulfuric acid would be used in combination with either phosphate- or chromate-based inhibitors to control scale and corrosion. In Colorado River water, the maximum concentration cycle permissible with polyphosphate inhibitors is 2.0 because of the calcium hardness. With chromate inhibitors, the maximum concentration cycle is 4.5. Water treatment costs are lower with chromate-based inhibitors because less make-up water is required; however, polyphosphates must sometimes be used to meet waste disposal requirements because of the toxic nature of chromates . In a typical system, using a chromate-based inhibitor with Colorado River water at 4,5 concentration cycles, 25.7 gallons per minute of make-up water would be required (37,000 gallons per day) for every 1,000 gallons per minute of water recirculated with a temperature drop of 20 F (see Table 43). Treatment costs would be about $0,037 per 1,000 gallons of make-up water for chromate-based inhibitor and $0.01 per 1,000 gallons of make-up water for the acid — a total of $0,047 per 1,000 gallons of make-up water (see Table 45). 154 Table 45 ESTIMATED COST OF INTERNAL TREATMENT OF COLORADO RIVER WATER IN URGE COOLING TOWERS CYCLES OF CONCENTRATION AMOUNT OF CHEMICAL ( ppm ) AMOUNT OF CHEMICAL (lb/1 000 gal. make up) ESTIMATED COST PER 1 000 GAL. MAKE UP PHOSPHATES AND CHROMATES Polyphosphate Inhibitor* 1.5 45. 0.25 $0,063 2.0 50. 0.209 0.052 ChrODiate Inhibitor' 2.5 40. 0.133 0.053 3.0 42.5 0.118 0.047 3.5 45. 0.107 0.043 4 47.5 0.099 0.04 4.5 50. 0.092 0.037 SULFURIC ACID 1,5 1.25 0.0125 2.0 1.28 0.0128 2.5 0.88 0.0088 3.0 0.93 0.0093 3 5 0.96 0.0096 4.0 0.99 0.0099 4.5 1.01 0.0101 ' The cycles of concentration are limited to 2 by the precipitation of the polyphosphate based inhibitors with calcium hardness at approximately 450 ppm. Cost of polyphosphate inhibitor, S0.25/lb. * The cycles of concentration are limited to 4.5 by the precipitation of the chromate -based inhibitors with calcium hardness at approximately 900 ppm. Cost of chromate inhibitor, $0.40/lb SOURCE: National Aluminate Corporation. With Feather River Project water, a maximum of 7 concentrations could be allowed. At 7.0 concentrations, for every 1,000 gallons per minute re- circulation at 20 °F temperature drop, 23.3 gallons per minute (33,550 gallons per day) make-up would be required (see Table 43). Treatment costs would be less than $0.02 per 1,000 gallons make-up water with the inhibitor, and less than $0.01 per 1,000 gallons of make-up water for the acid — a total of $0,027 per 1,000 gallons of make-up water (Table 46). On the basis of the foregoing treatment costs, it can be calculated that costs per acre-foot of make-up water would be about $15 for Colorado River water and $9 for Feather River Project water. 155 Table 46 ESTIMATED COST OF INTERNAL TREATMENT OF FEATHER RIVER PROJECT WATER IN LARGE COOLING TOWERS CYCLES OF CONCENTRATION* AMOUNT OF CHEMICAL ( ppm ) AMOUNT OF CHEMICAL (lb/1. 000 gal. make up ) ESTIMATED COST OF INHIBITOR PER 1 000 GAL. MAKE UP AT $0 25/LB CHEMICAL INHIBITORS 1 5 32.5 179 $0.0447 2 35 0. 146 0.0362 2 5 37 5 0.125 0.0312 3 40 111 0.0278 3.5 42 5 101 0.0251 4 45 0.094 0.0232 4 5 47 5 0.088 0.0220 5.0 50 083 0-0208 5.5 52.5 0.080 0.0199 6 55 0.076 0190 6.5 57 5 074 0.0184 7 60 0.071 0.0178 SULFURIC ACID ESTIMATED COST OF ACID PER 1,000 GAL. MAKE-UP AT $0.01/LB 1.5 82 $0.0082 2.0 84 0084 2.5 845 00845 3 0.85 0.0085 3 5 855 0.00855 4.0 0.86 0.0086 4 5 0.0865 0.00865 5.0 0-87 0.0087 5 5 0.875 00875 6.0 0.875 0.00875 6 5 875 00875 7 875 0.00875 * Maximum concentration limited by silica: pH program- 150 ppm for low pH program; 180 ppm for high SOURCE; National Alum mate Corporation 156 Appendix B EXAMPLES OF BOILER FEED TREATMENT COSTS Table 47 shows estimated treatment costs for 1,000 gallons of make- up water for boilers in three general pressure categories, using Colorado River water and Feather River Project water. It can be observed that these costs vary considerably by pressure category and type of treatment . By far the largest use of boiler feed is in the 300 psi and below pressure category, using external plus internal treatment. It is there- fore considered that costs of $0.25 per 1,000 gallons for Colorado River water and $0.08 for Feather River Project water afford a suitable basis for comparing treatment costs in this use. The greater differences between treatment costs for other pressure categories in Table 47 indicate that the foregoing figures provide a conservative basis for comparing the two waters and that in practice the cost differences would certainly be at least as great as this. On the basis of the foregoing figures the boiler feed treatment costs per acre-foot of make-up water would be about $81 for Colorado River water and $26 for Feather River Project water. 157 Table 47 ESTIMATED COST OF CHEMICALS FOR TREATING BOILER FEED WATER METHOD OF THEATMENT COST FOR TREATING COLORADO RIVER WATER (per I 000 gal make - up ) COST FOR TREATING FEATHER RIVER PROJECT WATER (per 1 ,000 gal make up) ' UP TO 300 PSI ; Internal treatment only External treatment (sodium zeolite) plus internal treatment $0.70-$l 00* $0 20-$0 25 fO 15-$0.25 i $0.06-$0.08 300 TO 900 PSI External treatment (sodium zeolite) plus internal treatment External treatment (sodium zeolite and evapora^ion) plus internal treatment External treatment (demineralization) plus internal treatment $0 20 -SO 25+ $0 30- $0.40 $0 70-$0 80^' $0.06 -SO, 08 § $0 30- $0.35* ABOVE 900 PSI External treatment (sodium zeolite and evaporation) plus internal treatment External treatment (demineralization) plus internal treatment $0 30$0 40 $0 70-10 80C S0,30-f0 35* * Very limited application. t Limited application. § Could be used, but demineralization or sodium zeolite generally more applicable. Three bed system # Two bed system ♦ Could be used but demineralization more applicable. SOURCE: National Aluminate Corporation. 158 REFERENCES 1. Betz Laboratories, Inc. (1957), Industrial Water Conditioning, fifth edition. 2. American Water Works Association (1950), Manual of Water Quality and Treatment, second edition. 3. Nordell and Eskel (1951), Water Treatment for Industrial and Other Uses, Reinhold Publishing Corporation. 4. Hastrup, C. F. (October 1953), Report on symposium on advanced base water supply and sanitation, U.S. Naval Civil Engineering Research and Evaluation Laboratory, Port Hueneme , California, pp. 324-337. 5. Larson, R. O. and H. B. Hudson (August 1951), Residential water use, Journal American Water Works Association, p. 610. 6. Aultman, William W., Softening of municipal water supplies, Water and Sewage Works, August 1957, pp. 327-334, and Effect of synthetic detergents upon water softening economics, paper presented at 195G annual conference, American Water Works Association. 159 GUM 2 — APPRCVrD BYTMF. AttaclmiOUt I'iO, 1 '^J.r'c:'.^"""" STATE OF CALIFORNIA coN»«*c.o« , I STANDARD AGHtLMIiNT STfcTC AorNCi-- ( ) DlfT OF FiNANCt — t ) CONTROLteR— t ) NuM.H»_.6z_B20^si^ THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this.._.?lst Jay of JJlebruary _ _ , 19.5.8, at Sacrumento, County of Sacramento, State of California, by and between State of California, through its duly elected or ippointcd, qu.ilified and acting _ -. JDirector Pepartment. of. Water. .Be.eo.yrces Tttic of officer actiog for Stitc DfpirfnuBI or other sgcacr hereinafter called the State, and Stanf ord.Research ..lastit hereinafter called the Contractor. WiTNnssETH: That the Contractor for and in consideration of the covenants, conditions, agreements, and stipulations of the State hereinafter expressed, does hereby agree to furnish to the State services and materials, as follows: (Set forth service to be rendered by Contractor, amount to be paid Contractor, time for performance or completion, and attach plans and specifications, if any.) 1. Contractor is to conduct a quality of water study and prepare a report thereon for the Department of Water Resources in the upper Santa Ana Valley and southwestern Riverside County, including the San Jacinto Valley, coastal San Diego County, and adjoining areas of Orange County which may be affected by any water program within the upjjer Santa Ana Valley. (a) Said study report will include: (1) A detailed description, from the water quality standpoint, of the probable incremental differences, if any, in physical and economic effects between the use of Feather River Project water and other conventional sources of imported water supply presently or potentially available for agricultural, domestic, municipal., and industrial uses in the foregoing areas, under assumptions of ample water supplies from each sources of water. (2) The effects through time of the quality of these waters on yield and quality of ground water in the upper Santa Ana Valley area, particularly with regard to the salt balance condition in the underground basins, evaluated with respect to the possible economic advantage of using imported water of the highest possible mineral quality. (3) The difference, if any, in unit applications of irrigation water necessitated because of the quality of said waters on climatically adapted crops with consideration of soil type where possible. (U) The differences, if any, in treatment processes necessary to render these waters suitable for domestic, municipal, industrial, and agricultural use. (5) The limitations, if any, imposed upon agriculture with respect to the types of crops that could be grown or the effects on crop yields. (6) Limitations, if any, imposed on industry. Attachment No. 1 Page 2 Agreement 8-830-S155 Stanford Research Institute (b) Comparative incremental economic effects of the various water qualities will be evaluated in monetary terms wherever possible as follows; (1) Differences, if any, in total water requirements for each beneficial use. (2) Differences, if any, in the cost of water treatment for raunicipgil, domestic, and industrial use. (3) Differences, if any, in the incremental direct costs to agricultural water users, by various major classes of crops and by soil types where necessary data are available. {k) Differences, if any, in the general costs of operation and maintenance of conveyance and distribution systems. (5) Differences, if any, in the total incremental economic costs and effects in each area, in terms of agricultural and industrial development . To the extent feasible, the foregoing study and analysis are to be prepared for the period 1956 to 2020. The Department will furnish to the Contractor data on present and estimates of probable future quality of Feather River Project water and estimates of the quality of other sources of water in the aforementioned area. To the extent feasible, the Department will provide all geologic and hydrologic data considered by the Contractor to be pertinent to the consideration of the various problems and upon request by the Contractor the Department will aid in obtaining pertinent data from other sources as well. The Department will also furnish to the Contractor its estimates of future pop\ilation and expansion of irrigated agricultvire and general water demand schedules in these areas as these become available through current studies. The development by the Contractor of new experimental or other original basic data is not contemplated. The conduct- ing of this investigation by the Contractor shall include periodic progress discussions with the Department at approximately one month intervals. The Contractor shall also confer with major interests having background infor- mation and those interests that would be affected by quality of waters in the aforementioned areas with the objective of providing reasonable opportunity for expressions of viewpoint by said major interests during the course of the study. The Contractor in the foregoing study and report is to employ present day price levels and also is to assume present levels of technological advancement. 2. The services performed by the Contractor pursuant to this agreement shall be completed and reported upon in accordance with the following schedule: Attachment No. 1 Page 3 Agreement 6-630-3155 Stanford Research Institute (a) By August 15, 1956, a preliminary report, together with two copies thereof, covering the matters specified in Section 1, above, will be submitted to the Department of Water Resources. (b) By October 1, 1956, the final report, together with five copies thereof and the multilith plates, will be submitted to the Department of Water Resources. The final report shall contain substantially the same information as submitted in the preliminary report. (c) At the completion of the contract, the Contractor shall furnish to the Department one copy each of all important work sheets and basic data used in preparation of the report. 3. The amount of this agreement is $50,000, payable to the Contractor as follows: Five progress payments in the siam of $8,000 each, to be made successively on April 1, May 1, June 1, July 1, and August 1, 1956, with the remaining balance withheld until completion of this agreement covering the work performed in a manner satisfactory to the State. Contractor shall furnish an invoice in triplicate to the Department of Water Resources, P. 0. Box 15718, Los Angeles, California, as of each of the progress payment dates, including a certification that its accumulated charges to the date of the invoice are equal to or in excess of the Eunounts billed on that date, and with each of the first four invoices Contractor shall furnish a progress report of work performed during the invoice period. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, This agreemenc has been executed, in quadruplicate, by and on behalf of the parties hereto, the day and year first above written. State of CALiroRNiA ..Pej9artment of Water. .Res.Qurcea. Name of Stale ifeBcy Contractor Stanf Qr4_Rfisiearc]r Jxi^iltiitfi,^ (If otber thia 4ft iadiTtdutt, lUU wketbcr « corporitJoo, partocrihip, tte.) By- By. Paul L. Barnes, Chief Plyisipn ..of AdministratlQa. Bldg. 100, StanfoM' Research Institute ^MenilQ. Park,- . Calif or oia Addrtii cg> THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW RENEWED BOOKS ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RECALL AU6 ' 1933 RECEIVED JUN 1 6 1983 PHYS SCI LIBRARY LIBRARY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS Book Slip-20m-8,'61(C1623B4)458 l?-fomia, Dept, of •*er resoiirces. PHYSJc SCIENCES LIBRARY Call Number: TC8?U C2 A2 TC C2 C 2. UBKAKV DtBYERSITY OF CALiFuKI«ft% PAVIS 240507 m\\\\% »«.....55e72 3913