OanJel O. Holmes
EDMUND G. BROWN Jr.
GOVERNOR
Aziz rrf (Eal&rata
GOVERNORS OFFICE
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO 95814
October 24, 1979
Dear Reader:
The California Water Atlas is considered by many reviewers to be the State's most
ambitious cartographic undertaking. A staff of researchers, cartographers, and graphic
artists worked for over a year and a half to assemble and portray information about
water in California. Their efforts were immeasurably aided by a large and dedicated
group of advisors, many of whom also contributed narrative portions to the Atlas.
The goal of all this work was to produce a book that would introduce Californians to
the complex and compelling issues of water in this state, giving them the information
they need to participate more actively in the decisions that governmental agencies make.
In an undertaking of this size, it is inevitable that some inadvertent errors will occur.
Such an error appears on page 64, paragraph 3, in which we attempted to summarize a
complex legal case which was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court. The statements
in the paragraph were derived in part from California Water: A New Political Economy
by Merrill R. Goodall, John D. Sullivan, and Timothy DeYoung (Allanheld, Osmum/Universe
Books, New York, 1978). The paragraph, which was not intended to imply any wrongdoing
on the part of the J. G. Boswell Company, should read as follows:
The Salyer Land Company brought suit against the Tulare Lake Basin Water
Storage District after its property was flooded in 1969. The flood damage
could have been reduced and Salyer's property partially protected, had additional
Kern River flood water been diverted into the Buena Vista Lake Basin. This
would have caused flood damages to agricultural operations in Buena Vista
Lake, then leased by J. G. Boswell Company. The flood storage servitude of
Buena Vista lake basin, asserted by Salyer, and the District's authority to
prosecute a suit against the Kern River interests, were disputed by Boswell
and others. Since Boswell held a majority of the votes within the District,
the District's board of directors never sought to force the Buena Vista District
to take the flood water.
Because of the widespread interest in California water issues and the large demand for
the Atlas, we expect it will be necessary to reprint additional copies. In order to keep
the document as current, accurate, and useful as possible, we would appreciate your
comments and suggestions.
Please send your letter to:
The California Water Atlas: Comments
Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street, Room 206
Sacramento, CA 95814
Sincerely,
Deni Greene /
Acting Director
DG/jp
THE California
WATER ATLAS
William L. Kahrl
Project Director and Editor
William A. Bowen
Cartography Team Director
Stewart Brand
Advisory Group Chairman
Marlyn L. Shelton
Research Team Director
David L. Fuller
Principal Cartographer
Donald A. Ryan
Principal Cartographer
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., GOVERNOR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Bill Press, director,
Office of Planning and Research
Ronald B. Robie, director,
Department of Water Resources
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PROJECT STAFF
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
ADVISORY GROUP
William L. Kahrl, Project Director and Editor
JeanAnne M. Kelley, Staff Assistant
Marlyn L. Shelton, Research Team Director
Walraven Ketellapper, Principal Researcher
Peter T. Vorster, Principal Researcher
Pamela Easterwood, Cartographic Assistant
Lisa Webb, Research Assistant
William A. Bowen, Cartography Team Director
David L. Fuller, Principal Cartographer
Donald A. Ryan, Principal Cartographer
Judith Christner, Cartographic Assistant
Mark Goldman, Cartographic Assistant
Cartography : Richard Doss
Robert Provin
Clerical: Nancy Braginsky
Cathy Graham
Grace Huppert
Proofing: Regina Burns
Vaunette H. Wang
Typesetting: A & A Graphics, Sacramento
ReederType, Fremont
Zip Printing, Sacramento
Book Design : Richard Kharibian
Printing: George Rice & Sons, Los Angeles
Binding: Hiller Industries, Salt Lake City
Stewart Brand, Chairman
John Bryson
Raymond Dasmann
Harrison Dunning
Lloyd Fowler
Mason Gaffney
William Garnett
Duane Georgeson
Alfred E. Heller
Norris Hundley
Huey Johnson
Alan Kay
Robert Kelley
Luna Leopold
John F. Mann, Jr.
Julius Margolis
Bill Press
Ronald Robie
Glenn Sawyer
Rusty Schweickart
Donald Stark
Peter Warshall
Adrian Wilson
Loren Young
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The list of contributors in this volume identifies the
authors of the narrative sections as well as the two principal
cartographers on the project. In addition to these individ-
uals, however, the atlas owes its existence in large part to
the efforts of Judith Christner, Mark Goldman, JeanAnne
Kelley, Peter Vorster, and the other members of the staff as
well as to the distinguished members of the advisory
group, all of whom gave far more of themselves to this
project than anyone could have asked. Each phase of the
project profitted as well from the advice and assistance of
scores of people throughout the state who gave freely of
their time and expertise because they believed the result
might prove worthwhile.
The graphic and narrative elements of the atlas were
checked and rechecked by the staff of the Department of
Water Resources. The responsibility for coordinating this
massive undertaking rested with Glenn Sawyer, whose
grace and good judgment made all things possible. In addi-
tion, several members of the department's staff proved to
be invaluable resources for much of the information in-
cluded in this volume: special thanks are therefore due to
Dick Fields, Bob Ford, James D. Goodridge, Chuck Howard,
Norman A. MacGillivray, Jim Morris, Charles Pike, and
Maurice Roos. The project itself would probably never
have come into being, however, without the unstinting and
enthusiastic support of Ronald B. Robie, Director of the
Department of Water Resources, whose good counsel and
devotion to public service shaped the volume from the very
beginning.
The volume has benefited as well from the assistance
of public servants in numerous other agencies at the state
and federal levels. Those whose contributions are especially
appreciated include: Henry Hagenbuch, Jerry King, and
Robert Stuart of the Bureau of Reclamation; John Cono-
mos, Leonard Jorgenson, and Loren Young of the United
States Geological Survey; Robert Voeks of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service; John Skinner and Emil
Smith of the Department of Fish and Game; Doug Ralston
of the Department of Parks and Recreation; Jerry Jones of
the Water Resources Control Board; Gail Grodhaus of the
Department of Public Health; and Robert Zimmerman of
the Soil Conservation Service.
The cooperation generously extended by many local
agencies proved to be of critical importance at several
points during the course of the project. It is hard to imagine,
for example what the atlas would have been without the
assistance of Miguel Abalos and Duane Georgeson of the
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Similar debts
of gratitude are owed to: Daniel Koss and Hank Martin of
the Los Angeles County Flood Control District; Robert
Grosh of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California; Bob Wilson of the Imperial Irrigation District;
Roger James and Bob Roche of the Regional Water Quality
Control Board of the San Francisco Bay Region; Stanley
Barnes of the J. G. Boswell Corporation; and Chris Brewer
of the Kern County Museum.
From California's major public institutions of higher
learning, the project drew heavily upon the expert advice
of: W. O. Pruitt and Bob Washino of the University of
California, Davis; Eugene Turner at California State Uni-
versity, Northridge; and Todd Shallat of the Public Histori-
cal Studies program at the University of California, Santa
Barbara. In addition, the cartography team at California
State University, Northridge, benefited from the efforts of
a group of student assistants which included Victoria Cline,
Nancy Davidson, Richard Dey, Roberta Estes, Lindsay
Green, Karla Heerman, Joseph Malin, Lola Mayes, and Jay
Osterweil.
The photography that appears in the volume was made
available through the courtesy and hard work of: Robert
Ekstrand, Ben Padrick, and their staff at the National
Aeronautics and Space Administation/Ames Research Cen-
ter; Nevin Bryant and Steve Friedman of the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory; Philip Hoehn and William Roberts of the Ban-
croft Library; Jack Clark of the Agricultural Extension
Service of the University of California, Davis; Bonnie
Brittain, Laverne Dicker, Catherine Hoover, and Rob Saw-
chuck of the California Historical Society; Victor Plukas of
the Security Pacific Bank; and Shirley Mackay of the Cali-
fornia State Library.
The publication of a book of this kind proved to be a new
experience for state government. We might easily have
gone astray without the expert advice of numerous profes-
sionals in the publishing industry. Special thanks in this
connection are due to Jon Beckmann, William Kaufmann,
Luther Nichols, Ralph Raymer, and Jeremy Tarcher. We
owe a special debt as well to William Loy and Lidia Selkregg,
whose experience in developing atlases of their own in
Oregon and Alaska helped us avoid many pitfalls; to James
F. Clements of George Rice and Sons, whose insight and
commitment to excellence in the printer's craft did so much
to make the atlas a source of pride for us all; and to George
Roth of the California Department of Justice, who helped
to steer us through the thickets of copyright law.
The difficulties of administering a project of this com-
plexity might well have proved insurmountable without
the assistance and support we received from: President
James W. Cleary, Harold Bramsen, and Ralph Vicero of
California State University, Northridge; Lawrence J. An-
drews and Kenneth Thompson of the University of Cali-
fornia, Davis; Kent Stoddard, Rex Norman, and Karen
Becker of the Office of Planning and Research; and John
Babich and Robert Brownlee of the Department of General
Services. Very special thanks are due as well to Jacques
Barzaghi and Rusty Schweickart, assistants to Governor
Brown, whose faith in the atlas saved the project more
than once.
Finally, sincerest thanks are due to the families and
friends of the staff members on the project whose patience
and support helped to sustain each of us through the long
hours the atlas demanded.
International Standard Book Number: 0-913232-68-8
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 78-620062
© 1978, 1979 by the State of California. All rights reserved. No part of this
book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without
written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in
critical articles and reviews. For information, write to the Director, Office
of Planning and Research, 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, California 95814.
Printed in the United States of America.
Main entry under title:
The California water atlas
"Prepared by the Governor's Office of Planning & Research in cooperation
with the California Dept. of Water Resources."
Bibliography: p. 113
1. Water-supply — California — Maps. 2. Water quality management —
California — Maps. I. Kahrl, William L., 1946 — II. California. Governor's
Office. Office of Planning and Research. III. California. Dept. of Water
Resources.
G1526. C3C3 1979 912' .1' 33391009794 78-620062
ISBN 0-913232-68-8
Copies of this volume are available from :
General Services, Publications Section
Post Office Box 1015
North Highlands, California 95660
William Kaufmann, Inc.
One First Street
Los Altos, California 94022
Contents
CONTRIBUTORS
Jane Arnault Ms. Arnault, an economist and utility special-
ist for Ernst and Ernst, Management Consultant Serv-
ices, Los Angeles, prepared the section on the econom-
ics of water.
William A. Bowen Professor of Geography, California State
University, Northridge. In addition to directing the car-
tographic team, Mr. Bowen assembled much of the
photography contained in the volume and prepared
the section dealing with the water colonies of the nine-
teenth century.
Stewart Brand Special Advisor to the Governor. Publisher
and Editor, The Whole Earth Catalogue and The Co-Evolution
Quarterly. Chairman, Atlas Advisory Group.
Mary Deane Ms. Deane, a reference librarian at the Water
Resources Center Archives, University of California,
Berkeley, prepared the guide to further reading at the
end of this volume.
Department of Water Resources Staff The section on the
commercial and recreational uses of water was pre-
pared by Warren Cole, David Pelgen, Glenn Sawyer,
Melvin Schwartz, and Dick Wagner working under the
coordination of Donald E. Owen, Chief of the Division
of Planning.
Harrison Dunning A Professor of Law at the University
of California, Davis, and Staff Director of the Gover-
nor's Commission to Review California Water Rights
Law, Mr. Dunning prepared portions of the section
dealing with unresolved questions for the future.
David L. Fuller Currently a member of the staff of the
cartography laboratory at California State University,
Northridge, Mr. Fuller served as chief cartographer
for the Hamilton Publishing Company's Environment of
Mankind and the Los Angeles regional study prepared
by the Larwin Group of Encino, California. He also
designed the American Association of Geographers'
Map Supplement Number 20, Moscow, an urban mor-
phology.
George G. Grover A judge of the Superior Court in River-
side County and formerly a member of the California
Public Utilities Commission from 1961 to 1966, Judge
Grover prepared treatments of water law which appear
in the sections dealing with the advent of human settle-
ment and the modern water system.
Robert M. Hagan A Professor of Water Sciences in the
Department of Land and Water Resources, University
of California, Davis, Mr. Hagan prepared the section
on California's water in context.
Myron Holburt Mr. Holburt, Executive Officer of the
Colorado River Board of California, prepared portions,
of the section dealing with California's use of the Col-
orado.
Norris Hundley Professor of History, University of Cali-
fornia, Los Angeles, Director of the Pacific Historical
Review, and author of Water and the West: The Colorado
River Compact and the Politics of Water in the American West,
Mr. Hundley prepared portions of the section dealing
with California's use of the Colorado.
William L. Kahrl Formerly Director of Research in the
Office of Planning and Research, Mr. Kahrl is currently
a Rockefeller Fellow preparing a history of the contro-
versy over Los Angeles' water supply in the Owens
Valley. In addition to directing the project and editing
the atlas as a whole, Mr. Kahrl prepared sections dealing
with the Los Angeles aqueduct, urban water develop-
ment in 1900, and the organization of water districts.
Robert Kelley Chairman of the Graduate Program in Pub-
lic Historical Studies at the University of California,
Santa Barbara, and from 1963 to 1973 the Attorney
General's expert witness in the history of early Califor-
nia water development, Mr. Kelley prepared portions of
the section dealing with the advent of human settle-
ment and the development of the Sacramento flood
control system.
Lawrence Lee Professor of History, San Jose State Univer-
sity, Mr. Lee prepared the treatment of the develop-
ment of the Central Valley Project.
Office of Planning and Research Staff The section on
water quality was prepared by Walraven Ketellapper
and Lisa Webb with assistance from Jim Morris of the
staff of the Department of Water Resources.
Elmo Richardson Senior Research Associate of the Forest
History Society and author of The Politics of Conservation :
Crusades and Controversies, Mr. Richardson contributed
the treatment of the development of the Hetch Hetchy.
Donald A. Ryan A production artist, illustrator, and photo-
graphic technician with the staff of the Co-Evolution
Quarterly, Mr. Ryan's work has appeared in the books
Space Colonies and Patterns on the Land as well as numerous
publications including Sunset and Harpers Magazine.
Marlyn L. Shelton In additon to directing the research
team, Mr. Shelton, an Assistant Professor of Geo-
graphy at the University of California, Davis, contri-
buted the treatment of floods and drought in the sec-
tion on the modern water system.
Donald D. Stark An attorney at law, with special expertise
in Southern California groundwater, Mr. Stark pre-
pared portions of the section dealing with the modern
water system.
Norman Sturm Currently a consultant in the economic and
financial feasibility aspects of water projects and form-
erly the Chief Economist for the State Department of
Water Resources, Mr. Sturm prepared portions of the
section dealing with the unresolved questions for the
future.
Harold E. Thomas A consulting geohydrologist and expert
in groundwater resources retired from the United States
Geological Survey, Mr. Thomas prepared the section on
the natural water endowment.
Arliss Ungar A member of the Governor's Commission to
Review California Water Rights law and formerly a
member of the Water Quality Advisory Committee of
the League of Women Voters of the United States,
Ms. Ungar prepared the treatment of the development
of the State Water Project.
Peter Warshall A biological anthropologist and editor of
the watershed edition of the Co-Evolution Quarterly, Mr.
Warshall contributed portions of the section dealing
with the modern water system.
1
2
8
10
11
Foreword iv
Glossary vi
california's water in context 1
The Natural Endowment 4
Atomospheric Water 4
River Systems 6
Natural Water Storage 10
The Ocean 14
The Advent of Human Settlement 15
The Fall and Rise of the Sacramento 16
The Sacramento Flood Control System 19
Irrigation and the Water Colonies 21
The Conflict over Rights 24
Urban Development and the Rise of Public
Control 28
Hetch Hetchy 29
The Los Angeles Water System 31
The Colorado River 38
Development for California Agriculture 39
The Boulder Canyon Project 39
The Colorado Today 42
The Future of the Colorado 43
The Great Valley Systems 46
The Central Valley Project 47
The Struggle for Control 49
The State Water Project 50
Modern Operations 53
The Operation of the Modern Water System 58
The Altered Endowment 58
Water Districts in California 63
Legal Constraints: The Law of Rights 64
The Decline of Private Rights 66
Natural Constraints: Floods and Drought 73
The Drought of 1976-1977 75
The Economics of Water 79
Supply and Demand 81
The Theory and Practice of Pricing 84
Waste, Equity, and the Future 85
Commercial and Recreational Water Use
Industrial Water Use 86
Power Generation 88
Inland Navigation 90
Recreational Benefits 91
Water Quality 93
Natural Water Quality 93
Quality as a Constraint Upon Use 94
Water Quality Control Programs 95
Methods of Control 98
86
Unresolved Questions for the Future
Elements of Demand 101
Groundwater Management 103
The Delta 104
Constraints on Supply 106
Problems of Management 107
New Technology 110
Conservation 110
101
Afterword 112
For Further Reading
Key to Sources 116
Index 118
113
Foreword
This book sets out to tell the biggest story in the richest and most populous
state in the Union. Water lies at the basis of the modern prosperity of
California, and the history of the state is in large part the history of water
development. The problems of water supply and delivery for the future are
emerging among the critical issues facing not only California but the entire
American Southwest over the next ten years. And yet, at a time when
environmental consciousness is high and complex problems of world energy
supply and international finance are part of the normal fare in our daily
newspapers, water remains probably the least popularly understood of our
natural resources.
There are good reasons for this. Water is an immensely complex subject
which requires the mastery of many disciplines ranging from the practical
sciences of hydrology, engineering, and chemistry to an understanding of
history, social organization, and the law. The literature available on the
subject is vast, but most of it is highly technical in nature, useful only to those
who are already working in the field. In a state which was built on water, we
lack even a history of water development. As a result, the interested citizen
has had few places to turn for a basic understanding of the critical, water-
related issues facing California and the West in the balance of this century.
The atlas has been developed as an attempt to correct this problem by
providing the average citizen with a single-volume point of access to under-
standing how water works in the State of California. The reader will find
here treatments of every aspect of water supply, delivery, and use in
California — the nature of the water environment, the changes mankind has
made in that environment, the history of water development, the operation
of the major natural and artificial water systems of today, the relationship of
water pricing to water consumption, the uses of water in industry, recrea-
tion, and energy development, the problems of water quality, and the current
and emerging questions of water policy for the future. The atlas will not
answer every question the reader may have. In fact, if our work has been
done well, the reader should emerge after completing this book with many
more questions than he ever thought to ask before. The atlas can, however,
establish a context for understanding how those questions should be posed
and where to turn for the answers. And it is by prompting this kind of
inquiry that the atlas will succeed in its ultimate purpose of enhancing the
opportunities for the people of California to take a direct role in shaping
public policy in this critically important area.
The California Water Atlas is the product of a 15-month project sponsored
by the Office of Planning and Research in cooperation with the Department
of Water Resources. A team of researchers based in the Office of Planning
and Research assembled the basic data and detailed information for the prep-
aration of maps from a wide range of local, state, and federal sources
throughout the state. This material was then relayed to a team of carto-
graphers assembled at California State University, Northridge, where the
finished maps were developed. The narrative sections were prepared by
experts in each of the many topics treated in the volume. And the project as a
whole operated under the guidance and supervision of an advisory group
composed of the most prominent figures in the fields of hydrology, engineer-
ing, history, book design, environmental protection, and water law.
The result is not a conventional governmental publication. The sheer heft,
size, and sophisticated printing of the volume makes that self-evident. These
physical characteristics of the book were dictated by the complexity of the
information presented in the maps and other graphic elements. What is more
important in distinguishing the atlas from other governmental publications,
however, is the absence of policy recommendations. We recognized at the
outset that if the atlas ever concluded on any point by saying "therefore" then
we would have failed in our central purpose of providing a common basis for
understanding which leaves the individual reader free to draw whatever con-
clusions or raise whatever questions seem most appropriate.
The maps and other graphic elements contained in the atlas are likely to be
far more densely packed with information than most readers are accustomed
to encountering. The model of California's hydrologic balance on the facing
page, which effectively combines in one place all the many aspects of water
treated in detail throughout the pages that follow, is probably the most com-
plex piece of design anywhere in the book. An attempt has been made in the
design of each of the full-page plates, however, to make them susceptible of
being read at several levels of detail. In other words, each plate should readily
convey some central relationship or aspect of water upon a quick perusal. The
three principal colors used in the design of the hydrologic balance, for
example, display the relative proportionality of the volumes of water involved
in each of the major parts of the system as a whole. For the serious student
of water, for applications by the specialist, or for use in the classroom the
plates reveal a wealth of information and precision which should, hopefully
make a close reading of them an adventure in seeing and understanding.
The quality of these graphic materials is related directly to the nature of the
atlas as a whole and the subject it treats. The plates are not designed simply
to illustrate the points raised in the text; nor has the text been prepared
simply as a helpful companion to fill out what might otherwise be only a
picture book. Instead, the narrative and graphic elements of the atlas have
been developed as equal partners which the design of the volume as a whole
must make to work together. The topics selected for treatment in the plates
are those which can be presented most effectively in a graphic form. The
information contained in the design of the hydrologic balance, for example,
would require pages and pages of charts and graphs to be treated narratively,
and it is doubtful that the reader at the end of such a treatment would be able
to grasp the relationship between the many parts of the hydrological balance
and the way in which these parts fit together as readily as is conveyed in this
single image. By the same token, if some aspect of the water system can be
just as well described by a sentence or paragraph, then it has been left to the
narrative. In this way, we have attempted to provide within the atlas a model
of the ways in which advanced cartography can be used as a medium for con-
veying complex information on issues of public policy.
A friend of mine in hydrology once described the construction of a dam as
man's ultimate way of thumbing his nose at God. Certainly the story of the
development of the modern water system in California presents one of the
most massive rearrangements of the natural environment that has ever been
attempted. The book, therefore, begins with a detailed examination of the
nature of the original water endowment as a way of establishing an under-
standing of the limits it placed upon human settlement. The subsequent sec-
tions treat the ways in which these limits were confronted and in most cases
overcome through the construction of the various principal components of
the modern water system. The water system of today, however, is not simply
the inevitable result of the natural water endowment. Rather, each of the
major artificial water delivery systems developed out of specific historical
circumstances and were designed to address particular problems. The first
half of the volume, by treating in sequence the development of these systems,
thus deals essentially with the question of how things got to be the way they
are today. The balance of the volume, beginning with the section on the
modern water system, examines how things work today, the ways in which
water is used, the problems that result, and what the modern water system
can and cannot do.
Inevitably in a volume which attempts to treat so vast a subject in so brief a
space there will be disagreements as to which topics to bring up and where
the emphasis should be placed. The project was conceived from the beginning
as a cooperative venture and the book that has been produced as a result is a
reflection necessarily of the special talents and interests of the authors,
advisors, and staff members involved. Had any one of the more than 50
people who ultimately had a hand in shaping the volume been different, the
atlas itself would have been changed.
The cooperative nature of the enterprise was represented most clearly in
the development of the narrative. Once we had agreed upon an outline of the
book, we divided the topics to be covered according to the expertise of the
authors we had selected. As a result, each of the chapters that appear in the
volume is made up of parts prepared by several different hands. And all of
the original manuscripts were substantially revised and edited to establish a
consistent style and tone, to fill in missing elements, and to provide the con-
nectives which knit the pieces together into a whole. Nevertheless, each
author approached the topic assigned with his or her own perspective and
sense of priorities. As a result, the reader should be able to detect the sound
of many voices running through the narrative, and this diversity was felt to
be healthy to the extent that it provides a sense of the multiplicity of view-
points that exist with respect to the various aspects of water in California.
There were, of course, constraints of time, available space, and subject
matter imposed on what we could do. In developing the plates, for example,
we began with a list of all the subjects we wished we could treat and then
began to reduce that list based upon the information that was actually avail-
able. Hydrology, as the experts often say, is an inexact science. Cartography,
however, is a most exacting art form. If you are preparing a narrative and
have 95 percent of the information on the topic being treated, you can safely
write a conclusion; but if you are preparing a map of California and have data
for every community but one, you might as well have nothing at all.
There is more information available on water through the federal, state, and
local agencies used in this project than exists on probably any other topic.
And yet, a surprising amount is incomplete, inconsistent, or inaccurate. In
addition, there is substantial disagreement between agencies as to methods of
reporting, systems of calculation, and even the names of places and facilities.
IV
Hydrologic Balance for California
Colorado River
5.2 |
PRECIPITATION
vapotranspiration
precipitation on
irrigated lands
8.0
Evaporation from
lakes and reserve
Evaporation and
evapotranspiration
from forest, rangeland,
unirrigated agriculture,
native vegetation, and
other lands
118
r erage annual ground
iter overdraft of 2.2 from
Effects of lane
use changes
1.5"
Other Federal:
Central Valley and State
Water Projects, and water
stored for salinity repulsion: 0.6
Total: 21.9
DEVELOPED WA TER SUPPLY
Interstate import:
Surface water:
Groundwater:
Reclaimed waste water: 0.2
Land recharge
1.1
Stream chann
recharge
4.0
Conveyance losses
1.2
WATER USE
Artificial recharge
1.0
Natural recharge
5.1
Reclaimed waste
water (planned)
0.2
Municipal & Industrial:
5.1
Wildlife & Recreation:
0.7
Total:
37.4
3.2 ,
'■2.
37.4
4
2.2
i
Si:
Conveyance loi
1.2
Evapotranspii
of applied waters
22.1
Artificial
echarge:
1.0
Natural r
echarge:
5.1
rcolation of
vater:
6.8
15.1
Total:
Saline repulsion
0.6
Reclaimed waste
water (incidental)
0.6
Agricultural return
flows to developed
Municipal & In
Agriculture:
Municipal & Industi
griculturai retun
3ws for salim
repulsion
0.4
Evaporation and
Evaportranspiration
Storage and Use
Arrows indicate direction of flow
All figures in millions of acre-feet
,TION &
,,,IANSIPRATION
pplied water precipitat
The hydrologic cycle is the natural system for
recirculating water on a global scale. The
quantities of water associated with the individual
components of this cycle vary during the year and
from place to place, but the summation of these
components always equals the fixed amount of
water present on earth. A hydrologic balance is
the local version of the hydrologic cycle. Like the
hydrologic cycle, average annual quantities are
commonly employed to express the magnitude of
the separate components of a hydrologic balance.
From these values a hydrologic balance can be
calculated for the earth's land surfaces, for the
oceans, or for smaller systems such as an individ-
ual state or drainage basin. Unlike the hydrologic
cycle, however, a hydrologic balance is not pre-
sented as a closed, recirculating system but
involves instead the combination of natural
processes which can be designated as input,
storage, or output. The summation of storage and
output in a hydrologic balance will always equal
the total input.
Normally, precipitation is the principal source of
the natural supply of water. In California, however,
the input from precipitation is augmented by com-
paratively small amounts of water derived from the
overdraft of the state's groundwater basins,
inflows from Oregon, and diversions from the
Colorado River. The width of the arrow on the left
side of the graphic is scaled to portray the 200
million acre-feet of average annual precipitation
received by California. The width of the arrows for
supplemental inputs and other components of
California's hydrologic balance have been scaled
proportionately. The disposition of inputs can be
traced as the water moves from left to right in the
graphic. California's hydrologic balance, however,
is a complex system of components which vary
greatly across the state and throughout the year.
This graphic simplifies the complexity of the
system by portraying each of the principal com-
I Reserve suppl
I Agricultural flows
Salinity repulsion:
Waste discharged to salir
RUNOFF
and scenic rivers. 27.2
ng runoff: 17.8
ponents as if it were a single unit for the state.
Quantities shown for each component are the
average annual magnitude of water associated
with that function or process.
When precipitation arrives at the earth's surface
it is allocated to various outputs and forms of
storage by an environmentally controlled priority
scheme. Depletion of the input from precipitation
occurs within three major categories: return flows
to the atmosphere, storage and use, and runoff.
The natural demands for evaporation and evapo-
transpiration receive first priority in this natural
scheme, and return flows of moisture to the
atmosphere by evaporation and evapotranspira-
tion account for approximately 76 percent of the
precipitation input. Most evaporation and evapo-
transpiration occur from natural land and water
surfaces and from nonirrigated agricultural land.
Computation of the hydrologic balance for
California, however, requires consideration of the
effects of human modifications of the hydrologic
environment. For example, irrigated agriculture
increases evapotranspiration and reduces runoff
while asphalting land surfaces reduces moisture
infiltration and increases runoff. The evapotrans-
piration of water used for irrigated agriculture and
urban purposes accounts for 15 percent of the
total depletion of input which is attributable to
evaporation and evapotranspiration. In addition,
many of the various components of the hydrologic
balance are linked and some categories of water
disposition are consequently not necessarily
mutually exclusive. Water allocated originally to a
specified use, as in the State Water Project, for
example, may be largely evapotranspired or a
portion may become runoff. On the other hand,
moisture returned to the atmosphere by evapo-
transpiration from a forest is not available to
become runoff or to be applied to some further use.
The disposition of water for storage receives
second priority in the natural operation of the
hydrologic balance. Water may be stored as soil
moisture or in glaciers, snow, lakes, and ground-
water basins. A number of alternatives, however,
operate among the different forms of water stor-
age. Glaciers and snow, for example, store water
temporarily at the surface. After melting, some of
this water may be evaporated, some may become
runoff, and some may enter another form of stor-
age by infiltrating into the soil to be retained as soil
moisture or by percolating deeper to recharge
groundwater storage. In computing the hydro-
logic balance as shown here, soil moisture storage
and groundwater storage were not included
because net changes in annual soil moisture levels
occur only during extremely arid years, while net
changes in groundwater storage are indicated by
the average annual overdraft that is shown as a
supplemental input.
Runoff, the principal source of water for human
use in California, is the third priority for disposition
of the input to California from precipitation. Con-
sequently, runoff receives only those residual
amounts of precipitation which remain after
evaporation, evapotranspiration, and natural stor-
age requirements have been satisfied.
The magnitude of all the storage and use com-
ponents is small when compared with the magni-
tude of evaporation and evapotranspiration. A
summation of the components of the storage and
use category is provided by the developed water
supply figures. In-state development represents
39.2 million acre-feet but 56 percent of the devel-
oped water is consumed ultimately by evapotrans-
piration. Only 3.2 million acre-feet is retained as a
developed water reserve while flows into salt sinks
and runoff total 4.4 million acre-feet of developed
water. Depletion of the inputs produces a residual
of 51.4 million acre-feet of total runoff. The state-
generated portion of runoff is slightly less than
50 million acre-feet, but only 27.2 million acre-feet
is unencumbered runoff.
These differences, for example, proved determinative in the decision to
prepare the atlas using traditional units of measurement. Probably no sub-
ject was debated as vigorously by the advisory group as the question of
metrics; but when we found that the major water agencies had still not
agreed upon what the metric units for the measurement of water will be,
we felt we had no choice but to proceed as we have, providing metric con-
versions wherever appropriate.
In preparing this volume, we have consequently had to resolve many
differences of this kind and fill in numerous gaps in the available data with
research of our own. The result may be the most comprehensive assembly
of information on water in California that has ever been available to the
public. Whether we have succeeded in this lofty objective or not, the effort
itself establishes a value for the project which is greater than the subject
matter involved. For, we began with the assumption that it is a valid public
service to take the vast quantities of information government collects and
turn it back to the public in a readily accessible form in order to enhance
public understanding of the problems we must confront together. And our
success in this greater endeavor will be measured not by the volume itself
but by the uses to which the reader puts it in the years ahead.
William L. Kahrl
Sacramento, 1979
Glossary
acre-foot. A standard measurement of volume
equivalent to the amount of water required
to cover one acre one foot deep. One acre-
foot is approximately the amount of water
that the average family of five uses in one
year, including lawn and garden irrigation.
applied water demand. The quantity of water
delivered to the user at the point of use,
exclusive of any water lost in transport
to that point.
aquifer. Any geologic formation of sufficient
porosity and permeability to store, transmit,
and yield water to wells and springs. An
aquifer which is surrounded by imperme-
able materials is a confined aquifer.
artesian well. A well tapping an aquifer in
which the water level will stand above the
bottom of the confining bed of the aquifer
because the hydraulic pressure of the water
in the aquifer is greater than the force of
gravity. Where the water rises to ground
level, a flowing artesian well is created.
base flow. That portion of the discharge of a
stream or river that is not attributable
to runoff from rain or snow. Such a flow
may be sustained by drainage from natural
storage.
beneficial use. A use of water for some econ-
omic or social purpose. The specific identifi-
cation of beneficial uses may vary with
locality or custom, although the term is
most frequently defined by statute or court
decision. The State Water Resources Con-
trol Board recognizes 21 beneficial uses
of water and establishes the levels of water
quality required for each.
biochemical oxygen demand. The quantity of
oxygen used in the oxidation of organic
matter in water in a specified time, at a
specified temperature, and under specified
conditions.
blowdown. Water discharged from a boiler or
cooling tower to dispose of accumulated
salts. Also, the removal of a portion of any
process flow to maintain the constituents
of the flow within desired levels.
bypass. A channel used to divert flows from
a mainstream, as for the diversion of flood
waters.
cloud seeding. A method of weather modifi-
cation in which clouds are injected with a
seeding agent such as dry ice or silver iodide
in order to enhance precipitation, clear fog,
or inhibit the severity of storms.
conjunctive use. The coordinated use of sur-
face and groundwater supplies. One tech-
nique is to recharge a groundwater basin
during years of above-average precipitation
so that the water can be withdrawn during
years of below-average surface runoff.
cubic feet per second. A basic unit for meas-
uring the flow of water past a given point
over time. Equivalent to 449 gallons per
minute and 1.98 acre-feet per day.
drawdown. A lowering of the water level in
an aquifer or reservoir.
effluent. Liquid or gas issuing from a con-
tained space, as in the discharge of waste-
water from a treatment plant.
entitlement water. As used in connection with
the State Water Project, the amount of
project water made available at a delivery
structure provided for the contractor under
the terms of a contract with the state.
flume. An artificial water channel supported
on or above the ground for the conveyance
of water or materials such as logs or gravel.
headgate. A gate, flap or valve at the entrance
to a conduit, ditch, canal, or penstock which
is used to control water flow.
hydrograph. A graphic representation of some
property of water which is displayed with
respect to time.
instream use. A beneficial use of water in a
stream channel as for recreation, fish and
wildlife, navigation, the maintenance of ri-
parian vegetation, or scientific study.
levee. A ridge of material along a stream bank.
A natural levee is formed by the deposi
tion of sediment when a stream overtops its
banks during a flood. An artificial levee,
constructed of earth, rock or concrete, may
be used to contain or direct water flow.
navigable water. In general, any body of water
which, during a substantial portion of the
year, is capable of floating watercraft for
purposes of trade, commerce, transport, or
recreation. The United States Congress
exercises regulatory authority over those
navigable waters (and their tributaries) which
are susceptible to use for trade and com
merce. For purposes of defining ownership
of stream and lake beds by the State of Cali-
fornia, navigable water includes any body of
water which was in fact navigable at the
time of California's admission to the Union.
outfall. The point, location, or structure where
sewage or other drainage is discharged.
percolation. The movement of water through
the interstices of soil or rock.
point source. Any discernable, confined and
discrete conveyance from which pollutants
are or may be discharged; this is distin-
guished from a non-point source, which is
so general or covers so wide an area that no
single, localized source can be identified.
reclamation. As applied to land, the devel-
opment or improvement of land through
drainage, leaching to remove salts, flood
control, or the provision of irrigation water.
As applied to water, the treatment of waste-
water so as to make it suitable for some
beneficial use.
reimbursable costs. That portion of the cost
of developing and distributing a water sup-
ply which the water users are held respon-
sible to repay.
repayment period. The period of time pre-
scribed for the payment of reimbursable
costs. This period is commonly 40 or 50
years measured from a date specified in a
contract for water delivery or from the
time that the first services of a water pro-
ject are made available.
return flow. Any unconsumed water which
returns to its source or some other water
body after diversion from a surface water
supply or extraction from a groundwater
basin.
safe yield. As applied to groundwater, the
maximum quantity of water that can be
continuously withdrawn from a ground-
water basin without producing an unde-
sirable result. As applied to surface water,
it is the maximum annual dependable sup-
ply from a water source during the driest
period likely to occur.
sedimentation. The settling of solids in any
body of water because of gravity or chemi-
cal precipitation.
slough. A creek in a marshland or tidal flat
or an inlet from a river.
spreading. The application of water over areas
of porous material in order to recharge an
underlying groundwater basin.
storage, capacity. As applied to groundwater,
total storage capacity is the amount of water
that could potentially be extracted from a
given depth of a totally saturated aquifer
without regard to quality or economics;
usable storage capacity, however, is the
amount of water of acceptable quality that
can be economically withdrawn from the
aquifer. As applied to surface water, total
storage capacity is the total amount that
can be stored behind an impoundment
structure or in a natural lake; usable stor-
age capacity is the amount of water that
can be drained through the lowest outlet
of an impoundment structure.
total dissolved solids. The quantity of min-
erals in solution in water, usually stated
in nearly equivalent terms of parts per mil-
lion (ppm) or milligrams per liter (mg/l).
turnout. The point at which water is diverted
from a main channel or water delivery
facility to a distributing facility.
watershed. The total land area that contri-
butes water to a river, stream, lake, or
other body of water. Synonymous with
drainage area, drainage basin and catchment.
water year. A continuous 12-month period
within which hydrologic data is compiled
and reported. In California, the water year
starts on October 1, when groundwater
and reservoir levels are usually at their
lowest and the rainy season is about to begin.
weir. Any structure across a water course used
to control, raise, or measure flows.
wetland. Any area in which the water table
stands near, at, or above the land surface
for at least part of the year. Such areas are
characterized by plants that are adapted to
wet soil conditions.
to wheel. As applied to water and power, to
provide the use of one agency's convey-
ance facilities for the purpose of trans-
porting another agency's supply.
Metric Conversion Factors
Quantity
English unit
Multiply by
To get
metric equivalent
Length
inches
feet
yards
miles
2.54
0.3048
0.9144
1 .6093
centimeters
meters
meters
kilometers
Area
acres
square miles
0.40469
2.5898
hectares
square kilometers
Volume
gallons
acre-feet
cubic feet
3.7854
1 ,233.5
0.028317
liters
cubic meters
cubic meters
Discharge
cubic feet per
second
gallons per minute
0.028317
3.7854
cubic meters per
second
liters per minute
Weight (Mass)
pounds
tons
0.45359
0.90718
kilograms
tons (metric)
Temperature
degrees Fahrenheit
tF-32
1.8
degrees Celsius
Electrical
conductance
mho
1.0
Siemens
VI
CHAPTER 1
California's Water in
Context
Too many of us know only that water comes from
the tap and then disappears down the drain. We trust
that it will be available when we want it and that we
can dispose of it without causing obvious pollution in
our immediate surroundings. This lack of knowledge
is unfortunate because water and its development
for human use forms the basis of California's
modern prosperity, the framework of our history,
and the'substance of our existence. Seventy-five
percent of our body weight is water, and blood
plasma is 90 percent water. Water is so important to
our body functions that a loss of only 20 percent
brings death. The inventive mind of man has
developed no substitute for water in the production
of food and fiber to sustain our lives. In our urban
centers today, the use of water in homes averages
150 gallons per day for each person in the United
States. Per capita use in California is generally
greater than the national average and varies greatly
with the season of the year, location and climate, and
with the density and affluence of our population.
During the winter months in high density neighbor-
hoods, per capita use averages 100 gallons per day,
but during the summer in the hot Central Valley,
suburban dwellers may use as much as 660 gallons.
The amount of water we use directly in our
homes, large though it may appear to be, is only a
small fraction of the water used to produce our food
and fiber, to provide manufactured goods, and to
supply many of our other needs for such things as
electrical energy. This overall use of water has
climbed steadily from a per capita average of about
600 gallons daily in 1900 to 1,800 gallons in 1975.
Water is the life blood of agriculture, California's
largest industry. Assuming that approximately 1,600
pounds of food are produced to supply the 1,500
pounds consumed annually by a typical person and
that an average of 1,000 gallons of water are needed
to produce each pound of food, then it takes about
five acre-feet of water to produce the food the
average American consumes each year. The water
requirements of food items in our diet, however,
vary greatly. A pound of bread takes 136 gallons to
grow the wheat, a pound of potatoes 23 gallons, a
pound of tomatoes 125 gallons, and a pound of steak
2,500 gallons. In addition, one gallon of milk requires
932 gallons of water to grow the silage and alfalfa,
water the cows, and clean the barns. Water is also an
irreplaceable item in many manufacturing processes
and the availability of water in adequate quantity
and quality is necessary for economic growth and the
standard of living we enjoy. As a result, we are
coming increasingly to appreciate the essential role
of water in our total environment and also the
importance of our environment to human well-being
and to the maintenance of numerous delicately
balanced life-support systems which sustain us.
Water, however, makes up only one-tenth of one
percent of the earth's mass and very little of the
world's water can be used directly for human
agricultural, industrial, and domestic needs. Ninety-
seven percent of the world's water is in the ocean
where it contains many dissolved and suspended
materials. Of the remaining three percent, 2.2
percent is locked up in the polar ice caps, and three-
tenths of one percent is too deep underground to
recover and use. Less than one-half of one percent of
all the water on earth can be used directly to support
human life. Moreover, the earth's water supply is
fixed; the quantity available is essentially the same
now as it was more than five billion years ago when
the planet was formed. Consequently, all the water
we use is recycled. Every drop we drink, cook with,
wash with, or use to irrigate our crops has been used
countless times before.
Solar energy is the driving force behind this
continuous recycling process. The sun, warming the
surfaces of rivers, lakes, the ocean, and even the
water in plants and the soil, agitates water molecules
until their increased motion causes them to escape
and be carried into the atmosphere by warm air
currents. As these water molecules break away, they
leave behind all minerals and other pollutants
dissolved or suspended in the water. This is how our
water is periodically cleaned for re-use. As these
water molecules rise, they may be carried over land
and mountains before they cool, condense into
drops, and fall as rain or snow. Whether it occurs as
rain or melting snow and ice, water immediately
starts running downhill toward the ocean, first as
streams, and then combined into rivers. Some is
trapped in lakes and some percolates into groundwater
basins. But it is this water, recycled and redistributed
by nature, which we store, transport, pump, and use
to sustain our lives on earth.
The size and power of this natural recycling and
distribution system can be appreciated by a few
simple comparisons. A single one-inch rainfall on a
160-acre farm delivers 4,356,000 gallons or 36,300,000
pounds of water. To transport this 18,150 tons of
water would require 544 tank cars operating as four
trains each over a mile long. To evaporate this
amount of water from the ocean requires the
equivalent of over a million horsepower of energy.
Worldwide, about one-fourth of the total energy of
sunlight is used to evaporate water, more than 4,000
times the total power now available to the world's
industrialized civilizations. This water cycle is
absolutely vital to the continuing renewal and
purification of our water supply and thus it is
essential to all life.
Nature does not, of course, distribute its freshwater
supplies equally. In terms of water supply, California
is made up of two very dissimilar areas: the northern
portion shares characteristics with the more humid
areas of Oregon and Washington while its southern
half is a part of the most arid region in the United
States. As a result, the total water supply in
California is much less than that of many other
regions of the nation with which California competes
industrially and agriculturally. Although annual
average precipitation per square mile in California is
equivalent to 79 percent of the average for the entire
United States, it is only 44 percent of the average per
Numerous aspects of the urban,
industrial and recreational uses
of water are illustrated in this
view of the east side of San
Francisco Bay. Oakland is at
the bottom of the photograph,
Berkeley to the north, and the
fringes of Lafayette can be seen
at the far right. Intensive water
use for vegetation in public parks,
which appear here as vivid red,
contrast markedly with the
urbanized areas and watershed
lands where the East Bay Mu-
nicipal Utility District maintains
its reservoirs.
Population and Water Use
State A B
Arizona
California
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
A. Irrigation water withdrawn (million gallons per day, 1975)
B. Water withdrawn from all sources, fresh and saline, except
hydropower (million gallons per day. 1975)
C. Water withdrawn for public supplies from all sources (gallons
per capita per day, 1975)
D. Estimated population 1978
Selected Western Rivers
Average Annual Discharge (acre-feet)*
7,000
7,800
211
2,360,000
35,000
51,000
185
22,018,000
9,300
10,000
200
2,644,000
15,000
17,000
236
855,000
11,000
12,000
267
764,000
3,100
3,500
321
637,000
2,900
3,200
236
1,202,000
6,000
6,900
190
2,373,000
3,500
4,100
331
1,264,000
5,500
7,200
256
3,697,000
6,800
7,200
191
407,000
Stream
Gaging Station
Discharge
Columbia
The Dalles, Oregon
140,600,000
Snake
Clarkston, Washington
36,225,000
Willamette
Wilsonville, Oregon
20,540,000
Pend Oreille
lone, Washington
20,540,000
Sacramento
Sacramento, California
17,870,000
Clark Fork
Cabinet, Idaho
15,920,000
Klamath
Klamath, California
12,900,000
Colorado
Compact Point, Arizona
12,860,000
Skagit
Mt. Vernon, Washington
12,000,000
Yellowstone
Sidney, Montana
9,353,000
Flathead
Poison, Montana
8,469,000
Salmon
White Bird, Idaho
8,013,000
Cowlitz
Castle Rock, Washington
6,618,000
Spokane
Long Lake, Washington
5,793,000
Umpqua
Elkton, Oregon
5,387,000
Eel
Scotia, California
5,379,000
Green
Green River, Utah
4,614,000
Rogue
Agness, Oregon
4,411,000
Deschutes
Biggs, Oregon
4,196,000
Trinity
Hoopa, California
3,958,000
Platte
South Bend, Nebraska
3,912,000
San Joaquin
Vernalis, California
3,197,000
Chehalis
Porter, Washington
3,018,000
Smith
Crescent City, California
2,819,000
American
Fair Oaks, California
2,765,000
Pit
Montgomery Creek, California
2,721,000
Bighorn
Bighorn, Montana
2,721,000
Payette
Payette, Idaho
2,199,000
Quinault
Quinault Lake, Washington
2,037,000
San Juan
Bluff, Utah
1,892,000
Yuba
Smartville, California
1,866,000
Gunnison
Grand Junction, Colorado
1,860,000
Coeur D'Alene
Cataldo, Idaho
1,827,000
Russian
Guemeville, California
1,712,000
Kings
Pine Flat Dam, California
1,624,000
Salmon
Somes Bar, California
1,331,000
Mad
Areata, California
1,137,000
* Average annual discharge to 1975 is shown for California rivers, to 1970 for other
rivers, and for the period 1913-1962 for the Colorado.
Selected Western Reservoirs
Reservoir
Stream
Capacity (acre-feet)
Lake Mead
Colorado
29,755,000
Lake Powell
Colorado
27,000,000
Fort Peck
Missouri
19,432,000
F, D. Roosevelt Lake
Columbia
9,562,000
Lake Koocanusa
Kootenai
5,809,000
Shasta Lake
Sacramento
4,552,000
Flaming Gorge
Green
3,789,000
Lake Oroville
Feather
3,538,000
Hungry Horse
Flathead
3,468,000
Dworshak
Clearwater
3,459,000
Lake Umatilla
Columbia
2,500,000
Clair Engle Lake
Trinity
2,448,000
Elephant Butte
Rio Grande
2,109,000
Canyon Ferry Lake
Missouri
2,051,000
San Luis
San Luis Creek
2,039,000
Don Pedro
Tuolumne
2,030,000
Lake Mojave
Colorado
1,818,000
Navajo
San Juan
1,709,000
American Falls
Snake
1,700,000
Riffe Lake
Cowlitz
1,685,000
Lake Berryessa
Putah Creek
1,602,000
Lake Pend Oreille
Pend Oreille
1,561,000
Brownlee
Snake
1,427,000
Ross Lake
Skagit
1,405,000
Palisades
Snake
1,400,000
T. Roosevelt Lake
Salt
1,382,000
Yellowtail
Bighorn
1,375,000
Tiber
Marias
1,369,000
Lake Wallula
Columbia
1,350,000
Lake Almanor
Feather
1,308,000
Banks Lake
Columbia
1,275,000
Abiquiu
Rio Chama
1,225,000
San Carlos
Gila
1,210,000
Strawberry
Strawberry
1,107,000
Alamo
Bill Williams
1,043,000
Lake McClure
Merced
1,026,000
Pathfinder
North Platte
1,016,000
Seminoe
North Platte
1,012,000
Folsom Lake
American
1,010,000
Pine Flat Lake
Kings
1,002,000
California Surface Inflows & Outflows
Average Annual Inflows (acre-feet)
Average Annual Outflows (acre-feet)
Dashed lines indicate
man-made flows.
square mile in the South Atlantic and East Gulf
states. And while the average annual runoff in
California is more than nine times that of the
Colorado River Basin as a whole, it is eqivalent to
only 51 percent of the average runoff per square
mile in the Ohio River Basin and 36 percent of the
annual averages that obtain in New England.
California is, however, unique in many ways. It
has a 1,072-mile coastline on the Pacific Ocean which
greatly moderates its climate, affects its water
supply and use, and provides a sink for outflows
from rivers and streams and from our agricultural
and urban developments. The state is essentially cut
off hydrologically by mountains from its neighboring
states to the east. Consequently, except for some
inflows from Oregon, small outflows to Nevada, and
the significant quantities of water from the Colorado
River which California shares with other states and
Mexico, our water supply is essentially independent
of other states.
Precipitation is the principal source of California's
water supply. The state's average annual precipitation
is about 200 million acre-feet. Two-thirds of this
total falls on the northern one-third of the state.
About 65 percent of this precipitation is lost by
evaporation directly into the atmosphere leaving
only 71 million acre-feet for the average annual
runoff in streams. Forty percent of this runoff or 28
million acre-feet occurs in north coastal streams; 31
percent or 22 million acre-feet in the Sacramento
River system; nine percent or seven million acre-feet
in the San Joaquin River system; and 20 percent or
14 million acre-feet is scattered over the rest of the
state. Approximately one-fourth of the total average
runoff or 18 million acre-feet is now protected from
development under the state's wild and scenic rivers
program.
Groundwater is an important adjunct to the
natural supply provided by surface streamflows. The
vast groundwater basins which underlie the Central
Valley and other areas of the state have an estimated
total capacity of 1.3 billion acre-feet with a usable
capacity some estimate to be as high as 143 million
acre-feet. In years of normal rainfall, groundwater
supplies 40 percent of the water used in the San
Joaquin Valley. In the drought year 1977, however,
groundwater provided about 80 percent of agriculture's
needs when 9,000 new wells were drilled in this
valley alone. Statewide, more than 20,000 new wells
were brought into production in 1977, further
aggravating the serious overdraft or mining of
California's groundwater. During recent years of
average precipitation, groundwater overdraft has
approximated two million acre-feet; the groundwater
overdraft in 1977, however, has been variously
estimated at four to ten million acre-feet. Overdraft
in future dry years could go higher unless steps are
taken. Failure to control such overdrafts will increase
energy requirements for pumping, decrease water
availability, produce water of poorer quality,
encourage saltwater intrusion along the shores of
saline bays and the ocean, and bring about significant
and sometimes serious land subsidence.
Views on water development and use are changing.
Historically, Californians have developed and used
water so as to minimize constraints on the growth of
our cities and irrigated agriculture. Nature may have
intended much of California's now highly populated
areas and most productive croplands to be brown,
but we have turned them green with produce or gray
with concrete according to our will. More recently,
however, we have come to realize that water is itself
a limited resource. The emphasis today is not so
much upon water development as upon water
management. What this alteration in our attitudes
will mean for the future of California cannot easily
be predicted. But the situation clearly calls for
increasing scrutiny of the reasonableness or efficiency
of present water uses.
There is considerable misunderstanding about
water use. The term "use" sometimes refers to the
total quantities diverted from surface water sources
or pumped from groundwater. Alternatively, it may
be applied to mean only that portion of the supplied
water which becomes unavailable for further use by
being lost in evaporation from water, soil, or plant
surfaces or incorporated into plant tissue or into
manufactured goods. Accordingly, some water uses
are non-consumptive and others are consumptive.
More than half the water delivered to California's
irrigated farms, on the average, is lost to the
atmosphere by evaporation from soil and transpiration
by plants. Evaporation from soil can be partially
controlled by the installation of efficient irrigation
systems and management practices. But the process
of evapotranspiration from plant leaves remains
largely uncontrolled and presents, therefore, a
tremendous challenge to those seeking efficient
conservation. Water use in homes, except that lost to
the air in irrigating plants, is generally non-
consumptive. Typically, more than 90 percent of the
water used in homes is degraded and disposed of
down the drain. Similarly, water delivered to most
industrial plants is used non-consumptively to
convey, wash, cool, or heat materials. Most of this
water becomes effluent and remains a part of the
state's water supply. But pollution itself can be
equivalent to a consumptive use when the water
becomes so degraded that the treatment necessary
for its re-use may not be technically or economically
feasible and its discharge to the ocean or other sink is
consequently the most practical solution to the problem
of its disposal.
In terms of withdrawals, 87 percent of California's
developed water is taken for irrigation; 8.5 percent
for domestic, commercial, and institutional uses; 2
percent for manufacturing; and about 2.5 percent for
other purposes. But in terms of consumptive use, 91
percent goes for irrigation, 5 percent for domestic
and related uses, one percent for manufacturing, and
about 3 percent for others. By the year 2000, the
portion used consumptively by irrigation is expected
to decline slightly to 89 percent accompanied by
small increases in municipal and industrial uses.
Predictions of water use are highly controversial,
however, due to uncertainties about projected
population levels and our inability to predict the
domestic and international markets for various
agricultural products as well as other changes related
to crop production. Based on four population
alternatives and four alternative levels of crop
production, it has been estimated that present water
diversions will increase from about 37 million acre-
feet today to 41-46 million acre-feet by 1990 and 43-
55 million acre-feet by 2020. An unquantified
amount of water will also be needed to provide
instream flows for fish and wildlife, to preserve
wetlands for birds, and to protect water quality in
areas such as the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and
the San Francisco Bay.
How can water be managed so as to meet as fully
as possible the needs of diverse and legitimate
interests at all levels and in all geographic areas?
There are no easy answers. Sound water policy and
action programs require that account be taken not
only of the scientific and technical aspects of water
management but also of the numerous historic,
economic, social, environmental, legal, institutional,
and political interests involved. The sections of the
atlas that follow treat these many factors and their
interrelationships in detail. Only through enlightened
public understanding of these complex issues can we
hope to integrate divergent viewpoints and contending
interests into a wise policy of water management
which will have sufficient resiliency to cope with
climatic change and other developments in our
society which could substantially alter California's
efforts to achieve a balance between water supply
and water demand.
CHAPTER 2
The Natural Endowment
Water has shaped California from the very
beginning. Ever since the Sierra Nevada and coastal
ranges rose as obstacles to the eastward flow of air
from the Pacific, water has been carving canyons;
steepening, lowering, and smoothing slopes; forming
vertical walls; and carrying the debris from the
mountains to the lowlands where sediments accumulated
to form broad plains and valleys of rich soil. The gold
of the Mother Lode got there partly by hydrothermal
action, and subsequent stream erosion sorted the
gold into auriferous gravels where men later found it
in 1849. The winter-moistened slopes of the mountains
have been conducive to the growth of the world's
largest living things — the Sequoia sempervirens of
the Coast Range and the more massive Sequoiadendron
giganteum in the Sierra Nevada. East of the Sierra,
water deficiency produced an austere environment
requiring the utmost in survival techniques, and
here the bristlecone pine achieved outstanding
success as the oldest of all living things.
This diversity of climates both reflects the
diversity of environments within the state and
contributes to that diversity. Most water provides
life support for plants and animals only after it has
seeped into the ground; but the upland redwood
forests are an exception to this rule, as are certain
fern-related species that collect fog and water vapor.
Along the sheltered inland margins of bays, lagoons,
and estuaries, salt and brackish water marshes
provide fertile and productive habitats rich in
nutrients which support grasses, pickleweed, mussels,
clams, herons, egrets, and hosts of migrant waterfowl.
Further inland where the land is relatively flat,
freshwater marshes and swamps, which once
covered an estimated 500,000 acres of California,
provide habitats as well for ducks, marsh wrens,
rails, swans, and geese.
As water enters streams, it brings nutrients,
sediments, and aeration that create a diversity of in-
stream plant and animal communities. Wildlife along
the riverbanks varies according to climate, elevation,
the temperature of the water, the rate at which it
flows, and the seasons of the year when flows are
sufficient to sustain life. Plants that are specially
adapted to saturated soils and flooding are found
here, such as the red alder and aspen, the sycamore
Wildfowl in flight over the marsh-
lands of the Sacramento Valley
today. Such areas once covered
an estimated 500,000 acres of
California.
and valley oak in the Central Valley, and the
cottonwood and willow along the Colorado. Where
conditions are right, riparian habitats also support
myriads of insects which draw insectivorous birds,
amphibians, and reptiles as well as the predator birds
which feed on them in turn. Raccoons and golden
beaver come for shade and shelter and it is here too
that the yellow-billed cuckoo makes his home.
Salmon and the native golden trout are found in
colder waters, while catfish and bass prefer warmer
temperatures.
Where water falls as snow, two immediate plant
communities are created: the snow cup red algae
community that is found throughout the Sierra; and
the snow margin community of high alpine meadows
which is especially adapted to cold water. In the
mountain meadows, burrowing animals flourish,
and the hardy water ouzel strides the banks of
mountain streams. In the harsh desert climes, widely
scattered springs, seeps, and holes support stickleback,
chubs, and a variety of species of pupfish. And
scattered throughout the Central Valley, the
foothills of the Coastal Range, and the mesas of
Southern California, vernal pools spring to life and
then die back with the passing of each rainy season,
rare and transitory habitats which are found only in
South Africa and California.
Unlike many other parts of the country, California
has but two seasons, a dry summer and more or less
humid winter. Throughout the state approximately
80 percent of the annual precipitation occurs in the
five months November through March. Although
the rains commence in October of some years and
sometimes continue into April, the months of May
through September — the principal growing season
in most other states — are rainless or nearly so. There
is, however, no single dormant season for plant life
in California; instead, there is something growing all
the time.
In general, the qualities of a dry summer season
and a mild humid winter are found in the southwest
corners of many major continents. These conditions
are identified as a Mediterranean climate but they
exist as well in southwest Africa, Chile, and parts of
Australia. Although California does not have an
equivalent to the Mediterranean Sea, which extends
maritime conditions and mild winters eastward from
the Atlantic Ocean to the Middle East, it does have a
high mountain barrier separating it from the more
severe winters of the continental interior. And so,
California competes successfully with the balmiest
parts of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East,
with commodities that thrive in mild winters and
sunny, dry summers such as cereals, grasses, olives,
citrus fruits, grapes, wine, tourists, and horses.
ATMOSPHERIC WATER
The Pacific Ocean is the source of water that
enters California through the atmosphere. Along
the coast in early morning the relative humidity
generally exceeds 80 percent, with little difference
from month to month or from north to south along
the coast. The degree of saturation is likely to
decrease during the day because of heating of the
atmosphere, but the relative humidity generally
remains above 60 percent along the coast.
In winter the land surface is colder than the ocean
and there is rain because the moist air is cooled as it
Mean Annual Precipitation
it River PH 5
93 inches f
Alturas
12.82 inches
Histograms of mean monthly
precipitation at representative
stations refer to locations (with
elevations) shown on map.
, cccr
mCCLUW
m ujmm
_ u^=fois2
zm£cc>:zi<Kf->o
<w<Q.<33Duj<->Otu
5<5=!n<3!OZC
Cr <-I
Mean annual
precipitation
in inches
-mean-annual-
Station—
locatioti-
pxe/upiia.ttacL
5 "
-c
u
c
moves inland. Continued cooling as the air is forced
up over mountains, and the influx of cooler air
masses from the Gulf of Alaska produce more rain or
snow. In summer the ocean surface is colder than the
land and the difference is accentuated by the cold
California current moving from the north and near
the shore. The air from the ocean has relatively high
humidity and may produce fog offshore that
envelopes some coastal areas night and morning; but
the warming effect of travel overland permits
retention of the water vapor, and precipitation is
rare.
Solar energy is the driving force behind the move-
ment of atmospheric water. This energy, which is
greatest in the tropics where the noonday sun is
overhead part of the time and at a high angle all year,
heats water and land and air at the earth's surface,
and creates water vapor which rises with the hot air
until it is cooled enough to condense and drop out and
return to water or land, still within the tropics. The
dehydrated air moves out of the tropics at high levels
and is replaced by nearsurface "trade winds" moving
toward the equator. The high, dry, upper air eventu-
ally descends to form cells of high pressure, calms,
and light changeable winds within the "Horse Lati-
tudes" (30-35 degrees North) where sailors, becalmed
like the Ancient Mariner, could soliloquize about
horses aboard ship and whether to water, dunk, or eat
them.
Each year on June 21 the sun is directly over
Mazatlan in Mexico, and cloudless skies can be
expected throughout the area dominated by the
Pacific High, the high pressure zone over the Pacific
Ocean which extends as far as 40 degrees North
Latitude. Hot sun and cloudless skies will also be the
rule throughout the summer for the deserts of
northern Mexico and the southwestern United
States. The sun then appears farther south each day
until, by December 21, it is directly over Antofagasta
in northern Chile. Thousands of recreational vehicles
follow it part way each year and the center of the
Pacific High in most years moves several degrees
southward, perhaps as far as the southern boundary
of California. The southward retreat of the Pacific
High is important for the peace of mind of Californi-
ans: so long as it remains in its northern position, it
blocks the progress of low-pressure cells generated
near the Aleutian Islands, and the winter rainy season
is delayed or thwarted.
Precipitation includes all forms of water that fall
from the atmosphere and reach the ground as rain,
snow, drizzle, hail, ice crystals, or pellets. The flow of
precipitable water into California is greatest along the
North Coast and progressively less to the south. In an
average year the North Coast has more than 75 days
and Southern California less than 40 days of measur-
able precipitation. The mean annual rainfall on
coastal plains near sea level is about 40 inches along
the North Coast, decreasing to 20 inches in the San
Francisco Bay Area and to 10 inches near San Diego.
Topography is a controlling factor in the distribu-
tion of precipitation throughout the state. The mean
annual precipitation on mountains adjacent to the
coast may exceed 100 inches along the North Coast,
50 inches near San Francisco, and 30 inches near
Santa Barbara. Less than 100 miles to the east and at
the same latitudes, the mean annual precipitation
drops to 23 inches at Red Bluff, 14 inches at Stockton,
and 6 inches at Bakersfield because the Central Valley
is in the "rain-shadow" of the Coast Ranges. Still
farther east, along the 400-mile Sierra Nevada, mean
annual precipitation at these latitudes rises again to
about 80 inches, 60 inches, and 40 inches as the
mountains wring out a large proportion of the
precipitable water in the air masses attempting to
surmount them. And Nevada, as a result, becomes the
driest state in the Union, at least so far as water is
concerned.
Mean annual rainfall is less than 10 inches in exten-
sive areas south of 37 degrees North Latitude,
including the Colorado and Mojave deserts in Imperi-
al, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties; the
southern part of the Central Valley; and several
desert valleys in the Great Basin, which extends
eastward from the Sierra Nevada to the Wasatch
Mountains and high plateaux of Utah and Arizona.
These desert valleys are bordered by mountains
which are also arid, but which may be high enough to
intercept some moisture and wear a winter snowcap
once in awhile.
The mean annual precipitation map in this volume
is a graphic portrayal of the concept that precipitation
in California increases with increasing latitude or
Fog bank crossing over San Francisco Bay
increasing altitude, and decreases in the lee of
mountain interceptors. The map does not, however,
depict usual conditions, those that can be expected in
most years. Variations in precipitation are so great
that the state rarely enjoys a "normal" year in which
precipitation would conform to the means portrayed
on the map. Instead, California's climate is likely to be
a product of the extremes rather than a product of the
means. Records of precipitation characteristically
show successions of several years when precipitation
was below the long-term average, perhaps interrupt-
ed by a year or two above average, followed by a series
of years when precipitation was generally above
average. Major trends in precipitation, including the
intensity and duration of alternating wet and dry
periods, are shown in the graphic comparisons of
precipitation variability. Thus the pattern of precipi-
tation throughout California is irregularly cyclic:
"cyclic" enough to be recognized in history, and
"irregular" enough to defy prediction.
In addition to driving the air masses from which
California derives its precipitation, solar energy also
works to return water from the earth's surface to the
atmosphere, through evaporation from land and
water surfaces, and through transpiration by plants.
The operation of these natural demand factors helps
to determine which areas of California will experi-
ence water deficiencies while others enjoy a surplus.
The annual evaporative demand is less than 40
inches along the North Coast and in the high Sierra
Nevada, where annual precipitation may be twice as
great. These are consequently the principal areas of
surplus within the state. In the rest of California the
average water income from the atmosphere through
precipitation is insufficient to balance the demand for
evaporation, and water deficiencies result. The
demand is less than 50 inches throughout the Sierra
Nevada and in coastal areas as far south as Monterey;
but, even though the annual precipitation in these
areas is of similar magnitude, the rainfall occurs in
winter and may not be available for evaporation in
summer when the demand is greatest. Evaporative
demand exceeds 60 inches a year throughout the
Central Valley, far greater than the annual precipita-
tion. And in the southeastern deserts where precipi-
tation is least, the evaporative demand rises above 70
inches and approaches 120 inches in Death Valley.
Because natural demand is at a minimum during
the rainy winter season, and at a maximum during
the rainless summer season, most of California
experiences both a water surplus and a water
deficiency each year. The northwest corner of
California and the highest Sierra Nevada are the
only areas wet enough to have little or no deficiency
in any season. At the other extreme, the southeast-
ern deserts, the San Joaquin Valley, and several
smaller valleys in southern California have little or
no water surplus in any season. All the rest of
California — about two-thirds of the total area — has a
winter surplus and a summer deficiency of water.
The amount of surplus in any given area changes
from storm to storm and then dwindles to become a
deficiency that changes from month to month, and
these seasonal variations in surplus and deficiency
are modified from year to year by California's wet
and dry cycles.
Water deficiencies are limiting factors in terrestri-
al life. If people, animals, or plants are to survive in
times and areas of deficiency, they must either adapt,
draw their water supplies from some distant source,
or depend upon the storage of water from the
surpluses of yesterday or yesteryear. Where sur-
pluses occur, on the other hand, they are the stuff
that create and maintain river systems.
RIVER SYSTEMS
Runoff occurs wherever or whenever there is
more water than can be retained in various water-
storage facilities. Runoff may derive from surpluses
of rainfall or snow melt that cannot be absorbed into
the ground; from ponds or lakes or swamps that
overflow; from the discharge of springs or seeps into
+500
+400
A
+300
+200
+100
-100
-200
-300
N€
was
da City
Lo
sA
mgeles
1870
Aa
A
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930
Year
A
f\
30
19
10
19
SO
1960
1970
1980
+300
+200
+100
-100
-200
-300
Mc
jrci
3d
Fir*
i Stati
on
#2
1870
18
90
19
00
1910
19
20
19
30 1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
Year
+400
+300
+200
+100
Ds
ivis
-100
-200
-300
1870
18
SO
18
30
19
30
19
10
19
20
19
30
19-
10
19
SO
191
50
19
70
1980
Year
if
0.
E
3
O
+500
+400
Pyrgl
Sa
n C
)fe<
30
+300
+200
+100
/
A
-100
/
V
K
t
-200
\
I
w
-300
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930
Year
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
Precipitation Variability
Precipitation is expected to vary with the season,
but annual variations in precipitation are just as signi-
ficant and much less predictable. The arithmetic
mean of annual precipitation is widely used as an
indicator of the precipitation that can be expected in a
given year. As the magnitude of average annual pre-
cipitation decreases, however, the variability of
annual precipitation increases, and the average
becomes a less efficient indicator of expected pre-
cipitation. The bar graphs portray the year-to-year
variability in precipitation and illustrate that average
precipitation is the exception in California. (The
average annual precipitation is given in parentheses
after the station name on each graph.)
Longer term trends in precipitation variability are
portrayed by the graphs of cumulative departures
from average precipitation. Wet periods of above-
average precipitation produce upward-tending
curves while dry periods of below-average precipita-
tion produce downward-tending curves. These
graphs show that wet and dry periods are variable in
length and are not coincident statewide.
110
100
90
80
70
60
Los Angeles (14
j i
S 50
a
u
£
a
1870
1880
1890
1900
1910
1920 1930
Year
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
110
100
Merced Fire Station # 2 (11.40)
a
O
c
Q.
i
a.
1870
1880
1890
1900
1910
1920 1930
Year
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
110
100
90
80
Davis (16.71)
1870
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930
Year
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
at
£
o
c
a.
o
2
a.
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1
JL mi 1
i „
San Diego (9.88)
1890
1900
1910
1920 1930
Year
1940
1950
1960
1970 1980
Annual Runoff and Seasonality
'0-
m
\\
,Vj
Mean Annual Runoff
/ m\
(5) U-
\ \
116)
J17)
Inches of Runoff
40 and over
10
1 and under
(25)
(11)
* Location of gauging station whose
recorded data have been used to
generate the seasonal runoff graph
for that river.
In the graphs below and to the right,
runoff is the mean daily value for each
month. Data for the period of record
were used for all stations except the
Pit and Sacramento rivers, which
employ pre-regulation data only.
San Francisco I
J12)
X-
\i
\\ \w
An
v(22)
(141
\\
rr
\(23)(
Area of Drainage Basins (sq. miles)
(1) Smith River
609
(2) Klamath River
12,000
(3) Mad River
485
(4) Eel River
3,113
(5) Noyo River
106
(6) McCloud River
604
(7) Pit River
4,711
(8) Stoney Creek
737
(9) Sacramento River
8,900
(10) Russian River
793
(11) Napa River
81
(12) Coyote Creek
196
(13) Salinas River
3,563
(14) Arroyo Seco
244
(15) Feather River
3,624
(16) Yuba River
1,108
(17) American River
1,888
(18) Putah Creek
574
(19) Cosumnes River
536
(20) Merced River
1,061
(21) San Joaquin River
1,676
(22) Kings River
1,545
(23) Kern River
2,407
(24) Truckee River
932
(25) East Fork Carson River
341
(26) East Walker River
467
(27) Owens River
2,604
(28) Salt Creek
(29) Ventura River
188
(30) Los Angeles River
827
(31) Santa Ana River
209
(32) San Diego River
377
(33) Mojave River
514
(33)
(29r
., C
Los Angeles?
(30)
N
-7<!L
San Diego
* (32)
50
700 mi
100
200 km
North Coast
63,000
Runoff
(acre-feet)
9,000 /# J
■1 Smith River (1)
■H Klamath River (2)
■i Mad River (3)
■i Eel River (4)
■1 Noyo River (5)
* Runoff of 50 acre-feet or less
OCT NOV DEC JAN
MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
San Francisco Bay and Central Coast
Runoff
(acre-feet)
■I Russian River (10)
■ Napa River (11)
■ Coyote Creek (12)
■ Salinas River (13)
■ Arroyo Seco (14)
* Runoff of 50 acre-feet or less
\
NOV DEC
MAY JUN
San Joaquin
Runoff
(acre-feet)
I Cosumnes River (19)
| Merced River (20)
■ San Joaquin River (21)
I Kings River (22)
I Kern River (23)
* Runoff of 50 acre-feet or less
Lahontan
27,000
Runoff
(acre-feet)
Truckee River (24)
East Fork Carson River (25)
East Walker River (26)
Owens River (27)
Salt Creek (28)
* Runoff of 50 acre-feet or less
I —
Sacramento Basin
66,000
60,000
Runoff
(acre-feet)
McCloud River (6)
Pit River (7)
Stony Creek (8)
Sacramento River (9)
MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
Sacramento Basin
Runoff
(acre-feet)
Feather River (15)
Yuba River (16)
American River (17)
Putah Creek (18)
MOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
South Coast and Colorado Desert
Runoff
(acre-feet)
I Ventura River (29)
I Los Angeles River (30)
I Santa Ana River (31 )
I San Diego River (32)
I Mojave River (33)
* Runoff of 50 acre-feet or less
NOV DEC
MAR APR
The dramatic contrast between
the volumes of water carried
by the major rivers of the North
Coast as compared to the much
smaller quantities of runoff avail-
able in the South Coast suggests
one reason why water planners
in Southern California have often
looked to the north for assistance
in meeting the water needs of
their burgeoning population. In
addition, this graphic comparison
of the different points in the
water year that maximum sur-
face runoff occurs in each of
the state's hydrologic basins helps
to illustrate why simultaneous
flooding throughout California
is a rare event.
streams; or from water falling on impermeable rocks
or roofs or pavements or ice. Runoff is downhill and
down valley and it will eventually reach the ocean if
not lost to the atmosphere or caught in a closed basin
or other storage facility enroute. Flow to the ocean is
achieved by a remarkable organization of river
systems that ramify to the smallest tributaries. The
incipient development of such systems can be seen
on smooth slopes such as road cuts, spoil banks, or
cultivated fields. Overland flow or sheet runoff may
result from the first rainstorms, but rills and
branching channels develop quickly by erosion that
fashions their depth, cross section, and areal
configuration. Natural channels of all sizes develop
similarly.
Mean annual runoff throughout the state is eight
inches, which is approximately 35 percent of mean
annual precipitation. In most of California, however,
variability is the keynote for all runoff, from time to
time at any place as well as from place to place at any
time. The direct runoff from rainfall reflects the
varying intensities and durations of individual
storms, which are separated by rainless intervals
that may range from a few hours to many months.
As a result, the mean monthly runoff in most
California streams varies greatly throughout the
year. During individual months of maximum flow,
runoff is commonly more than 20 percent and may
be as much as 35 percent of the annual mean.
Minimum monthly runoff may be less than one
percent of the annual runoff, and in some streams
there is no flow at all for one or more months.
Precipitation on the Coast Ranges is generally rain
or snow that melts within a few hours or days.
Runoff from these areas increases soon after a storm
begins, particularly if rain is intense, and dwindles
after the storm ceases. The rocks that make up the
Coast Ranges are generally relatively impermeable,
and this may increase the rapidity and magnitude of
storm runoff. In coastal streams generally 75 to 90
percent of the mean annual runoff has occurred by
March 31, the end of the rainy season in most years.
By contrast, the temperatures in the Sierra
Nevada are cold enough that most precipitation falls
as snow and remains and accumulates on the ground
until spring. As a result, more than 60 percent of the
mean annual runoff may occur after March 31,
probably reaching a peak in May but continuing
through June and still significant in July. The graphic
presentation of annual runoff and seasonality in this
section shows the great difference that exists
between the seasons of the rivers and the seasons of
the heavens, as the time-delay effects of snow
storage produce different periods of peak runoff for
each of the hydrologic areas of California. The value
of the winter accumulation of snow as a magnificent
water-storage facility provided entirely by nature is
further illustrated by the example of the Trinity
River. The Trinity River has a drainage basin of
2,865 square miles and is tributary to the Klamath
River, an interstate stream flowing to the Pacific
Ocean. Much of the precipitation on the Trinity
basin is rain, and 45 percent of the mean annual
runoff occurs by March 31. But higher elevations
within the basin receive considerable amounts of
snow, which create a freshet during the spring that
provides 50 percent of the annual runoff. Thus the
Trinity maintains relatively high rates of runoff over
a period of six months or more.
Mean annual runoff rises to more than 80 inches
in the northwestern corner of the state but declines
to less than 0.25 inch in the southeastern deserts and
closed basins in the southern third of the Central
Valley. Areas of such extreme water deficiency are a
hostile environment to surface water whether
flowing in streams or standing in lakes or reservoirs.
The streams flowing in these desert areas are
habitual losers to the unrelenting sun. Some streams
are ephemeral or seasonal, others have broad sandy
channels which, according to neighbors, "never"
have water and do not deserve the name of river or
rio. If there is perennial flow, it is limited to short
reaches in mountainous headwaters or to areas of
spring discharge. But such streams can flash into
national prominence during once-in-a-lifetime or
"hundred-year" floods. For example, rain beginning
February 27, 1938, caused disastrous floods in
Southern California: peak flows on March 2 reached
100,000 cfs in the Santa Ana River, 65,700 cfs in the
San Gabriel River, and an estimated 67,000 cfs in the
Los Angeles River at Main Street. In this flood
290,000 acres were inundated, 87 lives were lost, and
estimated damage exceeded $78 million. And yet,
-
most people regard the Los Angeles River as a dry
channel.
Only one river, the Colorado, traverses the
Southwest American Desert and discharges into the
sea. It has done a magnificent job of carving canyons
and transporting the debris therefrom to form a
huge delta which separated the Gulf of California
from the Salton Basin as it sank below sea level along
the San Andreas Fault. As a result, the Imperial and
Coachella valleys today are the only agricultural
regions below sea level in North America. The
Mojave River, with headwaters in the high San
Bernardino Mountains, flows toward the Colorado
River but gets lost in the Mojave Desert. In most
years the water is lost before it reaches Barstow 50
miles east of the headwaters, but in flood years some
water may reach and accumulate in Soda Lake,
another 50 miles to the east. During the flood of
March 1938, the Mojave River generated 150,000
acre-feet in its mountain headwaters, of which
120,000 acre-feet flowed past Barstow and discharged
into erstwhile dry lakes.
The Owens River has several tributaries that
drain the steep eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada,
and has had enough water in the past to fill Owens
Lake 250 feet deep and then overflow to form lakes
in Indian Wells, Searles, Panamint, and Death Valley.
But that was during the Ice Age which ended
thousand of years ago. For many centuries the river
has ended at Owens Lake, and most of its water is
now diverted into reservoirs and pipelines before it
gets near the former lake. Evidences of its former
affluence — a fossil river system — are the high shore
lines in Death Valley and Panamint Valley, and the
brines of borax, potash, soda ash, and salt cake that
have accumulated in Searles Lake.
The southern part of the Central Valley is
currently a closed basin. Buena Vista Lake is the
ultimate goal of the Kern River, southernmost of the
Sierra rivers. Two smaller rivers, the Tule and
Kaweah, flow toward a larger and lower depression
farther north called Tulare Lake, and the Kings
River still farther north turns southward toward the
same depression. Although this southern end of the
Central Valley has become isolated from the San
Joaquin River System, early explorers noted that in
1853 the Tulare Basin contained a lake of about
450,000 acres extent, which overflowed to the San
Joaquin River. In 1862 Tulare Lake reached a level
six feet above the overflow line and covered an area
of perhaps 500,000 acres. It may have been even
higher in 1868 and overflows occurred in several
subsequent years before ceasing in 1878. The lake
dried up during the drought years 1894-1904,
reappeared during the wet years 1906-16, and then
disappeared during the drought of 1917-35. Thus,
this area too has a fossil river system and a phantom
lake.
The rivers and creeks that flow to the Pacific
Ocean south of San Francisco generally have
headwaters that are high enough to receive mean
annual precipitation of 20 inches or more. This
coastal belt experiences a winter surplus and
summer deficiency of water, adding up to an overall
annual deficiency generally less than 20 inches.
Mean annual precipitation in the drainage basins of
these coastal streams is generally in the range of 20
to 30 inches, and 10 to 30 percent of this becomes the
mean annual runoff. Exceptionally high rainfall and
runoff are recorded in some places: the 46-square-
mile drainage basin of Big Sur River has mean
annual precipitation of 51 inches of which 50 percent
becomes runoff. Farther south and farther inland
the mountainous Lytle Creek basin near San
Bernardino has mean annual precipitation of 33
inches, of which 35 percent becomes runoff.
North of San Francisco Bay the evaporative
demand is greater than rainfall most of the year, but
the rainy season brings enough precipitation to
provide a water surplus in a normal year. The rivers
flowing westward have mean annual precipitation
ranging from 50 to 80 inches on their drainage
basins, of which 40 to 65 percent becomes runoff.
The streams draining the east slopes of the Coast
Range and tributary to the Sacramento River have
drainage basins with mean annual rainfall of 25 to 40
inches, of which 35 to 45 percent becomes runoff.
Most of the water surpluses of the Sierra Nevada
move westward into the Central Valley through
tributaries of the San Joaquin-Sacramento river
system, which flows to the Pacific Ocean via San
Francisco Bay. From the San Joaquin River north,
the major tributaries have mean annual precipitation
t«.^~.
<***'
:&*§§ Z$
m.
gSs^m-l
w
W®h
m
l sfe"i
'££&
w
The water stored as snow on the Sierra Nevada is the principal
cause of the difference between the seasons of the heavens and
the seasons of the rivers. The photograph at top shows one of
the sources of the San Joaquin River. The photograph below
displays a portion of the snowpack near Lake Tahoe.
exceeding 40 inches, and more than 50 inches in the
basins of the Yuba River and the American River.
The mean annual runoff in these tributaries generally
ranges from 45 to 55 percent of precipitation. The
principal streams draining the east slope of the
Sierra Nevada — the Truckee, Carson, and Walker
rivers which flow into Nevada — have somewhat less
precipitation on their mountainous headwaters but
about the same proportion of runoff.
The part of California north of Lake Tahoe and
east of the Sierra Nevada has mean annual precipi-
tation ranging from 30 inches down to less than four
inches. The mean annual runoff is less than ten
inches and generally less than five inches. This is
Great Basin country, with Goose Lake severing itself
from the Sacramento River system because of water
deficiency, and several alkali lakes farther south near
the Nevada border. It is also lava plateau country,
high enough that much of the annual precipitation is
snow, and with rocks permeable enough to absorb
most of the water from snow melt or rain. In a
typical stream such as Willow Creek near Susanville,
40 percent of the mean annual runoff occurs in
spring with snow melt and the flow is well sustained
throughout the rest of the year. Several other
streams in the northeast part of the state have fairly
uniform flow throughout the year because of
groundwater inflow: examples are Fall Creek,
tributary to the Klamath River; and Hat Creek, in
the Sacramento River system. Such uniformity of
streamflow throughout the year is rare in California,
and the lava plateaux are the best place to find it.
Groundwater can thus provide an important
adjunct to surface runoff. Although the mountains
that catch most of the rain and snow are relatively
impermeable, small valleys within these mountains,
and larger valleys and plains that border, separate, or
surround mountains generally contain unconsolidated
sediments — clay, gravel, sand, and silt — which may
be hundreds or even thousands of feet deep. These
permeable sediments form aquifers that may yield
moderate to large quantities of water to wells. The
aquifers in these valleys and plains may be recharged
by direct rainfall, melting snow, tributary streams,
or by underground movement from adjacent moun-
ain masses. A gauging station recording the runoff
from such a mountain valley may show quick
response to rain storms, slower response to melting
snow, and a base flow representing continuous
groundwater discharge into the stream. In succes-
sive dry years, these groundwater inflows can
become the principal source of runoff for some
streams.
NATURAL WATER STORAGE
Two-thirds of the precipitation upon California
does not become runoff, but instead comes down to
the land surface where it is measured, stored, or
calculated, and then returns to California's atmosphere.
This return step in the hydrologic cycle, however,
only occurs after some delay, which may be a matter
of hours, days, months, or years.
Some atmospheric water is intercepted by vegetation,
or it is condensed directly from the atmosphere as
dew or frost upon cold objects. The quantity of
intercepted water is generally unmeasured, and
presumably much of it is soon evaporated. Neverthe-
less, it is substantial in some coastal areas; special
studies have shown it to be generally 5 to 15 percent
of annual rainfall. Some forms of vegetation such as
the redwood tree survive long rainless periods partly
by interception of atmospheric water, particularly in
the humid coastal areas. Like the individual cold rock
or plant, the high mountains of California intercept
atmospheric water, but they do it in a big way. All
winter long these mountains receive and accumulate
snow. On April 1 the depth and water content of the
accumulated snow are measured by snow surveys,
and these provide estimates of the natural storage of
water that will contribute to freshets in the
forthcoming rainless season.
The land surface thus offers one of the first
opportunities for delay in the circulation of water
from the ocean through the atmosphere to earth and
back again. Although some snow returns to the
atmosphere by sublimation before it can be measured
either as precipitation or runoff, rainfall on the land
may be absorbed by infiltration. Some materials,
such as dune sand, coarse gravel, talus, and some
organic soils, are permeable enough to absorb all the
water from storms of high intensity and long
duration. Most soils have moderate to low permeability
and can absorb some water, but the rate of infiltration
decreases as the uppermost pores fill with water.
The water that does not go underground but
remains on the surface may accumulate to form
puddles, pools, ponds, and lakes, thus filling depressions
of all sizes and shapes. The depressions in which
water accumulates are nature's surface water
storage facilities, and as they fill to overflowing, the
overflows become runoff, either overland or in a
stream system.
Some water is retained as soil moisture in the
unsaturated materials immediately beneath the land
surface, where water occurs as vapor, liquid, or frost
depending on the temperature. Soil moisture is
estimated to be less than one-tenth of one percent of
the fresh waters on earth and about three times as
much as the average water content of the atmosphere.
Like atmospheric water (and closely dependent on it)
soil moisture is a very transient storage: yearly
receipts and dispatches of water by the soil are
doubtless several times as great as its average water
content.
The seasonal availability of soil moisture dictates
the growing season for many plants in California.
Grasslands are commonly green in the winter, go to
forage or hay or seed in early spring, and become
golden fire-hazards in summer. Similarly, the first
rains of winter reduce the summer pall of heat and
increased soil moisture revitalizes the forests,
chaparral, and brush lands. For much of California's
native vegetation, summer is consequently the
dormant season.
Soil moisture can be retained by molecular forces
working against the force of gravity until it is
reached by plant roots. Water storage is not the only
mechanism, however, by which plants in California
have adapted to summer drought conditions. Some
plants form wax coatings to reduce evapotranspiration,
small leaves to reduce the evaporative surface, or
leaves that orient side ways to the sun in order to
10
Snow Depth
Average April 1 Snow Depth, 1947-1977
100 inches
75 inches
50 inches
25 inches
10 inches
Snowfall Incidence in the Central Sierra
SflOOfr —
FordyceLake
U**"""\ 1
\ e Norden
6,000 ft
m>
1^
uckee-gy
Tahoe Cit
II
4.60C
ft
■r
Ctsco
u
7.|l00 ft
5,000 ft
Un
La
Porte©
Bowman Dam
Vinton ^^^
Boca Res.
3.800 II
T '
\ Portola^
iiL/v.
^p
c
o
o 4,000ft
M
Sierra CHy jf
4.000 It
- 1 1
ili^
0>
Ul
H. aioomiield ©
V
/©Gold
-□
3,000ft
Ufl
M
Grass Vail
./Nevada
LJUy
©Qawnieville
©
Camptonvtlle
2.5D0I
1 1
■
2 000 ft
Colfax
-n
L
■i
50%
^Placerville
L 1
— | 2.000 It
1,000ft
^l
1 1 .500 ill
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Percent of Precipitation Occurring as Snow
a.
01
a
50 miles
700 kilometers
Average Snow Depth and Water Content
Feather River Basin
Eureka Lake
Elevation 6200'
Scott River Basin
Middle Boulder #1
Elevation 6600
320 in
300 in
280 in
260 in
240 in
220 in
200 in
180 in
160 in
140 in
120 in
100 in
80 in
60 in
40 in
20 in
Oin
Feb1 Marl Apr1 May1 Feb1 Marl Apr1 May1 Feb1 Marl Apr1 May1 Feb1 Marl Apr1 May1
Snow Depth at Donner Summit
Elevation 6,900 feet
1 .
/ \
Me
xirr
um Snow: and Flood Year (19!
51-1952)
— 80
Ye.
Kfi
ver
age
(1
396
-18!
7t
o 1
376
19
'7)
Ye
ar c
f iV
ini
nur
nS
no\
v(1
976
-19
77)
J|
S
^— — .
\
I
1
, v
i
A
J
/
-
.-:
-_^A \
\.
1
k~
*
/Ss. ^
\
10 20 31 10 20 30
Oct Nov
31 10 20 31 10 20 29 10 20 31 10 20 30 10 20 31 10 20 30 10 20 31 10 20 31 10 20 30
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Day and Month
North Palisades Glacier, a rem-
nant of the great masses of ice
which carved the face of Cali-
fornia, appears as the densest
concentration of white on the
crest of the Sierra in the photo-
graph at far right. The Middle
Fork of the Kings River can be
seen to the left of the glacier.
Other forms of natural water
storage are represented by the
smaller photographs, which show
a glacial tarn near Yosemite Valley
and desert vegetation responding
to a rainstorm.
jfc: y*v?i
:.*¥*
f -ilflii
"1W„.
tf-l:
■&.'
. ..■: :
'-.:!-,'
J.- ;
l.'S
\
-
%
■■■'
MM
*i
,** *
^3l<
"~
avoid having their maximum surface area exposed.
Other have green stems in order to reduce the use of
leaves in photosynthesis, or close their breathing
pores (stomata) at the onset of drought. And some
adopt ephemeral life styles so that they grow only
when the water supply is sufficient. Only the
succulents, which are rare among California flora,
use water storage as a major defense against
drought.
Many California householders are more involved
with soil moisture than they may realize. Roofs and
pavements reduce infiltration and may create runoff
instead, which may be a nuisance from the point of
view of a neighbor. A septic tank increases soil
moisture, as does any drain field. With a lawn a
householder establishes a need for very shallow soil
moisture which is frequently replenished, perhaps to
the discomfiture of nearby trees and shrubs. Native
vegetation may also suffer from so much water all
summer long. Fortunately, soil moisture's movements
are chiefly upward and downward, and not across
property lines. Each man has a God-given right
(Matthew 5:45) to both sun for evapotranspiration
and rain for infiltration; so doubtless he has a perfect
right to all soil moisture within his property, and its
use, benefits, and problems.
If infiltration exceeds the retention capacity of the
soil, some water may percolate downward until it
reaches a zone where all pores are saturated. At this
point it becomes groundwater and forms a part of
the water-storage facilities widely distributed
beneath the lands of California. The total groundwater
on earth is more than 30 times as much as all the
water in lakes and rivers plus all the moisture in soils
and in the atmosphere. The relatively impermeable
consolidated rocks that make up the mountains,
canyons, slopes, and foothills of the Sierra Nevada
and Coast and Basin ranges cover about half of
California. More permeable sediments in these areas
are restricted to narrow valleys and "flats".
In the southeastern deserts groundwater reservoirs
occupy about ten percent of the state's area. They
have been explored only enough to show that most
of them contain some usable water, and some
contain brines of economic value. Discharge from
these groundwater reservoirs may come from
springs or by evapotranspiration from wet playas, or
through subsurface movement to a lower valley.
Farther north in California and east of the crest of
the Sierra Nevada, volcanic rocks on the Modoc
Plateau and the Cascade Range include some
excellent aquifers distributed over about 15 percent
of the state's area. The groundwater here is
discharged at numerous springs and streams throughout
the year, and there are some very successful wells.
But groundwater development has generally not
been extensive. Thus the deserts and the volcanic
rocks contain most of the groundwater reservoirs
still undeveloped in California.
California's largest groundwater reservoir is in the
Central Valley. It is composed largely of stream-
borne sediments that now contain fresh water to
depths ranging from 400 to 4,000 feet below sea
level. These sediments include beds of sand and
gravel, thickest near the canyons of the principal
streams flowing from the mountains, which are the
major aquifers, or bearers of water to wells. These
aquifers are separated by less permeable beds of silt
and clay which become thicker and more prevalent in
the middle and western parts of the valley and in the
intervals separating the major streams. Some deep
aquifers are separated from shallow aquifers by
extensive beds of clay, which have created artesian
pressure sufficient for flowing wells. This Central
Valley groundwater reservoir is a complex and
heterogeneous mass, too large to consider conveni-
ently as a unit and yet with sufficent unity that any
division on the basis of groundwater characteristics
is difficult. Taken as a unit, the Central Valley
groundwater reservoir has a usable storage capacity
estimated at 100 million acre-feet underlying a
15,000 square-mile area.
The Central Valley's groundwater reservoir is
equivalent to the total area of the other 50 ground-
water reservoirs from which significant volumes of
water are pumped today. Approximately 40 of these
developed groundwater reservoirs are in the drain-
age basins of streams rising in the Coast Range and
flowing to the Pacific Ocean. These groundwater
reservoirs are in alluvial sediments in structural
valleys or coastal plains, or along streams that drain,
traverse, or bypass various ranges as they flow
toward the ocean. The northern coastal region has
the greatest precipitation and runoff; its ground-
water reservoirs are recharged each rainy season and
maintain the perennial flow of streams in the
rainless season. Water deficiency becomes increas-
ingly prevalent to the south, where groundwater
reservoirs are recharged in wet seasons but where
the water may remain underground as it moves
toward the ocean, appearing at the surface only
where it encounters impermeable rocks, faults, or
other barriers.
East of the Sierra Nevada and the Transverse
Ranges farther south, several groundwater reservoirs
have been developed and pumped chiefly for irrigation.
Some of these are along perennial streams and
receive recharge from those streams. Some are
recharged chiefly during rare intense storms and
flood runoff. And some give no evidence of replen-
ishment at any time.
Natural lakes include all bodies of standing water,
regardless of size, shape, or salinity. They are found
in topographic depressions where water can, does, or
used to flow and accumulate. Rivers and lakes do not
get along well and tend to work against each other.
When there is a sufficient surplus to fill the lake
depression to overflowing, the river will try to
destroy the lake by using its inflow to deposit
sediment on the lake bed, and by using its outflow to
erode its channel and lower the lake level. When, on
the other hand, there is a deficiency of water, the
outflow ceases, the lake takes all the water to meet
evaporative demand, and the river dies.
Lake Tahoe is California's biggest natural lake.
With an area of 191 square miles, it contains
approximately 122 million acre-feet of water, about
four times the total storage capacity of all the
modern reservoirs in California. Its usable storage,
however, is in a six-foot layer between altitudes
6,223 and 6,229 feet, containing 744,000 acre-feet,
which is an amount nearly equal to the storage
capacity of the three Hetch Hetchy reservoirs of
today. Because its mean annual rate of evaporation
of 36 inches exceeds its mean annual precipitation of
24 inches, however, Lake Tahoe may be losing more
water to the atmosphere than Hetch Hetchy.
Mono Lake, east of the Sierra Nevada and south of
Lake Tahoe at an altitude of about 6,400 feet, covers
about half the area of Lake Tahoe and contains
approximately four million acre-feet of saline water.
Eagle Lake, north of Lake Tahoe and at about 5,100
feet altitude, is only half the area of Mono Lake and
contains half a million acre-feet of water. Both are in
areas of water deficiency where annual evaporation
exceeds rainfall and neither has a natural outflow. In
both lakes, levels increased after 1850 until about
12
Average Annual
Evaporation
50 and below
51 -70
71 and above
in inches
50 miles
i I
100 kilometers
Natural Moisture Demand
Natural Moisture Demand is the combination of
processes by which water returns to the atmosphere
through evaporation from land and water surfaces and
through transpiration by plants. The statewide pattern
of Average Annual Evaporation from water surfaces is
limited principally by the amount of solar energy avail-
able in a given region or season of the year. Evaporation
from land surfaces, however, is impeded by the cohesion
of soil and water particles, while transpiration by plants is
limited by the availability of soil moisture. As a result, the
combined rate of these processes, called evapotrans-
piration, is usually less than the rate of average
evaporation.
Evapotranspiration rates also vary with the season, as
shown in the two maps below, which depict maximum
potential evapotranspiration for moderately tall grasses.
In most areas of the state, there is a significant difference
between potential and actual evapotranspiration at
various times of the year. These differences are illu-
strated in the water balance charts for Los Angeles and
Sacramento. In the rainy winter months, when soil moi-
sture is the most abundant and solar energy levels are
low, actual evapotranspiration rates approach their
potential. As the seasons grow warmer, however, and
soil moisture is depleted, the difference between poten-
tial and actual evapotranspiration increases and deficts
consequently occur. When soil moisture is replenished
and the natural demands of evapotranspiration are satis-
fied, as in the months of January and Febuary at Sacra-
mento, surplus moisture may percolate downward as
groundwater or move horizontally as runoff.
Sacramento
Los Angeles
Potential Evapotrans
Actual Evapotranspi
Soil Moisture Utiliza
Soil Moisture Recha
pirat
atior
ion
ge
on
*
* wr
wi
J FMAMJ JASO
Monlh
legends refer to both graphs
Average Daily
Evapotranspiration
in January
04 and below
041 - .08
081 and above
Average Daily
Evapotranspiration
in July
.20 and below
.201 - .28
.281 and above
50 miles
100 kilometers
San Diego •
50 miles
100 kilometers
San Diego"
■?e%
1915. Because of diversions via tunnel from its
tributaries, however, Mono Lake no longer mirrors
climatic fluctuations. Clear Lake, with inflows from
the east flank of the Coast Ranges north of San
Francisco Bay, is the largest fresh-water lake entirely
in California. It appears to be in an area of perennial
water surplus and it has a perennial outflow which is
today regulated.
Goose Lake, in the northeast corner of California,
is in a closed basin during droughts, but overflows
southward into the North Fork of the Pit River in
wetter years. This has not occurred, however, since
the nineteenth century. Thus its relations to the
Central Valley are tenuous and ephemeral, like those
of Tulare Lake at the south end of the San Joaquin
Valley. Tulare Lake is now confined because its
natural variable bed is too valuable to be inundated
at the whim of tributary rivers. As a result, there is a
water-disposal problem during wet years. The Kern
River in flood directs its flows toward Buena Vista
Lake, some 60 miles southeast of Tulare and 100 feet
higher. The Tulare Lake area would receive the
overflow from Buena Vista plus the flood flows of
Tule and Kaweah rivers. The Kings River, generally
larger than these three combined, has a major chan-
nel southward down its alluvial fan to Tulare Lake.
But the Kings River can also flow north westward
via the Fresno Slough to the San Joaquin River, and
this is the preferred course today to prevent inunda-
tion of the Tulare Lake bed.
Honey Lake, north of Lake Tahoe, has some
inflow from the Susan River: in years of greatest
runoff the lake level rises and the water surface
expands until evaporation balances the inflow; and,
as inflows decrease the lake does likewise. Thus it is
similar to the playas and dry lakes in the southeast-
ern part of the state. Rogers Dry Lake in the
Antelope Valley, Searles Lake, and Bristol Lake have
dry lake beds larger than Clear Lake and three times
as large as the San Luis Reservoir, which is in a
similarly dry area in the San Joaquin Valley.
Rosamond Lake, also in Antelope Valley, and Soda
Lake, which sometimes receives water of the Mojave
River, are larger than the Oroville Reservoir. In
these areas of greatest water deficiency, where
annual precipitation is far less than the evaporative
demand, these water bodies do not act as reservoirs
but as evaporating ponds. Their principal products
are residual salts, which are of sufficient economic
value to be mined at Searles Lake and Owens Lake.
The dry lakes of the desert thus provide nature's
confirmation of the law first stated in 1946 by
Harold Conkling, an employee of the State Division
of Water Resources: "No matter how large the
reservoir capacity, streams of erratic annual and
cyclic flow will yield for useful purposes no more
than 50 or 60 percent of the annual average
discharge because the remainder will be lost, over
the years, by evaporation from the excessive water
surface of the reservoirs necessary to impound the
water of the infrequent years of large discharge."
XS
**c *f
%
■■> ■■"' &:;,,
THE OCEAN
The Pacific Ocean is the ultimate goal of all the
rain and snow that falls on California, unless it is
wafted toward heaven sooner by solar energy. Along
the California coast there are hundreds of places
where permeable materials — sand or pebble beaches,
sand spits and bars, sand dunes — extend both inland
and offshore. Beneath the surface similar permeable
materials may occur to depths of tens or hundreds of
feet. In these permeable sediments there will be an
interface between fresh and salt water. Because the
groundwater is flowing toward the ocean, this inter-
face should naturally be close to the coast, and in
many places fresh water does indeed come to the
surface close to the strand line. Surely the ocean
knows its place — below sea level — and stays there
most of the time. Only rarely does it rise up and
wreak damage on beachfront structures, vehicles
and people, shipping and harbor facilities. At such
times, however, ocean water may move up the
numerous streams and infiltrate into channel and
flood plain sediments.
Seawater intrusion can occur where the natural
hydraulic gradient is changed so that conditions
become favorable to landward or upward movement
of sea water. Such conditions develop where ground-
water levels are drawn below sea level by pumping
from wells. This could happen in a groundwater
*e
Honey Lake
reservoir anywhere along the coast but it has hap-
pened more noticeably in the southland, where fresh
water is seasonally or perennially deficient.
By far the greatest influx of seawater into Califor-
nia occurs in the San Francisco Bay. Every day at
high tides ocean water enters the bay through the
Golden Gate and the bay is characteristically saline
as far as 30 miles inland at the Carquinez Straits. As
a rare exception, however, during the greatest of
historic floods in 1862, the flow of fresh water was
continuous out of the bay into the ocean, and San
Francisco Bay had freshwater fish for several
months. In Suisun Bay, east of the Carquinez
Straits, the water flowing from the Central Valley
during the nineteenth century was naturally fresh
enough to drink in some years, although never in
summer. Under natural conditions the Delta would
be wetlands through which about half the total
runoff from California flowed in a maze of channels
and sloughs with bottoms below sea level. With
increasing diversions for irrigation upstream in the
Central Valley, the fresh water flow diminished, and
saline water moved up the channels and sloughs of
the Delta. The preservation of the Delta has
consequently become a central issue in the formula-
tion of modern water policy. That the issue has
arisen at all, however, is a measure of how far
California has come in remaking the natural water
endowment.
CALIFORNIA AS IT WAS
The following accounts by early explorers and settlers of California des-
cribe aspects of the water environment that no longer exist and some that
never were.
In 38 deg.30.min. we fell with a convenient and fit har-
borough, and June 17. came to anchor therein: where we
continued till the 23. day of July following. During all which
time, notwithstanding it was in the height of Summer, and
so neere the Sunne; yet were wee continually visited with
like nipping colds, as we had felt before: insomuch that if
violent exercises of our bodies, and busie imployment about
our necessarie labours, had not sometimes compeld us to
the contrary, we could very well have beene contented to
have kept about us still our Winter clothes. . . . Besides how
unhandsome and deformed appeared the face of the earth it
selfe! Shewing trees without leaves, and the ground with-
out greennes in those moneths of June and July. The poore
birds and soules not daring (as we had great experience to
observe it) not daring so much as once to arise from their
nests, after the first egge layed, till it with all the rest be
hatched, and brought to some strength of nature, able to
helpe itselfe.... The inland we found to be farre different
from the shoare, a goodly country, and fruitfull soyle,
stored with many blessings fit for the use of man: infinite
was the company of very large and fat Deere, which there
we sawe by thousands, as we supposed, in a heard.
Sir Francis Drake Expedition, 1579
Through the interpreters that accompanied them, they
received reports from the Indian residents. ..that on an
island in the middle of the sea there is a famous settlement
governed by a queen, a very tall woman who, as they
demonstrated, is as tall as a giant and who wears many
strings, joined together like necklaces, of these large pearls
around her neck and that they cover her breasts.... Accord-
ing to this report and that which I explored and saw up to
thirty-four degrees north latitude, this land did not join,
and thus California is a very large island.... The said land of
California, along the interior coast, is composed of large
mountain ranges, barren and rugged and without forests.
They seem burned for they are composed of silver-bearing
rock.... Along the sea coast of the interior region, over a dis-
tance of one hundred leagues, all that one sees are heaps of
pearl oysters.... They are the size of a small plate, and full
and complete they would weigh from one to two pounds.
Report of Nicolas de Cardona, 1632
The soil is as variable as the face of the country. On the
coast range of hills there is little to invite the agriculturist,
except in some vales of no great extent. These hills are,
however, admirably adapted for raising herds and flocks,
and are at present the feeding-grounds of numerous deer,
elk, &c, to which the short sweet grass and wild oats that
are spread over them, afford a plentiful supply of food....
The valleys of the Sacramento, and that of San Juan, are the
most fruitful parts of California, particularly the latter,
which is capable of producing wheat, Indian corn, rye, oats,
&c, with all the fruits of the temperate and many of the
tropical climates. It likewise offers fine pasture-grounds for
cattle.... we find great aridity throughout the rest of Cali-
fornia, and Oregon also. All agree that the middle and
extensive portion of this country is destitute of the requi-
sites for supplying the wants of man.
Charles Wilkes Expedition, 1839-1842
From Tulare Lake come the turtles that make the rich
turtle soups and stews of San Francisco hotels and restau-
rants. It is the western pond turtle common in the fresh
water ponds. The Italians call it Ella-chick. These turtles are
sent in sacks to San Francisco. During the season more than
180 dozen found a ready sale at the bay.
History of Kern County, 1883
It is well to state some of the wonderful properties of the
water, that for bathing, shampooing, and general cleansing
powers it has no equal among artificial productions. It is
believed by many to be a specific for catarrhal and lung
affections.... Though mild and agreeable for a short time,
yet it will leave no vestige of bones or flesh of man or beast
put in it for a few hours.... No living thing abides the surface
of this water, perfectly clear as ever it is, neither fish nor
reptile nor anything save millions of small white worms
from which spring other myriads of a peculiar kind of fly....
Legions upon legions of a so-called duck ...lived on the
lake.... They are web-footed but have a bill like a common
chicken ...they have no real wings or feathers and conse-
quently cannot fly.... It is the reasoned conviction of parties
who have observed the facts for years that these birds
migrate from other regions, alighting on the Lake perfect
birds, only soon to become bereft of feathers and even the
physical power to prevent themselves from drowning
whenever the surface of the water becomes ruffled by a
continuous breeze.
"Owens Lake in 1885" T. E. Jones.
14
CHAPTER 3
The Advent of Human
Settlement
The first Europeans to come to California found it
settled by a numerous people of many tribes and
tongues who lived in so simple and elementary a rela-
tionship with nature that they had neither need nor
facility to manipulate its resources. The Indians, as
the Europeans called them, harvested such food as the
environment provided: the salmon which annually
crowded up the rivers; the acorns of the great oak
forests which covered the land; and the deer, tule elk,
and antelope which grazed in the hills and f latlands by
the tens of thousands. Although there is evidence
that some tribes along the lower Colorado River and
in the Owens Valley diverted water to flood natural
areas of vegetation, these native Californians for the
most part had no tradition of raising crops. They
made no effort to gather and transport water; rather,
they went where the water was, and lived beside it.
The Spaniards who came to Alta California in 1769
to establish permanent settlements brought with
them, however, a profoundly different culture. Their
arrival utterly transformed the Indian world, setting
in motion a process which would bring about its
virtual obliteration within the brief span of a century.
At the same time, the Spanish also transformed the
relationship between the natural environment and
humankind, for in their European homeland they had
been for centuries a farming people living on an arid
landscape. From the ancient civilizations of Rome and
the eastern Mediterranean they had inherited the
skills and attitudes of hydraulic engineering. From
their perspective, water was a raw material to be
gathered where it was in surplus and transported,
often over great distances, to irrigate dry but fertile
farmlands and quench the thirst of distant settle-
ments.
When Father Francisco Palou stood at the site
where Mission San Gabriel was to be founded, he
noted in 1771 that there was not only good soil for
farming, but "an abundance of water that runs
[nearby] . . .in ditches that form the river. [There are]
. . . facilities for taking out the water in order to irri-
gate the land." In 1773, the fathers and their Indian
laborers built a dam six miles from Mission San
Diego, and an aqueduct to supply the settlement with
the water thus impounded. When the metropolis of
San Diego, with its many hundreds of thousands of
people, drew most of its water two centuries later
from the Colorado River through an aqueduct
system hundreds of miles long, constructed and
managed by public authority, only the scale of the
enterprise was different from that of the padres. Its
essential principle was the same.
The Spanish and Mexican periods brought little
modification of the California waterscape, for the
European population was tiny, scattered thinly along
the coastline and around the bay of San Francisco, and
its needs were few and simple. The arrival in 1839 of
an enterprising Swiss, John August Sutter, began a
new chain of events. Given a large rancho grant in the
relatively unoccupied Sacramento Valley, his fort and
thriving settlement beside the American River near
its juncture with the Sacramento soon developed
needs for lumber and other commodities. Sutter
determined to make a large-scale industrial use of
waterpower, causing a sawmill to be constructed on
the upper reaches of the American, where it was
flowing rapidly in the Sierra foothills. When his fore-
man, James Marshall, discovered gold in the mill's tail-
race, California would never be the same again.
Now a civilization inundated the new American
state of California that made massive and complex
demands upon its water resources. It was, moreover,
an essentially Anglo-American civilization which
lacked Spain's concept of a strong and centralized
public authority. In Britain and America, the social
center of gravity had long since shifted not only
toward the supremacy of elected legislative bodies
and away from powerful executives, but also toward
an assertion of greater freedom for individuals to
enrich themselves as they saw fit. In resource-rich
America, this laissez-faire mentality fostered a belief
This view of San Francisco in
1873 emphasizes the importance
the waterfront once had for the
city as the focus of the com-
mercial activity the Gold Rush
brought to California. Virtually
every type of ship crowds the
wharves — steam and sail for both
inland and oceanic navigation.
A few years earlier, the bay itself
was filled with empty vessels,
abandoned by their crews who
left for the gold fields.
15
The map on the facing page dis-
plays the natural configuration
of lakes, rivers, and related vege-
tation which confronted the ear-
liest European and Anglo-Ameri-
can settlers upon their arrival in
California. Urban and agricul-
tural developments have today
replaced the inland marshes and
riparian forests shown here, while
the construction of the modern
water system has created the
Salton Sea and all but eliminated
Tulare and Owens lakes. This
map does not, however, show
the virgin waterscape as it exis-
ted at any single point in time.
The levels of many of the natural
lakes and marshes fluctuated from
year to year, and the map itself
has been reconstructed from sev-
eral historic maps drawn of var-
ious parts of California between
1843 and 1878, a period when
some areas of the state remained
largely unexplored.
that the continent's resources were open for the
strong-minded and the enterprising to seize and use
in whatever way would most profit them individually.
Out of this economic anarchy, in which government
was to stand aside and remain small and inactive,
would come, it was confidently asserted, the enrich-
ment of all.
The Spanish notion of "public property in water,"
developed in an arid land culture where waterworks
had to be publicly managed to ensure their most effi-
cient and equitable use, thus gave way to the Anglo-
American concept of unrestrained private enterprise.
Coming from lands of water abundance, the Anglo-
Americans, Germans, and Irish who made up most of
the white population of California during the nine-
teenth century were disposed to think of water as a
free commodity to be used without restraint in any
industrial or other enterprise that came to hand.
THE FALL AND RISE OF THE SACRAMENTO
With the discovery of gold, the Sierra Nevada
swiftly became the seat of a teeming industrial sys-
tem devoted to the extraction of the precious metal.
In 1853, great deposits of gold-bearing gravels were
discovered in the high ridges overlooking the north-
ern mines in and around Nevada County. The miners
soon learned to work these deposits by directing
heavy streams of water onto the hillsides, washing
them down so that the flowing mud, sand, and gravel
passed through long sluice boxes, where the heavy
gold flakes could be recovered. The torrent of water
and mining debris pouring out of the sluice boxes was
discharged into nearby streambeds, its subsequent
destination not a matter of concern to the miners.
The miners' need, however, for more and more water
led to the excavation of ditches to adjacent streams,
then to the building of a network of reservoirs and
flumes leading down from the higher mountain
regions.
Thus the first large hydraulic engineering works in
California were constructed entirely through the ap-
plication of private enterprise and capital, outside the
realm of public supervision. At the same time, a cadre
of professional engineers skilled in the building of
such works was forming, along with a community of
capitalists confident through direct experience that
they could transport rivers of water great distances at
great profit. By 1857, in Nevada County alone there
were 700 miles of ditches feeding water to the
hydraulic miners. The hydraulic mining industry,
however, passed rapidly through a complex techno-
logical progression which required heavier capitaliza-
tion and the concentration of scores of individual
mines into a few large operations. In 1871, the Cali-
fornia Water Company began operations in El Dorado
County with a capitalization of $10 million and the
Canals and Water Ditches for Mining Purposes -1867
Identifiable
Total Length of
Total
County
Ditch Systems
Ditches (miles)
Cost ($)
Amador
27
412.75
1,154,500
Butte
11
64.5
60,700
Calaveras 1
15
272
754,000
Del Norte
13
35
59,700
El Dorado
24
786.25
1,365,500
Inyo
1
15
30,000
Klammath
5
18.25
23,100
Lassen
4
18.25
25,000
Mariposa
2
25
10,800
Mono
1
20
75,000
Nevada 1
12
577
1,771,500
Placer
26
699.5
1,673,000
Plumas
20
132
361,050
Sacramento
4
58
948,000
Shasta
15
201
297,000
Sierra
26
115.5
491 ,000
Siskiyou
20
201
296,000
Stanislaus
5
43
170,000
Trinity
42
158
199,000
Tulare
17
70.5
32,800
Tuolumne 1
6
142
1,765,000
Yuba 2
26
150
591,400
Hydraulic mining in the Sierra
Nevada brought the first major
man-made alterations in the nat-
ural waterscape. In the photo-
graph at left, great streams of
water under pressure are used at
the Malakoff Diggings to break
down walls of gold-bearing river
gravel. In the photograph below,
water drives a sawmill preparing
timber for the construction of
flumes and diversion works. The
photograph at bottom left illus-
trates a different type of mining
which became popular during
the 1860s and 1870s. Here an
entire river has been diverted
from its course at the Golden
Feather Mining Claim to provide
access to the streambed. Works
of this magnitude required the
development of a structured work
force of paid laborers. The Chi-
nese workers seen here thus
began to replace the independent
miners who first opened the
mountains to exploitation.
ownership of 24 lakes. Some operators, as in the case
of the North Bloomfield Mine, which used a hundred
million gallons of water a day, built their own water
systems. In other situations, ditch firms like the
Eureka Lake and Yuba Canal Company grew so large
that they acquired their own mines. By 1879, when
the hydraulic mining industry was operating full
bore, Nevada County was laced by more than a thou-
sand miles of ditches and flumes.
Meanwhile, thousands of farmers began breaking
the soil of the Central Valley floor to raise crops for
California's burgeoning markets. Before the 1850s
were out, however, the farmers and townspeople
living along the Sacramento learned that they were
residing on what was essentially a flood plain. The
rivers crossing the flat valley floor could never con-
tain within their banks the great volumes of water
that almost annually surged out of the mountain can-
yons during winter storms. Flowing over river banks
for many miles, flood waters inundated the surround-
ing countryside, forming an inland sea in the Sacra-
mento Valley which took months to drain away when
the rains had ended. For this reason, a tule swamp
many miles across occupied the Central Valley floor,
paralleling the rivers. In 1850, the City of Sacramento
was flooded for a mile back from the river and, when
the water subsided, the community's response set the
course for valley development over the next several
generations. Sacramento immediately began throw-
ing up levees, which were soon overtopped, so that
the embankments had to be built higher and higher in
succeeding years. Marysville, sitting at the juncture
of the Yuba and Feather rivers, had a similar experi-
ence, so that by the mid-1870s it had made itself a
walled city.
In the cities, flood control was a relatively simple
undertaking, although arduous and costly, because
the area involved was small and compact. In the
countryside, however, the problem was more compli-
cated. At first, there were efforts at central coordina-
tion. Under the Arkansas Act of 1850 the federal
government granted to the states all swamp and over-
flow lands within their borders, on condition that
these lands be drained and reclaimed. California even-
tually received a total of 2,191,000 acres of such land,
more than 500,000 acres of which lay in the Sacra-
mento Valley. A Board of Reclamation Commis-
sioners was established in 1861 to oversee the
reclamation process and careful plans were drawn up
to ensure that all levees would be constructed along
natural drainage lines.
The slow progress and ill-success of the first state-
directed leveeing projects, however, produced a
clamor from impatient enterprisers and in 1868 the
State Legislature passed the Green Act, freeing the
reclamation process of all controls. Property owners
could throw up levees along any alignment they
chose, even along the rectangular pattern of property
lines. Thereafter, the drainage system of the valley
was utterly fragmented, a crazy-quilt stitchery of
levees marching across sloughs and other natural
drainways, choking channels and producing ponds
where formerly the water had flowed easily away.
Out of this flood control anarchy came the popular
observation, "Of all the variable things in Creation,
the most uncertain are the action of a jury, the state of
a woman's mind, and the condition of the Sacra-
mento. The crookedness you see ain't but half the
crookedness there is."
In an ever-escalating spiral, landowners regularly
raised their levees higher than those put up by farm-
ers on the opposite side of the river, hoping to force
the stream to overflow upon their adversaries and
thereby leave their own land dry. But, since every
acre protected from flood was therefore unavail-
able for overflow, and no one was compensating for
this by building channels which ensured general val-
ley drainage, the rivers in floodtimes got higher and
higher. The first levees were three feet high because
the river overflowed its banks in thin sheets. Even-
tually, the valley's levees would become great walls up
to 25 feet high and 200 feet wide at their base.
Such undertakings went far beyond purely indi-
vidual resources and, in the late 1860s, the Legisla-
ture began authorizing the formation of levee and
reclamation districts which could raise revenues to
pay for these works by taxing the land protected.
Soon, the flatlands became a patchwork of such dis-
tricts. But since no one knew how large the rivers
were, huge sums were expended in many projects
which failed, and after 40 years of such efforts, Sacra-
mento valley farmers were still subject to frequent
and disastrous flooding.
Making the situation far worse, and in some parts
of the valley absolutely hopeless, an enormous mass
of hydraulic mining debris began issuing from the
mountain canyons to spread out on the valley floor.
Since the finest sediments in the mud, sand, and
gravel which composed the mining debris were
carried by the river system to San Francisco Bay
almost as soon as hydraulic mining began, the
riverbeds had in fact been filling in for some years.
Sacramento
Flood Control System
Flood Hazard Area
Subject to 100 year flood
Protected Area
Subject to inundation by 100 year flood
in absence of flood control devices
Bypass Boundary
Levee Boundary
Channel Capacities
t J 0-20,000
20,001-40,000
40,001-60,000
60,001-100,000
100,001-200,000
200,001-300,000
Over 300,001 cubic feet per second
'Contours at
foot intervals
V
[Black Bum
Reservoirt
Tafrmalito
■redgK
Lake\
Or o villa
'Oroville
'■vr
New Bulfards Bar
Reservoir .
Mou
m Weii
25,000 cfs
toiusa wei
70,000 cfs
Colusa
-ftivc
Butte:;Si>
Pumping i
Colusa Bacl
arrow Pit
Tisdale Weir
38.000 cfs
Bypass
1
Yuba City
Pumping \
Plant
s&v Pumping.;.
^kPjant l
m
CawA
^ffi < Fremont Weir
343,000 cfs
folsomi
Lake)
iiitf^
Woodland
m°
Sacra
puW^\
W 7
&
•/Napa
>£
Fairfield
"t^s/umne.
xmSL
Lodi
Jfe
4
ta!
70 Miles
_i
Martinez *
10 Kilometers
Flow Past the Latitude of Sacramento During Flood Event
550
500
— Yolo Bypass near Lisbon
— Flow in the Absence of Regulation
— Sacramento River at Sacramento
* 350
£ 300
° 200
X «._-."-N
100
50
20 21 22
December 1964
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 1 2 3
January 1965 -
12 13 14
Maximum/Minimum Discharge
300,000
270,000
240,000
210,000
180,000
150,000
120,000
90,000
60,000
30,000
Sacramento River at Red Bluff
• Highest Mean Daily Discharge
.Lowest Mean Daily Discharge
Sacramento River at Verona
• Highest Mean Daily Discharge
• Lowest Mean Daily Discharge
I I
I
«!.'
n
" A
'ill
!!
Mi!
i!
i! !
i !
! !
i ii
i!
i i <
I r
I M '
n
i /
A
1890
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
Years
Reservoir Floodwater
Storage Capacity
Shasta
Oroville
The cubes depict the
total capacity of
the major, multi-
purpose reservoirs
on the Sacramento.
The upper portion
of each cube
represents that
part of the total
capacity which is
available for flood-
water storage.
Reservoir
Shasta
Oroville
New Bullards Bar
Folsom
Whiskeytown
Black Butte
Total
Storage
4,500,000
3,484,000
969,600
1,010,000
241,000
160,000
Flood
Control Storage
1,300,000
750,000
170,000
400,000
30,000
150,000
Black Butte
Folsom
in acre-feet
New Bullards Bar
Whiskeytown
This type of sedimentation first affected navigation.
Steamboats which had regularly called at Sacra-
mento, Colusa, Chico Landing, Marysville, and Oro-
ville, soon were having difficulty in reaching even
Sacramento. While navigation upstream on the
Sacramento and Feather rivers was dying, the many
channels flowing through the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta became choked and narrowed by debris
and the beds of these tidal reaches were raised as
much as 15 feet for long stretches.
By the 1860s, heavier sediments began coming out
of the mountains. Farmers noticed that each flood left
wide deposits of glaring white mud and sand on their
property. By the 1870s, many thousands of acres
along the Feather, Yuba, and Bear rivers were buried
so deeply by mining debris that orchards, houses, and
barns were swallowed up. The bed of the Yuba,
between Marysville and the mountains, spread to a
two-mile width, the stream wandering at random
over the obliterated farmlands. Where the Yuba and
Feather met at Marysville, their beds eventually rose
20 feet, making them much higher than the adjacent
city streets. Debris pouring out of the mouth of the
Feather, where it joined the Sacramento, pushed an
underwater dam across the Sacramento's bed which
sharply raised flood levels far up that stream to
Colusa and beyond. The entire central part of the val-
ley was under siege.
A bitter controversy consequently sprang up in the
mid-1870s between the flatland farmers and the
mountain miners. At first, farmers and townsmen of
the valley floor sought relief in the courts, asking for
damages and injunctions. It was impossible, however,
to establish which mine or company was responsible
for the mud and sand flowing upon given farms. Then
both miners and farmers, to quiet and resolve the
controversy, asked the Legislature to assume respon-
sibility. A valley-wide program of flood control, based
upon the first systematic survey of the river system,
was launched in the Drainage Act of 1880. The basic
objective of this act was to erect an integrated system
of levees which would constrict the rivers within nar-
row channels, create a heavy and concentrated flow,
and thereby induce the rivers to scour out their own
beds and carry the mining debris down to the bay for
deposit. Flood control, navigation, and reclamation
would all be served by this system. The Drainage Act
relied upon statewide taxation, however, and an
avalanche of protest soon poured in upon the Legis-
lature. Residents of other areas argued that the
Sacramento Valley should solve its own problems;
flood control was not a state but a local responsibility.
In 1881, the California Supreme Court threw out the
Drainage Act as an unconstitutional assumption by
the state of an essentially private concern.
The federal Circuit Court resolved the impasse in
1884, in the case of Woodruff v. North Bloomfield, etal., by
issuing a perpetual injunction against the discharging
of hydraulic mining debris into California's rivers.
Judge Lorenzo Sawyer held that the discharge of such
debris created irremediable and uncontrollable
damage in the community at large and that the gen-
eral welfare therefore required the termination of
such discharges, whether of fine or coarse debris.
Thus, in one of the nation's first environmentally-
conscious judicial decisions, an entire industry was
closed down. Mining, which had formed the basis for
prosperity in the new state of California, was forced
to give way to the needs of agriculture and commerce.
THE SACRAMENTO FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM
There still remained, however, an enormous
volume of mining debris already lodged in the moun-
tain canyons which continued over many years to
wash down upon the valley floor and create more
destruction. Not until 1905 would the peak of the
debris wave pass the City of Marysville and move
down the Feather. And once again, it was the federal
government which provided the impetus for a resolu-
tion of the Sacramento River's continuing flood con-
trol problems.
The involvement of the federal government in
California water affairs began as early as 1868, when
the United States Army Corps of Engineers respond-
ed to local requests by making the first of its many
studies of harbor sites and needs in the Los Angeles
region. In the 1870s, the Corps began a regular pro-
gram of pulling snags in the rivers of the Central
Valley in aid of navigation. In 1873 its engineers con-
ducted a study of irrigation possibilities in the state,
and during the hydraulic mining controversy of the
1870s and 1880s, the Corps made numerous techni-
cal examinations of the problem and a series of propo-
sals for dams and drainage works which were not
funded.
The first plan for flood control in the Sacramento
Valley was developed in 1880 by State Engineer Wil-
liam Hammond Hall who called for constricting the
rivers within strong levees in order to induce a vigor-
ous current which would thereby force them to scour
out their own beds and wash the mining debris down
into the bay. He warned, however, that even the
highest levees could never hold the giant floods which
occasionally strike the valley. Hall argued therefore
that there should be weirs and drainways at a few lo-
cations to allow excess water to flow out, as it had
always done, to pond in the basins beside the rivers.
Little was done to carry out Hall's plan, but in his
painstaking studies of the river system he had laid
down the first reliable body of hydraulic information
concerning its performance, and his fundamental
concept endured.
In 1892, Congress created the California Debris
Commission, composed of Army Corps of Engineers
officers, to clear the rivers of mining debris and
restore a navigable channel. A third mission, to
restore hydraulic mining through the erection of
restraining dams, quickly demonstrated its futility.
For its part in the broader question of flood control,
the State of California in 1894 established the office
of Commissioner of Public Works, staffed by two of
Hall's former assistants, Marsden Manson and C.E.
Grunsky. They took Hall's plan one step further and
proposed that the flow of the Sacramento in flood-
time be divided by constructing a leveed bypass chan-
nel. This channel would lead out from overflow weirs
in the east bank of the main river levees, and down
through the Sutter Basin between the Feather and
Sacramento rivers and the Yolo Basin, which parallels
the lower course of the Sacramento on its west side.
This would force the river to carry all of the water it
could safely contain, inducing scour, while allowing
controlled overflows. It would also free most of the
lands in the basins for agriculture by keeping the
overflow within leveed bypass channels and prevent-
ing it from ponding.
To build such a system, however, would take mil-
lions of dollars and many years of steady construc-
tion. Neither Congress nor the State of California
was yet ready to take up the plan and thereby accept
the responsibility for flood control with its large
potential costs. After 1900, however, the national
mood swung more strongly under the leadership of
President Theodore Roosevelt toward the use of
19
Although John Sutter built his
fort on high ground at some dis-
tance from the river, the city
that grew up around the fort
soon extended its borders to the
river banks. The photographs
above show the consequences of
this development in two views
of Sacramento during the flood
of 1862. Agricultural develop-
ment on the valley lands below
the gold fields brought an end
to hydraulic mining, but great
fields of spoils left over from
gold dredging still dot the banks
of the American River above
Nimbus Dam as shown in the
photograph at left.
public authority to conserve and manage the nation's
natural resources. At the same time, beginning in
1902 and occurring again in 1904, 1906, 1907, and
1909, a series of increasingly violent floods washed
over the Sacramento Valley, demonstrating the utter
futility of fragmented, locally managed flood control.
In addition a new breed of entrepreneurs, college-
trained and ready to rely upon the expertise of
engineers, replaced the older generation of reclama-
tion leaders who had distrusted centralized regula-
tion and expert professionals.
By 1905, the California Debris Commission recog-
nized that it could not control debris along the Yuba
River, where it had been concentrating its attention,
without developing a project for valley-wide flood
control. In 1907, the commission asked Congress for
funds to purchase two very large dredges of a type
only recently perfected with which the commission
proposed to widen the debris-choked channels at the
mouth of the Sacramento so that the river could
accommodate an overflow of 600,000 cubic feet per
second. The dredges began their work in 1913 but so
large was their task that by 1924 they had succeeded
in opening the river's mouth only enough to
accommodate a flow of 400,000 cubic feet per second.
The improved outflow, however, was so successful in
scouring out immense quantities of mining debris
that by 1927 the bed of the Sacramento had been
restored to its original elevation (before the impact of
mining debris) at the City of Sacramento. The clear-
ing of river channels was eventually extended up the
Feather, where a seven-foot lowering at the mouth of
the Yuba still left the river 13 feet higher than it had
been in the days before mining began.
In 1911, the commission's chief engineer, Captain
Thomas Jackson, announced his plan for the Sacra-
mento Flood Control Project. Based upon the bypass
concept, it would let water flow eastward out of the
Sacramento River over weirs in the Colusa vicinity
about a hundred miles north of the river's outlet; this
excess water would be guided through the Sutter
Basin within a leveed channel; then across the Sacra-
mento into the Yolo Basin at a point just above the
juncture of the Sacramento and the Feather by means
of the Fremont Weir; finally, the water would be
allowed to move through a bypass in the Yolo Basin to
empty back into the main channel of the river just
above its mouth. Along the course of the bypass chan-
nel, which in effect formed an additional river bed to
be brought into use during floodtimes but farmed
during the dry months, additional inflows would be
received from other weir points, and the bypass
levees would grow progressively wider apart.
Congress took six years to fund the federal aspects
of Jackson's plan, which were limited to those ele-
ments regarded as being concerned primarily with
maintaining a navigable channel. The State of Cali-
fornia and local landowners, however, moved swiftly
to carry out their part of the project. A Reclamation
Board was created in 1911 with the power to regulate
all private levee-building so as finally to bring order
and efficiency to the system. The levees of the Sutter
Bypass were constructed by the state to help meet the
heavy demands for food production during World
War One. Many large private reclamation schemes
were launched, resulting in the construction of
hundreds of miles of levees and the repair of other,
existing embankments.
There were about 300,000 acres of land in the
valley in a relatively complete state of reclamation in
1910. By 1918 this figure had risen to 700,000, thanks
to a total of 350 miles of levees. In one of the more
The modern Sacramento Flood
Control System in operation
during 1975. The Yolo Bypass
is shown at the left of the photo-
graph with the Sacramento Ship
Channel running next to it. The
Sacramento River can be seen
entering from the left and curling
down through the center. The
American River entering at right
appears here to have a distinctly
darker color than the Sacramento
because the American carries
less silt.
■J' ^SH/t^H
X' <•**>
p *^
striking projects, the entire American Basin east of
the Sacramento River and north of the American was
ringed with levees, creating an enclosed area of
80,000 acres. As the Reclamation Board observed,
"The sea of flood waters was replaced by a sea of
waving grain." Furthermore, holdings formerly used
only for field crops could be transformed into
orchards, once the danger of flooding had been
reduced. With this agricultural activity came a new
transportation system. Railroads and electric inter-
urban lines were built throughout the valley, and the
Sacramento, its navigation largely halted for many
years because of mining debris, quickly became one of
the major river routes of commerce in the United
States. Hundreds of boats passed up and down the
rivers and navigated across the bay to San Francisco,
where they transferred their cargoes directly to
ocean-going vessels. By 1916, 90 percent of the
freight between Sacramento and San Francisco was
carried by boat, and many thousands of passengers
relied upon the large paddle-wheeled river steamers.
After World War One, farm prices slumped, bonds
floated to construct levees could not be paid off, and
bankruptcy was widespread. Under the Flood Control
Act of 1928, the federal government therefore
assumed most of the costs of the project, which was
still being built. When the United States Bureau of
Reclamation took on the construction and
management of the Central Valley Project in the
1930s, Washington's commitment to the Sacra-
mento Valley deepened. Soon, the era of high dams
around the Central Valley was well launched, greatly
easing the flood control burden, and an enhanced
inflow of federal funds for all purposes allowed the
Sacramento Flood Control Project to move toward
completion. Largely in place by 1944, it included 980
miles of levees; 7 weirs or control structures; 3 drain-
age pumping plants; 438 miles of channels and canals;
7 bypasses, 95 miles in length, encompassing an area
of 101,000 acres; 5 low-water check dams; 31 bridges;
50 miles of collecting canals and seepage ditches; 91
gauging stations; and 8 automatic short-wave-radio
water-stage transmitters.
The Sacramento Flood Control Project was the
pioneer flood control plan in the nation for a com-
plete valley, and it has stood as a model for similar
projects elsewhere. One of the least visible great
systems of public works in California, it also embodies
one of the state's most extensive rearrangements of
the natural waterscape. Still subject to occasional
levee breaks and overtoppings — William Hammond
Hall's warning about giant floods can never be safely
forgotten — its effect has been to transform a mori-
bund, gravely afflicted valley into one that is extraor-
dinarily active, productive, and prosperous.
IRRIGATION AND THE WATER COLONIES
From the 1860s onward, the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta saw rearrangements of the natural
waterscape nearly as striking as tHose occurring in the
Sacramento Valley. Almost three-fifths of the Delta's
half million acres had originally been subject to daily
inundations by ordinary tides. The higher tides of
spring covered the entire Delta except in those areas
where natural levees of somewhat higher land had
accumulated around individual islands. Floodwaters
coming down the Sacramento River also overflowed
the Delta, especially when met by westerly winds and
high tides surging in from San Francisco Bay. Utterly
flat, the Delta's most elevated locations were no more
than ten feet above sea level.
Where crops could be raised, however, the deep
peat soils of the Delta islands proved to be marvelous-
ly fertile. Following the passage of the Green Act in
1868, the Delta came under determined assault by
imaginative entrepreneurs who were ready to take
heavy risks and had purchased Delta properties from
the state under the swampland legislation. Levees
crept first along the upstream edges of the eastern-
most islands. It was here that the Sacramento and San
Joaquin rivers entered the Delta, flood overflows
occurred earliest, and rivers tended to drop the most
silt as they spread out and slowed down so that the
land was highest and most easily protected. In later
years, reclamation districts were formed encompas-
sing entire islands, and heavy investments in levee-
building accelerated, subject always to trial and error,
massive failure, and long years of suspended efforts.
By 1880 the reclaimed area topped 100,000 acres; by
1900, it was approaching 250,000, or about half of the
Delta's total area. And in the next 30 years, the
acreage enclosed rose to almost 450,000.
As the islands dried out and were repeatedly
plowed, however, their peaty soils subsided below sea
level. Immense drainage works with large pumps had
to work harder to keep these saucer-like depressions
dry. Since the area available for overflow in the Delta
had been drastically reduced from a mean tidal basin
area of about 325,000 acres to only 39,000 acres,
levees had to be exceptionally high and broad. But
because the levees themselves were composed of
peaty soils and were therefore subject to wash and
failure, they made for a precarious defense against
flood. In addition, the Delta lost much of its capacity
for keeping out salt water from San Francisco Bay
because its fresh water ran into the bay faster and was
much less in volume than in pre-reclamation times.
The Delta was affected, too, by influences arising
far upstream. From the north, hydraulic mining
debris came down to fill in the tidal channels. And
from the south — and eventually from the north as
well — came the cumulative effects of another great
human rearrangement of the natural waterscape:
irrigation. As each year passed, more and more water
was drawn out upstream to irrigate the fertile plains
of the Central Valley during the dry months, when
the Delta most needed a steady flow of fresh water to
prevent saltwater intrusion.
The dominating natural fact in the San Joaquin
Valley was not water abundance and overflow, but
water scarcity. In its natural condition the valley,
from the Delta to its southern terminus at the
Tehachapi mountains, was a spacious dry grassland
hundreds of miles long, a Kansas in California. Just as
the grasslands of the eastern Great Plains were
grazed by huge herds of buffalo, so the San Joaquin
Valley had its own large animal herbivora which
roamed the flatlands by the thousands, the tule elk
and pronghorn antelope. Early settlers of the Central
Valley consequently turned these vast grasslands to
cattle ranching, which seemed to offer a surer means
to profit than the uncertainties of farming in a land of
rainless summers. Between 1846 and 1860, the state's
cattle population grew from an estimated 400,000 to
more than three million.
Two years of disastrous drought from 1862 to
1864, however, devastated the herds and encouraged
the ranchers to turn to other products. Although the
state government offered cash bounties to farmers
who experimented with the cultivation of exotic
The rich soils of the Delta,
which appear here as red tones,
contrast dramatically with the
nonirrigated croplands on the
Montezuma Hills at left. The
Delta, however, remains a highly
vulnerable center of agricultural
activity, as seen in this view of
the Rio Vista-Isleton flood July 27,
1972. The Sacramento River is
at the left and the San Joaquin
River enters from the lower right
corner. Brannan Island is the
large inundated area at the center
of the photograph and the top
of the levee at Rio Vista can be
seen as a thin line on the west
side of the island running beside
the Sacramento. The inundated
area in the lower right quarter
of the photograph marks the site
of Franks Tract which was flooded
in 1937.
21
crops such as flax and hemp, cotton, tobacco, raw silk,
tea, coffee, and indigo, it was Dr. Hugh J. Glenn's suc-
cess with the growing of non-irrigated wheat on the
west bank of the Sacramento River which pointed the
way to future prosperity. A series of rainy winters
that began with the crop year 1866-67 opened the
Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys to large-scale
wheat production. Grain rapidly replaced beef as the
state's principal agricultural commodity and the state
laws which in the 1850s had denied a farmer compen-
sation for crops damaged by a neighbor's cattle were
reversed as the political power of the cattlemen
declined.
Railroads also greatly modified California's agricul-
tural economy. For 20 years navigation had bound the
course of settlement in California to its coasts and
rivers. But, with the completion of the first transcon-
tinental railroad in 1869, a revolution in transporta-
tion technology swept over the state. Tracks were laid
between existing river cities, undermining the very
shipping that had made those places important. As
the network of tracks extended inland, small villages
that had languished because of their remoteness were
transformed into bustling trade centers, and virgin
land was broken and planted to wheat. From north
and south the grain harvest was hauled to the
Carquinez Strait where it was loaded onto ships
bound for Europe.
Railroads cut the cost of overland freight suffi-
ciently to allow the intrastate shipment of grain, but
not so far as to permit its shipment over the transcon-
tinental routes. Only the highest valued agricultural
products could be carried great distances, and those
only with difficulty. The development of refrigerated
cars, however, combined with the rapid growth of
eastern cities to create urban markets for California's
early ripening deciduous fruit and its exotic citrus.
Entire districts were planted in vines and trees intro-
duced from the far corners of the world. Oranges,
grown at Mission San Gabriel since 1804, were made
a viable commercial crop with the introduction of the
navel orange to Riverside from Brazil in 1873 and the
Valencia from the Azores in 1876. Grape stock was
brought in from France to supplement the vines
introduced by the Spanish missionaries, lemons
arrived from Australia and Sicily, and figs came from
the Levant. Most of these vine and tree crops shared
one important characteristic: they required irriga-
tion in California's drier summer climates.
By the time the railroads were built, water manage-
ment had already been a principal concern of
Southern Californians for more than a century. From
San Diego to Santa Barbara the Franciscan padres
employed Indian labor to build sometimes elaborate
systems for the conservation and delivery of the
precious liquid. The availability of arable land and
water was the basic requirement for successful
settlement, ecclesiastical or civil. So it was that when
Spanish authorities determined to establish a pueblo
in the south, they chose a low-lying alluvial terrace
adjacent to that portion of the Los Angeles River
through which water flowed year round. With its
founding on September 4, 1781, the Pueblo de los Angeles
began its enduring relationship with the stream. The
first settlers erected a brush diversion dam and
excavated a zanja madre (main ditch) along the base of
the hills past the northeast corner of the plaza.
Equally important, a ditch master was appointed and a
system of rules established for the operation of the
system.
Los Angeles' water colony endured the administra-
tions of three national governments. That it did so is a
testament to the importance of Spanish colonial
policy, which gave to California's pueblos the exclu-
sive right to their rivers. In a land of little rain, this
provision for the community's exclusive use of the
Los Angeles River became the legal basis by which
citizens held their vital resource inviolate, guaran-
teeing a reliable source of water for domestic and
agricultural purposes. Only within the confines of the
muncipality did both an incontestable right to water
and a political organization for its distribution exist.
As a result, only there had water development con-
tinued uninterrupted for more than a century. By
1888 almost 3,000 acres of irrigated farmland lay
within the town's borders. The adobe village had
grown to a city of almost 50,000 persons, the state's
second largest urban place.
The pueblo's survival and the resulting continuity
of water rights and management under Spanish,
Mexican, and American rule contrasted sharply with
conditions elsewhere in Southern California. The
Franciscan missions, the only other institution with
^
flAHdliO
rfyi^vwf
IK,
*H
%
* m
i i mm,
pfrH II f I lit/ & m 1 ■
RiH+rhWrl-rr %f 1 V
ii>
'#.
3$ rJ MEM
; j-
!#4ym£
<c
Mf-i i .. IJi &-*■**
m
fc7** , SF £ I'V V ,r
V-i IX;-
tmml
»;
m
A nepp
m°$
EXPLAA/AT/QA/
/#st/G#r/OA/ wo/?#s
!$7 JUrtJt Jtosa&n* WitttrCa..
■*| CryslalSjB-ittfllMatre*, Ctrl*, -fiflif
0.%' .'
yS MtofrerXtiirMaptM**, Aftrt« fa W. ft
3 tr
&y**r, •Stm/*d&br,Jtyrtruit**m£J>itcA.,
J 1
-
}%s*J*su* X* >r 6* ,7*r*xp, SfSMje MtHrC* \
CAmmtj, MtprOr, Cthrm*, ZtoUmS. j' — — — ■ — J
±U
BALlOftU? o
>
= ^
«ip^
' -^-v-,
%^f^^
't. j
resources sufficient to construct and maintain elabo-
rate water systems, were secularized and dismantled
during the 1830s. Their dams, canals, and extensively
irrigated fields were abandoned and rapidly fell into
disrepair. Irrigation did not disappear entirely; at
scattered locations along the perennial streams,
water was diverted for gardens and other small plots.
But in most cases these were individual enterprises,
limited in scope by an absence of suitable organiza-
tion, inadequate markets, and ill-defined land and
water titles.
Although numerous persons participated in
bringing water to the land during ensuing years, it
was never so much individual personalities as organi-
zations that dominated irrigation development —
organizations that would capture and manage the
scarce resource through their ability to concentrate
money, labor, and political power. The first institu-
tion to succeed in such a venture after the American
conquest was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
Day Saints, which established a Mormon colony at
San Bernardino in 1851. This officially sponsored
settlement was meant to be a strategic outpost on the
route to Salt Lake City, a community which would
help secure a protected Mormon corridor to the sea. It
was in many respects a theocracy; wherever neces-
sary the church provided the organizational struc-
ture and required leadership. Its authority was
immense in all secular matters and, partially as a
result of this, the enterprise succeeded for awhile.
Under the direction of the religious leaders, 35,500
acres of Rancho del San Bernardino were purchased and a
community laid out on the south bank of the Santa
Ana River. Fields were planted and an irrigation ditch
was dug by communal effort. But in 1857, federal
troops marched on Utah, and central church
authorities ordered the colony to be abandoned by its
500 residents. Thus ended the first church-sponsored
irrigation colony of the American period. Others,
such as the Presbyterians at Westminster and the
Quakers at Earlham, would attempt to build New
Jerusalems among the vineyards and groves of
Southern California; none, however, were more
ambitious or by experience and doctrine better pre-
22
pared than these first Mormon irrigators. Their suc-
cesses in the Intermountain West became legendary
and their settlements the prototype for later federal
developments.
Even as the Mormons abandoned San Bernardino
another type of colony, one organized along ethnic
lines, began operations on the Rancho Juan y Cajon de
Santa Ana. The group in this case consisted of
Germans from San Francisco, who decided to pur-
chase 1,165 acres south of Los Angeles, subdivide the
parcel into small farms, and plant vineyards. Since
none of the 50 subscribers was conversant with the
operation of water systems, they wisely decided to
remain at their urban occupations, employing a
resident manager to prepare the colony for their
eventual settlement. The manager divided the area
into 20-acre farms with houseplots grouped together
in a village where land was set aside for a school and
other public buildings. On each 20-acre parcel were
planted eight acres of vines and some fruit trees. Local
laborers built a water system and planted a 45-mile-
long living fence of willow trees around the perimeter
and between individual plots to keep out livestock.
The manager maintained the whole place until 1860,
by which time each stockholder had paid $1200 in
assessments. Lots were assigned by lottery, and a
dividend was paid to the owners from the sale of the
company's tools and other assets. When most of the
original San Francisco subscribers finally took posses-
sion of their properties, they named their town Ana-
heim and set about the business of raising grapes and
pressing wine. These settlers were merchants, black-
smiths, and watchmakers — people with little or no
experience in agriculture. That they sought to escape
their occupations in an urban society seems remark-
able, that they should succeed even more so. Their
accomplishment testified to the importance of com-
munity action and the potential for small-scale, inten-
sive irrigated agriculture in Southern California.
In subsequent decades the Anaheim colony and its
organization would be popularized by writers and
social reformers as a model of economic planning and
the proof of one method by which people of modest
means could acquire a small share of Southern Cali-
WILLIAM "HAM" HALL
The nineteenth century maps of early water systems in
this section are part of the priceless legacy of California's
first state engineer, William Hammond Hall. Born in Mary-
land in 1846, "Ham" Hall's early dreams of training as an
engineer at West Point were dashed by the Civil War. He
worked instead as a field engineer, draftsman, and hydrog-
grapher for the Army Corps of Engineers, and his surveys in
this connection of the sand dunes south of Lands End in San
Francisco led to his appointment as San Francisco's Engineer
and Superintendent of Parks in 1870. After six years spent
supervising the development of what is now Golden Gate
Park, Hall devoted two years to studies for a canal on the
west side of the San Joaquin Valley.
When the menace of hydraulic mining debris resulted in
passage of the Drainage Act of 1878, Governor William
Irwin appointed Hall to head the newly created Office of
the State Engineer, which was charged under the act with
the responsibility for determining the extent of debris
damage and developing a program of relief. Hall's work
measuring the capacities and discharge of the Sacramento
and San Joaquin rivers quickly expanded to include com-
prehensive study of all California's water resources. The
meticulous reports and maps which Hall and his teams of
assistants assembled thus came to constitute the earliest
overall survey of California's hydrologic system.
Hall kept the Legislature steadily supplied with reports
on his progress and recommendations for new irrigation
and drainage projects. Where irrigation was involved, how-
ever, controversy was sure to follow. Charges were re-
peatedly made but never proved that Hall's assistants were
supplying the results of their surveys to aid private in-
terests such as the Miller and Lux Land and Cattle Com-
pany, and Hall's repeated appeals for greater governmental
control over the development of the state's water resources
met with little favor in the Legislature. When the Legisla-
ture refused in 1888 to provide funding for the completion
of the third volume of his irrigation studies and the printing
of the first complete map of the state's water system, Hall
resigned and his office was abolished. Although portions of
Hall's work were used by the State Mineralogist to produce
a statewide map in 1890, the bulk of Hall's vast accumula-
tion of data lay unpublished and little used by state officials
for decades.
Hall thereafter pursued a lucrative private practice until
his death in 1934. From 1890 to 1898, he acted as a consult-
ing engineer for the mines of South Africa, and in 1899 he
developed a series of reports on irrigation and canal projects
for the Transcaucasus of Russia. He returned to California
in 1900 and was almost immediately the center of contro-
versy once again as a result of his activities as an agent for a
syndicate of New York investors buying up water and
power rights in the Lake Eleanor and Cherry Creek water-
sheds. Lake Eleanor was the key to San Francisco's plans to
tap these waters for the Hetch Hetchy project. Hall's desire
to retain the right for private development of a power
project in the area ran directly counter to the insistence of
the United States Department of the Interior that the
Hetch Hetchy system be entirely public. After ten years of
bickering over price, Hall ultimately sold the holdings he
had acquired for approximately $100,000 to the City of San
Francisco for a total price in excess of one million dollars.
The two maps on these pages are part of Ham Hall's
detailed inventory of irrigated lands in California in 1888. In
the map of Los Angeles on the facing page the flows of the
Los Angeles River are shown to disappear temporarily into a
"dry sandy bed" south of the California Central Railway's
Santa Fe line. The map on this page displays agricultural
development in San Bernardino along the Santa Ana River.
On both maps, principal colors have been used to distinguish
the service areas of various water works and the darker
shades of each color identify the areas that are actually
irrigated.
fornia's pastoral Utopia. As the residents of other
colonies patterned after Anaheim soon found out,
however, development costs were high, and so too
was the price of colony land. Local residents and the
poor were not easily persuaded to join such expensive
enterprises. Instead, most of the colonists were
drawn from the newly mobile middle classes of the
Middle West and Northeast. Like Anaheim's Ger-
mans they were recruited from distant places and
often settled together at their chosen destinations.
These new developments sometimes took their
names from the origins of their promoters or inhabi-
tants, as in the case of the Indiana Colony at Pasadena
and the Kansas Colony at Rialto.
As interst in irrigation increased, companies were
formed by investors to offer prospective settlers the
same services San Bernardino's and Anaheim's colo-
nists had attempted to provide for themselves.
Neither religious nor ethnic affiliations were so
common in these enterprises as to make them viable
organizations for most immigrants. Reclamation
became a business to be pursued for speculative gain.
23
The photographs below depict
aspects of agricultural develop-
ment in the nineteenth century.
Chaffey's colony at Ontario,
shown here looking northward
along Euclid Avenue toward the
San Gabriel Mountains, estab-
lished the mutual water company
as the model for building suc-
cessful planned communities in
an era of private water develop-
ment. Below at right, grapes are
harvested in the San Gabriel
Valley. At lower left is an example
of the artesian wells which were
developed in the last decades of
the nineteenth century as a way
of tapping the groundwater basins
of the lower lying alluvial plains
of the South Coast and Central
Valley.
Vast acreages were purchased, dams built, and canals
dug in expectation of realizing huge returns on land
and water sales. Many of these ventures prospered
for awhile, but the continuing corporate ownership of
water frequently led to grave legal problems. A few
companies, not the small farmers, controlled the
resource upon which the entire economy depended.
Competing firms diverting from the same stream
sued each other over water rights, jeopardizing the
improvements of their colonist clients. And, once the
lands had been sold, the canal owners often attempted
to maintain high profits by exercising their monop-
olistic control over water rates.
Along the Santa Ana River, the largest Southern
California stream open to claimants, the problems
were especially complex. At Riverside, for instance,
the conflict between irrigators and the Riverside
Canal Company became so great that the citizens
sought redress through state legislation which
attempted to fix the water rates and compel the
company to furnish water to all customers at the
same rate for as long as the colonists wished. The
company replied by reducing service and suing. Years
of acrimonious litigation passed before the irrigators
settled the matter by purchasing their antagonist's
property.
Riverside's situation was not unusual. Throughout
the state, the very corporate structure which permit-
ted extensive systems to be built usually led to a con-
flict of interest between suppliers and consumers.
Perhaps the most famous solution to the problem was
devised by George B. Chaffey, a Canadian often
credited with successfully applying the concept of a
modern mutual water company to the California
scene. In April 1882, Chaffey and his associates began
developing a "Model Colony" on 6,216 acres of land
which they had purchased from the Cucamonga
Grant together with all conflicting claims to the water
of San Antonio Creek along the east bank. The
property was surveyed and subdivided into rural
parcels of ten and twenty acres, suburban lots of two
and a half acres, and town lots adjoining the Southern
Pacific Railroad. In honor of his home, Chaffey named
the colony Ontario.
Every aspect of the scheme was thoroughly
planned and executed. Chaffey built a modern water
system that conveyed water through more than 60
miles of cement and iron pipe to every holding. For
public betterment he established an agricultural col-
lege and outlawed saloons. To beautify the commun-
ity he laid out Euclid Avenue, a 200-foot-wide boule-
vard planted with shade trees stretching seven miles
from the railroad station up to the base of the San
Gabriel Mountains. Even public transportation was
provided by the construction of a streetcar line that
ran the entire length of this principal thoroughfare.
The most important part of the development,
however, could not be seen. Chaffey organized the
San Antonio Water Company for the purpose of con-
structing and operating the necessary water system.
Unlike other companies, however, this one was or-
ganized in such a manner as to vest in the land pur-
chasers control over water rights and deliveries.
Chaffey's success at Ontario depended in part upon
the fact that his company had bought out a signifi-
cant portion of any conflicting claims to its principal
water supply. These conditions did not obtain, how-
ever, in other parts of the state, where irrigators
often found themselves in bitter conflict with one
another for the limited flows of nearby streams.
Irrigation in the delta of the Kings River, near the
present site of Fresno, for example, began as early as
1858. Following enactment of the Green Act in 1868,
these efforts were greatly expanded. The water
seemed freely available to all, and public authorities
made no attempt to control its appropriation. Irri-
gators would simply file a claim with the county clerk,
saying they were taking a certain volume of water out
of the river, and nail a copy of their claim to a tree near
their ditch's headgate. People were ignorant of how
much water the Kings River actually carried; their
units of measurement as to water volumes varied
widely; claims overlapped; and the basis for years of
lawsuits was quickly laid. In this way, ditches were
dug through the flatlands, forming an intricate
tracery of water courses, and by 1878, more than a
thousand miles of irrigation canals were in operation
in Fresno County.
A serious drought in 1876, however, set off the
inevitable warfare of lawsuits that had been long in
preparation between upstream and downstream
appropriators of the Kings' flow. The owners of a
large rancho in the Kings delta, the Laguna de Tache,
initiated no less than 135 lawsuits against upstream
irrigation companies to protect their claim to an
undiminished flow of the river through the rancho's
lands. At the heart of these and similar conflicts
throughout the state lay a series of important
questions about the meaning and suitability of the
system of riparian water rights, which was part of the
English common law adopted by the State Legisla-
ture in its first sitting in 1850 as the basic legal system
for California.
THE CONFLICT OVER RIGHTS
The word rival is derived from the Latin word
rivalis, which originally meant a person living on the
opposite bank of a river. The word riparian, which is
used to refer to land, persons, or anything else along a
river bank, has a related derivation. The perception
that the owners of riparian lands, by the nature of
their situation on a common stream, should be per-
petual rivals constituted a fundamental aspect of
water development in California throughout the
latter half of the nineteenth century and the early
decades of the twentieth. As a result, the Chief Justice
of California noted in 1922 that there were more Cali-
fornia Supreme Court decisions on the law of waters
than on any other subject.
Before California's admission to the Union in 1850,
the doctrine of riparian rights had been recognized in
both England and the eastern United States. Under
that doctrine, the owners of lands adjoining a stream
were held to share the right to the waters of the
stream for use on those adjoining lands to the exclu-
sion of use on other lands. When the first California
Legislature adopted the English common law as the
basis of the state's legal system, the doctrine of
riparian rights became the ultimate legal test for
resolving all disputes on water use. But a doctrine
developed in foggy, rain-soaked England, where the
earliest problems of water development involved the
use of streams and rivers to drain bogs and marshes
from the land, seemed ill-suited to the arid south-
western United States. And the story of California
water rights is consequently in large part a history of
the continued assault upon the riparian doctrine by
the adherents of the competing doctrine of appropria-
tion. Under this doctrine, the right to water is
awarded to the first person who puts its to a beneficial
use, regardless of whether that individual in fact uses
the water on land abutting the stream from which it is
taken.
As the western states formed and established their
individual systems of law, they divided almost equally
on the question of which doctrine to follow. Oregon,
Washington, Oklahoma, Nebraska, the Dakotas, and
Kansas all followed the lead of Texas and California in
granting primacy to the riparian doctrine with its
emphasis upon land ownership and physical
proximity to a water source. In contrast, Montana,
Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona fol-
lowed Nevada and Colorado in adopting appropri-
ative principles which encouraged the development of
beneficial uses for water. Although these two major
branches of western water law have come to be
described as the California and Colorado doctrines,
the ideas essential to both riparian and appropriative
doctrines appeared early in California. The critical
legal difference was that California recognized an
appropriative right as superior to a riparian right only
if the appropriation was made while the riparian land
was in the public domain, whereas Colorado recog-
nized appropriative rights to the complete exclusion
of riparian rights.
The appropriative doctrine was first applied in the
California goldfields where it became a recognized
principle among the miners that whoever first extrac-
ted and used a certain quantity of water from a stream
would be allowed to continue to extract and use that
24
Historic Water Development
California's waterscape is dotted with lakes and canals built for flood
control, irrigation, and urban water supply. Many of the early structures
were built by private interests. As water delivery systems grew in size
and complexity, however, government agencies assumed a greater role
in their development. This map illustrates the development of the
modern water system, the sequence of development and the agencies
responsible for the development of these facilities. Many of the small,
private canals and aqueducts shown here have been absorbed into
larger systems, while others have ceased operations altogether. Dams
and reservoirs shown here include those built prior to 1900 with a capacity
of 1,000 acre-feet or more and those built between 1900 and 1940 with a
capacity of 10,000 acre-feet or more. Some of these facilities have been
greatly expanded since 1941. In addition, the map displays the massive
increase in irrigated acreage which the advent of water delivery ac-
complished between 1912 and 1972.
Dams constructed before 1941
Irrigated land
Constructing agencies
= XlJ 1912
private
— T] 1972
? municipal
district
1 state
1 |
I fpHpral
dams
canal
^ </
f
<¥*
/ ^
/
JW
MUNICIPAL
1 Chatsworth No. 2
1918
10,500
2 Lower San Fernando
1932
20,500
3 Haiwee, South
1913
60,000
4 Tinemaha
1928
16,620
5 Bouquet Canyon
1934
36,200
6 Grant Lake
1940
49,300
7 Long Valley
1939
163,000
8 Barrett
1922
42,400
9 Lake Hodges
1918
37,600
10 Savage
1919
49,100
11 Morena
1895
65,800
12 El Capitan
1934
116,500
13 San Vicente
1941
75,200
14 Lake Eleanor
1918
27,800
15 O'Shaughnessy
(Hetch Hetchy)
1923
360,000
16 Calaveras
1925
100,000
17 Lower Crystal Springs
1888
54,000
18 Pilarcitos
1866
3,100
19 San Andreas
1870
18,500
20 Upper Crystal Springs
1877
15,500
21 Gibraltar
1920
13,746
22 Hogan
1932
76,000
23 Lake Curry
1926
10,700
24 Lake Frey
1894
1,075
25 Morris
1935
36,665
26 Sweasey
1937
18,000
27 Pardee
1929
222,000
28 Lower San Leandro
1892
41,436
DISTRICT
32 Puddingstone
1928
17,398
33 Coyote
1936
24,560
34 Santiago Creek
1933
25,000
35 West Valley
1936
17,700
49 Mathews
1938
100,000
50 Gene Wash
1937
20,700
51 Copper Basin
1938
20,700
52 Big Sage
1921
77,000
53 Cuyamaca
1887
11,600
54 Harold
1891
6,575
55 Exchequer
1926
289,000
58 Lake Yosemite
1888
7,000
57 Dal las- Warner
1911
27,000
58 Shasta River
1926
72,000
59 Bowman Rockfill
1927
68,000
60 French Lake
1859
12,340
61 Scotts Flat
1940
20,000
62 Melones
1926
112,000
63 Woodward
1918
35,000
64 Don Pedro
1923
289,000
65 Owen
1911
49,000
66 Bridgeport
1924
47,455
118 San Gabriel No. 1
1938
56,000
PRIVATE
36 Copco No. 1
1922
77,000
38 Butt Valley
1924
49,768
39 Lake Almanor
1927
650,000
40 Bucks Storage
1928
103,000
41 Crane Valley Storage
1910
45,000
42 Bullards Bar
1924
16,620
43 Round Valley
1877
1,285
44 Blue Lake
1870
1,123
45 Fuller Lake
1870
1,194
46 Kidd Lake
1855
1,435
47 Lake Fordyce
1926
46,662
48 Lake Spaulding
1913
74,488
67 Lake Sterling
1877
1,646
68 Meadow Lake
1864
4,800
69 Upper Peak Lake
1850
1,607
70 Echo Lake
1876
1,900
continued from upper right
continued lower left
71
Twin Lakes
1922
21,250
72
Salt Springs
1931
130,000
73
Main Strawberry
1916
17,900
74
Phoenix
1880
1,215
75
Relief
1910
15,120
76
Lake Britton
1925
32,200
77
Lake Pillsbury
1900
73,163
78
Hillside
1910
13,368
79
Gem Lake
1917
17,604
80
Saddlebag
1921
11,138
81
Florence Lake
1926
64,405
82
Huntington Lake
1917
88,834
83
Shaver Lake
1927
135,283
84
Independence
1939
18,500
85
Toreson
1898
1,118
86
Round Valley
1892
2,000
87
Red Rock
1895
1,675
88
Hog Flat
1891
8,000
89
•Lake Leavitt
1891
14,000
90
McCoy Flat
1891
17,290
91
Indian 'Ole
1924
21,890
93
Branham
1880
1,200
94
Bidwell Lake
1865
4,800
95
Donner Lake
1927
11,000
96
Morning Star
1870
2,200
97
Clear Lake Impound
1914
420,000
98
Chabot
1870
1,180
99
Loon Lake
1884
8,000
100
Salt Springs Valley
1882
12,930
101
Twin Lake, Lower
1888
4,000
102
Sequoia
1888
3,000
104
Bear Valley
1911
72,400
105
Lake Arrowhead
1922
47,000
106
Lake Hemet
1895
14,000
107
Railroad Canyon
1928
12,000
108
Lake O'Neill
1883
1,390
109
Henshaw
1923
203,581
110
Sweetwater, Main
1888
31,176
FEDERAL
112
Boca
1939
41,100
113
Clearlake
1910
527,000
114
Dorris
1925
11,100
115
East Park
1910
51,000
116
Hansen
1940
29,700
117
Imperial
1938
85,000
119
North Fork
1939
14,600
120
Parker
1938
648,000
121
Stony Gorge
1928
50,055
122
Lake Tahoe
1913
732,000
123
Upper Sardine
1885
1,435
O^
120
Imperial (Alamo) Canal 1901
Yuma
Project
1909
This map by Ham Hall displays
the northern end of the San
Joaquin Valley in the vicinity of
the watersheds of the Kings and
Kaweah rivers, site of some of
the most intense court battles
over water rights in the nine-
teenth century. The Fresno
colony appears at the top left
and the northern tip of Tulare
Lake can be seen directly below
the colony. The blue tones on
the map depict the extent of
irrigated lands in 1886; the green
areas identify swamp and bottom
lands; and the vast fields of pink
mark the lands that Hall argued
might someday be developed for
agriculture through the construc-
tion of irrigation systems.
quantity as against any later user. This principle was
followed notwithstanding the fact that the land on
which the stream flowed, in almost every case, was
actually public land owned by the United States;
under familiar common law principles, neither pri-
vate party to a given controversy was in a position to
assert the rights of the true owner, the United States.
There were exceptional cases in which the land in
question was not owned by the federal government,
and in these cases the California Supreme Court
made its critical policy determination as early as 1857
in the case of Crandall v. Woods. The riparian rights of
land which was in private ownership at the time an
appropriation was made were held to be superior to
the rights of the appropriator; the common law rule
of riparian rights was thus approved.
The uncertain element in every early appropriative
right in California, however, was that the federal
government, either as sovereign or as owner of the
public land, might repudiate the whole idea. In par-
ticular, the common law approach of the California
Supreme Court necessarily reserved the question of
the rights of the United States as the proprietor of the
land on which almost all appropriations had occurred.
In a remarkable post-Civil War legislative battle, Con-
gress resolved the question in 1866. An effort to
recover for the United States the value of gold mined
on public land without congressional authority was
defeated, and western members of Congress went on
to win not only the right to mine on public land but
also federal acquiescence in all water appropriations
which had been made on the public domain, or which
might be made in the future. The exact meaning of
this legislation was much debated, but in the end the
Congressional waiver of water rights of the public do-
main was recognized. Indeed, the ultimate contro-
versy was not whether Congress had given up the
proprietary rights of the United States but rather
whether, in the process, it had established a national
policy in favor of appropriation as against private
riparian rights.
In the generation following the decision in Crandall
v. Woods in 1857, the California doctrine of riparian
rights on private land drew increasing criticism for a
number of reasons. First, whatever any individual
member of Congress may have thought when voting
for the act in 1866, the appearance of federal approval
of the idea of appropriation thereafter carried consid-
erable weight. Second, as mining decreased in
importance in California and agricultural activity
increased, and as a larger and larger portion of Cali-
fornia land was transferred to private ownership, the
practical consequences of the riparian doctrine grew
more obvious. In terms of the number of acres af-
fected, the doctrine constituted an increasingly sig-
nificant barrier to any land development dependent
on appropriation. In addition, the decision by Colo-
rado and other western states in the years after Cran-
CALIFORNIA STATE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
TOPOGRAPHICAL AND IRRIGATION MAP
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY.
SHEET ]f>ro. 3
Wm. Ham, Hall. Stat*» Bnjeineer.
188fS.
Scale: One Inch to Throe Mile*.
Tkecurmofcoidonr on thee* eheetthaee been pro*
jested from data, surging in ealu4 and eemrttfrrim
in different parti of the region centred (generally
epeaHng the data in San, Joaquin Count* and en the
wtil tule of tht Han Jaaqiin Jhver below the grade
lint from Tuhre lake wait quite complete and ac-
curate, and the curvet can be relied m
Over otAer parte of the region the information woe
not to full. St that the curvet repretent the general
locution of the contour* of elevation, and often no-
attempt hat been mid* toJU them to detail* of local
metis, ridgtt, and hollow* in the plain
The Foothilw.
The topography of the foothille along tne eastern
border of the eaihg it, for the meet part, represented
on thete $tuett from reeonnoittancw made by the State
Engineering Department, and U belUcbl to be quite
true to nature.
dall v. Woods to opt for the impetus to development,
stability, and flexibility which the appropriation doc-
trine offered, spurred efforts in California for a re-
examination of the early California decisions.
The issue was joined in the case of Lux v. Haggin,
which reached the California Supreme Court in the
middle of the 1880s. Henry Miller and his partner
Charles Lux bought up vast amounts of acreage in
the San Joaquin Valley under the state's program for
disposing of federal swamp and overflow lands during
the 1850s. The holdings of the Miller and Lux Land
and Cattle Company embraced both banks of the San
Joaquin River for a stretch of 100 miles from Modesto
to Madera, and 50 miles of the Kern River. Ultimate-
ly, the company laid claim to more than a million acres
in California, Nevada, and Oregon and Miller boasted
that he could ride from Mexico to Oregon and sleep
every night in a ranch house of his own. Although
Miller and Lux claimed they were cattlemen, their
critics charged that they were manipulating their vast
riparian holdings for purposes of land speculation by
keeping their properties undeveloped and delaying
subdivision so as to drive up the value of the land.
Their riparian right to the undiminshed flow of the
Kern River, moreover, interfered with the intention
of another firm owned by James Haggin and Lloyd
Tevis to appropriate water upstream for the purpose
of irrigating lands lying at some distance from the
river.
By a four to three vote, the California Supreme
Court in 1886 reaffirmed the doctrine of riparian
rights and denied Haggin's appropriative use of the
streamflows of the Kern River. The majority opinion
in the case is the longest in the history of the court,
and the decision had important effects not only for
California but for all the states which followed the
California approach. In part, the decision was politi-
cal. While the case was pending in the Supreme
Court, the conflicting rules of riparian and appropri-
ative rights were much debated in the election of
1884, and in those days, Supreme Court justices were
directly elected. Although the riparian estate involved
in this case was very large, it was argued that appro-
priation generally favored the well-financed
promoter or public utility as opposed to the ordinary
farmers and the owners of Spanish land grants who
made their living by working the land riparian to Cali-
fornia's streams. On the other hand, many irrigation
projects were absolutely dependent on the right of
appropriation. The controversy became so heated in
Kern County, where the case arose, that at the next
judicial election the trial judge, who had decided in
favor of appropriation, was defeated by an opponent
who campaigned on the doctrine of riparian rights.
The Supreme Court's decision in this case did not
write new law; it simply reaffirmed the principles it
had recognized earlier. But the effect of the decision
was to delay for 40 years the advance of the appropri-
ative doctrine in California.
Irrigationists, angered by the outcome of the case,
were successful in obtaining a special session of the
Legislature to take up irrigation legislation that same
year. Although this special session failed to achieve
any reforms, the Legislature did respond to the crisis
the next year by passing the Wright Irrigation Act of
1887. Declaring for the first time that the use of
water for irrigation was a "public use," the Legisla-
ture by this enactment authorized the formation of
local public irrigation districts which had the power to
bring condemnation suits against the existing works
of private irrigation companies, take them over, and
build extensions by issuing bonds and levying taxes
upon the landowners who would be benefited. Enact-
ment of the Wright Act prompted the formation of
dozens of public irrigation districts in southern and
central California. Although 50 districts were ulti-
mately created under this act, the Modesto and Tur-
lock districts proved most successful, while others
floundered and failed. The Legislature repeatedly
tinkered with the law to try to make it work. But each
proposal for a new district stirred intense local con-
troversies; few districts understood how properly to
design and manage an irrigation system; fraud was a
persistent phenomenon in connection with land sales;
litigation flourished luxuriantly; and drought condi-
tions in some parts of California during the mid-
18905 drove many districts into bankruptcy.
By the turn of the century, some advocates of irri-
gation began to despair that California would ever
enjoy what they regarded as the civilizing influence of
irrigated agriculture. "Until quite recent years, the
people living in the greater part of the State regarded
26
m
Two of the greatest waterworks
of the nineteenth century no
longer exist. On the right, the
Anaheim Flume with a parallel
line under construction. The
Sweetwater Dam at far left was
built entirely with private capital
in 1883 to serve the San Diego
and National City areas. Until
its collapse in 1916, it was one
of the largest dams in the West.
irrigation in the same light that eastern people gen-
erally view it, viz. that it is a grievous hardship im-
posed by nature upon the inhabitants of certain ill-
favored regions of the earth/' commented a report of
the United States Department of Agriculture in 1900.
The federal investigators who prepared the report at-
tributed this prejudice against irrigation in part to a
fear that it would spread malaria but also to a basic
flaw in the character of Californians: "The cowboy on
horseback was an aristocrat; the irrigator on foot ... a
groveling wretch. In cowboy land, the irrigation ditch
has always been regarded with disfavor because it is
the badge and symbol of a despised occupation."
Nonetheless, irrigation pushed ahead persistently.
The 150,000 acres in Southern California which were
brought into irrigation districts in 1889 eventually
became spreading orange and lemon orchards in the
fertile southern valleys. Vast water importation
projects described in succeeding sections of this
volume brought agricultural prosperity to the barren
wastes of the Imperial, Coachella, and San Fernando
valleys. The development of efficient, motor-driven
pumps opened sections of the San Joaquin Valley to
irrigation by enhancing access to the Central Valley's
groundwater reservoirs. Establishment of a Bond
Certification Commission at the state level in 1911
brought a much-needed measure of stability to the
fiscal affairs of the irrigation districts. And, with the
advent of a cycle of wet years beginning in 1908, 66
new districts were formed in the dozen years between
1909 and 1921.
All of this activity proceeded in the absence of a
definitive system of appropriative water rights.
Although it is difficult to understand today, the Cali-
fornia Supreme Court appears to have flirted
throughout this period with a dog-in-the-manger
principle whereby a riparian owner could obtain an
injunction against an appropriative use of water even
though the riparian owner himself was not using it.
This was sometimes called the rocking chair theory of
water rights because it allowed a riparian owner to sit
in his rocking chair and watch the water flow unused
to the ocean. The California cases were in conflict.
One line of decisions held that no injunctive relief
should be allowed, for the obvious reason that a waste
of water would result. Another line of cases granted
injunctions on the ground that the plaintiff would
otherwise lose his riparian right by prescription. It
bears noting, however, that this latter line of deci-
sions began at a time when the law did not yet recog-
nize declaratory relief, and it was not until 1921 that a
California statute authorizing declaratory actions
eliminated the reason for those decisions.
The Legislature attempted to bring order to the
condition of appropriative rights through the Water
Commission Act of 1913 which created a state agency
to determine whether a proposed appropriation
should be allowed. Other provisions in the act,
however, which constituted a direct assault upon the
doctrine of riparian rights, were declared unconsti-
tutional. One of these provided for the termination of
unexercised riparian rights, while another would
have limited the beneficial use of water on unculti-
vated land to 2.5 acre-feet per acre.
One effect of the riparian doctrine was to give
special prominence to the so-called theory of the long
purse. So long as litigation was the principal means of
protecting water rights, anyone setting out to make
use of California's water supplies had to add to the
ordinary risks of his enterprise an often large and
continuing outlay for the support of litigation to
maintain his right to water. Thus, critics of the
riparian doctrine complained, those with the longest
purse could harass other water users into submission
through frequent suits.
The crisis finally came in 1926, when the California
Supreme Court again confirmed the supremacy of
riparian rights in the case of Herminghaus v. Southern
California Edison Company. The company proposed to
store water for hydroelectric purposes, but the plain-
tiffs sought an injunction on the ground that this use
would interfere with the natural irrigation of their
riparian lands. The critical circumstance in the case
was that the plaintiffs' lands were watered by the
river only in periods of extremely high flow, during
the spring and summer melting of the snow in the
Sierra Nevada when the river water was lifted up to
remote areas which at other times did not even touch
the river. Thus, a large volume of water was
necessary to confer a small benefit — the issue was not
that the plaintiffs wasted water by not using it at all,
but rather that the plaintiffs wasted water by making
an unreasonable use of it.
As in Lux v. Haggin, the case stirred great public
controversy and there were numerous briefs filed on
both sides. Although the law was settled that appro-
priators could make only a reasonable use of water,
and that one riparian owner was required to act
reasonably with respect to other riparian owners, the
court quoted approvingly from an earlier decision to
the effect that the law did not require riparian owners
to act reasonably as against an appropriator. The
court did not concede that the plaintiffs' use was
unreasonable, and again, the vote was close.
Although the opinion appears to have a five-to-one
majority, with one justice abstaining, there were
changes in the membership of the court within a few
days after the decision was issued, and the vote on the
petition for rehearing was four to three.
Public reaction was immediate and critical. With the
collaboration of the author of the dissenting opinion,
a state constitutional amendment was drafted which
required all uses of water to be reasonable. The
amendment was adopted in 1928 and, in several
decisions immediately following, notably Peabody v.
City of Vallejo in 1935, the California Supreme Court
carried out the mandate of the amendment. For some
time it was believed that the change in law may have
affected only the remedy of injunction and that a
riparian owner might obtain damages from an appro-
priator who interfered with the riparian owner's
right to make an unreasonable use of water. But in
1967, the right to obtain damages for such use was
held to have been terminated by the amendment in
the case of Joslin v. Marin Municipal Water District.
The 1928 constitutional amendment did not, of
course, abolish riparian rights in California. Where
they survive they are still important and, except for
riparian land which was still in the public domain
when a given appropriation was made, riparian rights
have priority over appropriative rights. But the
amendment did bind together the competing princi-
ples of riparian and appropriative doctrines, which
had been tangled throughout the early years of Cali-
fornia's settlement, under a system which recognized
the interest of all the people of California in the pro-
motion of the "reasonable and beneficial use" of all
the waters of the state.
The passage of the constitutional amendment in
1928 and the assumption that same year of federal
responsibility for the construction of the major facili-
ties of the Sacramento Flood Control Project mark
the end of an era which depended upon individualism,
local control, and private enterprise for the develop-
ment of California's water resources. The new era,
characterized by cooperation, centralized super-
vision, and the use of public funds and authority, was
already well advanced by this time, however, thanks
in large part to the pressing needs of California's
cities, which by 1900 had become critical.
PARKS DAM CONTROVERSY
Rather than resolving private conflicts over water use
through systematic programs of reclamation and develop-
ment, the early statutes authorizing the formation of public
districts in some instances simply provided competing
water users with another means to wage war. Such was the
case in a controversy of the 1870s involving two of the larg-
est landowners in the Sutter Basin near Colusa, William H.
Parks and L. F. Moulton.
Parks, the owner of extensive swamplands in the basin,
formed a levee district in 1871 to implement a plan to drain
his lands and reduce the risk of floods by constructing a dam
shutting off natural overflows into Butte Slough. Although
the plan sparked local controversy because it would require
taxing farmers who would not benefit from flood control
while flooding other lands downstream, Parks completed
his dam on December 6, 1871.
Moulton owned land along the east side of Butte Slough
which was protected from floods by a levee system Moulton
had constructed through the formation of a reclamation
district. As the water began to back up behind Parks Dam,
flooding lands that had never before been endangered, a
band of masked men on December 27, 1871, seized the dam
and destroyed a part of it.
The Sutter County Board of Supervisors initially sup-
ported Parks' efforts to maintain the dam, which
had to be repeatedly repaired to compensate for floods
which washed away portions of the dam in 1874 and 1875.
Moulton meanwhile resorted to litigation to prevent recon-
struction of the dam and obtain compensation for his losses.
In the initial phases of his suit, however, Moulton met with
no success in the courts.
In 1875 the county required modifications to the dam
which should have alleviated some of the problems it had
caused in earlier years. Parks, however, circumvented
these requirements by placing the dam under the authority
of a swampland district whose operations would not be sub-
ject to county approval. On January 3, 1876, Moulton's suit
came before Judge Phil Keyser in Colusa. As if to support
his case, floodwaters diverted by the dam washed out the
levees in another reclamation district and the affected land-
owners raided Parks Dam in retaliation, destroying a large
segment of it. Judge Keyser ruled against reconstruction on
the evidence of the damage the dam had already caused, and
despite numerous appeals by Parks, this decision was up-
held.
27
'
CHAPTER 4
Urban Development
and the Rise of
Public Control
The most densely populated city
in California today derives its
water supply almost entirely from
external sources. From above,
the only evidence of the water
delivery system of San Francisco
are the great flat roofs enclosing
the reservoirs perched high on
the slopes of Twin Peaks and
Sunset Reservoir south of Golden
Gate Park.
In the early days, the patterns of settlement within
California followed traditional lines of civilization,
centering upon areas of natural water supply. Mis-
sions, towns, and villages consequently grew up along
the river courses which provided them with the
means of life and commerce. The great wave of immi-
gration that followed the discovery of gold in 1849
and the opening of the transcontinental railroad soon
after, however, concentrated the centers of human
settlement not in areas of abundant natural supply
but instead in those regions which lacked a natural
endowment of water capable of sustaining large
urban populations. The body of law and practice
which grew out of the conflict between mining and
agriculture in the nineteenth century established a
framework for the organization of irrigation districts
and the protection of the urban trading centers which
served these newly developing agricultural regions.
But little attention has been paid to the problem of
urban water supply itself. Even the federal Reclama-
tion Act, which did more than any other governmen-
tal program to remake the western waterscape, made
no provision in its original form for the supply of
domestic water needs. By 1900 the spectacular rate of
California's population growth had rendered these
shortcomings critical, and the problem of urban water
supply emerged as the principal obstacle to Califor-
nia's future prosperity in the new century.
The aberration of California's growth away from
the areas of natural water supply was in part the con-
sequence of the state's appeal. The great wave of new
Californians who began to arrive in the 1850s did not
bring with them families to open up the land as had
happened in the settlement of the Midwestern and
Plains states. They were instead a predominantly
male, predominantly young population who came for
the gold and the fortunes to be made in the mining
camps. Initially, they came from New England and the
mid-Atlantic states, and the skills they brought with
them were not in husbandry but in trade and mer-
chant shipping. As their hopes of success in the gold
camps dwindled and the mines played out, they
returned to the great port cities along the coast, not to
the inland farms. Despite its success in securing pro-
tection for agriculture from the threat of hydraulic
mining, Sacramento's rate of growth slowed as the
mines closed, while San Francisco's population con-
tinued to swell. Even as the great wheat empires
formed in the Central Valley, the proportion of Cali-
fornia's rural population steadily shrank from 79 per-
cent of the total population in 1860 to 63 percent, 57
percent, and 51 percent in each succeeding decade
until 1890. For America as a whole, the long process
of transition from a predominantly rural to an urban
society extended from the latter half of the nine-
teenth century to the 1920s; in California, however,
the transformation began almost immediately and
proceeded with remarkable speed.
Although the flow of new population was initially
directed toward the water-abundant areas of North-
ern California, the opening of the railroads changed
all that. From 1860 to 1880, 83 percent of California's
population growth continued to concentrate in the
■H
northern sections of the state. An early sign of
change, however, occurred in 1870, only one year
after the golden spike was driven at Promontory
Point, when the rate of growth in Southern Califor-
nia for the first time surpassed that of the north. The
opening of the railroad did not bring the immediate
prosperity its backers had imagined; rather than
opening new markets to California's products, it
introduced competition from the East and thereby
ushered in a sustained recession for California's econ-
omy. But the Southern Pacific had over ten million
acres of land to dispose of and it turned its mighty
promotional engines to the selling of California.
Handbills and pamphlets flooded the eastern states
touting the health benefits of life in Southern Califor-
nia and the profits to be made in land speculation.
Sunset and Out West magazines were founded to pro-
mote the Mediterranean qualities of the Southern
California climate and, in keeping with this theme,
new towns sprang up with names like Hesperia, Tar-
ragona, Terracina, and Verona, while San Diego and
Long Beach tousled for the opportunity to be identi-
fied as the "Naples of California." Land prices in the
Los Angeles area spiraled upward for a brief period in
the late 1880s but plummeted again before the decade
was out. Despite these setbacks, however, despite the
bank failures and bread lines that came with the Panic
of 1893, the closing of the railroads during the Pull-
man strike of 1894, and the three years of drought
that descended upon Southern California in the mid-
18908, the people kept right on coming. By 1900, 30
percent of the state's population was concentrated in
the semi-arid South Coast.
The rapid growth of San Francisco and Los Angeles
during the latter decades of the nineteenth century
brought both cities up against the limits of their natu-
ral water endowment. Continued prosperity could
not be assured without an additional source of supply.
But neither city possessed in 1900 an organizational
structure capable of undertaking the kind of develop-
ment project required to tap a distant water resource
because the business of water supply in both cities
was at that time a private, not a municipal, enterprise.
Just as Californians were slow to accept the princi-
ples of systematic irrigation, so too did the state lag
far behind the rest of the nation by 1900 in the devel-
opment and distribution of urban water supplies. The
first American municipal waterworks system was
installed at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, in 1754. The
success of the major municipal systems that were
subsequently constructed in Philadelphia and Cincin-
nati assured that by the middle of the nineteenth cen-
tury private water systems, with few exceptions,
were characteristic only of the smaller cities. Califor-
nia was one of those exceptions. Of the 16 largest cit-
ies in the United States in 1860, San Francisco was
one of only four that still lacked a municipally owned
water system. Los Angeles went still further in 1868,
when it leased its entire local water supply for private
exploitation, a monopoly which the water company
fought vigorously to retain for four years after the
expiration of the lease in 1898. The Los Angeles City
Council would, in fact, have sold the water supply
outright if Mayor Christobal Aquilar had not vetoed
the proposal.
Water was not uniquely treated in this regard; vir-
tually the full panoply of utility services — gas, elec-
tricity, telephone service, and urban transit — were
delivered by private companies in California's cities at
the turn of the century. This confidence in the private
sector stemmed from a profound faith in the free-
enterprise system and an even deeper distrust of poli-
ticians. As one Los Angeles city councilman remarked
as he prepared to sign over the city's water rights in
1868, "It is well known by past experience that cities
and towns can never manage enterprises of that
nature as economically as individuals can, and besides,
it is a continual source of annoyance." Water, under
California's riparian laws, was treated as a private
resource, and the success of the water colonies at Pas-
adena, Anaheim, and elsewhere seemed to offer proof
of what private capital could accomplish in the way of
community development.
The example of the water colonies, however, had
little application to the plight Los Angeles and San
Francisco faced in 1900. The colonies' success, after
all, involved the development of already-available
water resources. But the delivery of a supplemental
supply from distant watersheds required capital
investments which lay beyond the capacity of any pri-
vate water company to make. Municipalization of the
urban water supply, as a means of securing access to
the far greater amounts of capital which government
Hilly terrain and the absence of municipal waterworks made the
water carrier at top a common sight in early San Francisco. The
flatlands of the south coastal plain, on the other hand, made
the water wheel below the principal method of delivering water
to residents of Los Angeles for many years after its construction
in 1859. The wheel lifted water from the Los Angeles River to a
sufficient height to enable it to flow by gravity into the city.
can raise through taxation and bond sales, thus came
to be regarded as the essential first step toward the
development of a water supply sufficient to sustain
the dreams of Northern and Southern California's
city builders. The movement toward municipalization
in San Francisco and Los Angeles was not founded on
politically partisan principles or an early urge toward
progressive reform. Instead, it rapidly attained the
standing of a principle above politics which promised
better service and lower rates, and assured continued
prosperity for all. Thus, San Francisco and Los
Angeles, confronting a common problem but acting
independently and exclusively in their own interests,
began a process of water development through mas-
sive public projects which would eventually remake
the entire California waterscape.
HETCH HETCHY
The first decade of the twentieth century was a
time of reform throughout the United States, a move-
ment which blended an earlier generation's quest for
opportunity and the new age's preoccupation with
efficiency. In California especially, problems of land
and resource management became the focus of
reformers' efforts to overhaul city and state govern-
ment and guard the public interest against exploita-
tion by private interests. While Los Angeles, tradi-
tionally a business-oriented city, was establishing
total municipal ownership of its water supply system,
San Francisco, by reputation a more liberal commun-
ity, approached the question of public ownership with
hesitation.
Ever since the 1860s the bulk of San Francisco's
water supply had been provided by a private corpora-
tion, the Spring Valley Water Company. When Wil-
liam Chapman Ralston, elegant founder of the Bank
of California, offered to sell the company to the city in
1875 in an effort to save his toppling financial empire,
San Francisco rejected the notion. From that time for-
ward, the company worked resolutely to continue
expanding its system to meet the steadily increasing
needs of the Bay Area. When the city's water planners
proposed the purchase of Calaveras Valley in south-
ern Alameda County as a future source of the city's
supply, for example, Spring Valley rapidly bought up
the area to head off any renewed threat of municipal
ownership. By the turn of the century, the company
was delivering water to the city from wells near Pleas-
anton and from the Sunol and Alameda Creek water-
sheds through a pipeline running around the south-
ern end of the Bay and up the Peninsula.
By 1900, however, the city's population was ap-
proaching 350,000 and that total was expected to tri-
ple within the next 50 years. The new city charter
that year therefore directed San Francisco's public
officials to plan for a public water supply system capa-
ble of meeting these future needs, not to replace but
to supplement the Spring Valley system. Surveys
conducted over the preceding 20 years had identified
14 new water sources the city might consider in dis-
tant watersheds ranging from Plumas to Mariposa.
But the city engineer, Marsden Manson, considered
the Tuolumne superior to all the rest. If the Hetch
Hetchy Valley and neighboring Lake Eleanor were
used to store the waters of the Tuolumne River, he
told the city government, a system could be built for
$70 million that would deliver 60 million gallons a day
through pipelines to the city's reservoir nearly 160
miles away. Moreover, the fall of water from the
ruggedly beautiful Hetch Hetchy Valley at an eleva-
tion of 3,800 feet down to the San Joaquin foothills
could be used to generate electric power for the city.
Best of all, because Hetch Hetchy lay within the public
domain as part of Yosemite National Park, its water
supply could be secured at virtually no cost.
The practicality of Manson's recommendation
seemed assured when Congress passed the Right of
Way Act in 1901, authorizing the Secretary of the
Interior to grant public access to federal reserved
lands in the state, including Yosemite. But the Secre-
tary of the Interior, Ethan A. Hitchcock, rejected San
Francisco's application for access to the Hetch Hetchy
in 1903, arguing that several alternative sites — many
of them much closer to the city — could be used
instead. The area was at this time the focus of
national attention as a result of John Muir's long cam-
paign to preserve the Yosemite Valley, only 20 miles
southeast of Hetch Hetchy, by convincing the state to
cede title to the valley to the federal government.
Two years later, Muir's larger cause triumphed when
the entire park was placed under Interior's jurisdic-
tion. But by then the resource policies of President
Theodore Roosevelt's administration were being
shaped by Chief Forester Gifford Pinchot.
The controversy over San Francisco's plans for the
Hetch Hetchy set the two wings of America's nascent
conservation movement against one another. To
Muir, founder of the Sierra Club and defender of the
High Sierra, San Francisco's proposal was anathema.
"Dam Hetch Hetchy?" he exclaimed. "As well dam for
water tanks the people's cathedrals and churches; for
no holier temple has ever been consecrated to the
heart of man." As an advocate of planned, regulated
use of the resources in the public domain, however,
Pinchot was a utilitarian, not a preservationist like
Muir. "I feel very strongly that San Francisco must
have an adequate water supply," he told the Sierra
Club. Hitchcock's decision on the city's application, he
decided, "entirely failed to meet the needs of the
situation." The prospects for the eventual triumph of
Pinchot's belief and San Francisco's plan improved
markedly when Hitchcock was replaced in 1907 by
Pinchot's close friend and ally, James R. Garfield.
By this time, however, San Francisco's enthusiasm
for the project had begun to cool. The earthquake of
1906 ruptured the Spring Valley pipeline, leaving the
city with an inadequate water supply to fight the fires
that swept the city. While this experience under-
scored the urgency of San Francisco's need for an
expanded water supply, the Hetch Hetchy project
seemed to be a tremendously difficult engineering
task which would create a great drain on public finan-
ces already overextended to meet the costs of rebuild-
ing the city. Moreover, San Francisco's application
had come under attack not only by environmental
preservationists but also by the Modesto and Turlock
Irrigation Districts, which claimed prior rights to the
waters of the Tuolumne. When William Tevis of the
Bay Cities Water Company stepped forward in the
aftermath of the earthquake with an offer to build an
alternative system to the watersheds of the American
and Cosumnes rivers near Lake Tahoe for only $10.5
million, the San Francisco supervisors approved the
plan without hesitation. Tevis' plan, however, col-
lapsed the next year amidst charges that one million
dollars of the project's cost would be used for kick-
backs to the supervisors, the mayor, and to the city's
political boss, Abraham Ruef. So chastened, the city
turned once again to the Hetch Hetchy.
29
Northern California Urban Delivery Systems
This graphic compares the flows, capacities and over-
all operation of the cross-country delivery systems of
the San Francisco Water Department and the East Bay
Municipal Utility District during fiscal year 1975. East
Bay MUD draws 92 percent of its supplies from the
Mokelumne River. Pardee Dam retains water for use
by East Bay MUD while Camanche Reservoir con-
serves water for the protection of downstream riparian
rights. The Tuolumne River provides 86 percent of the
water San Francisco distributes to meet its own needs
and those of over 50 communities, water agencies and
private concerns in the Bay Area.
Aqueduct Systems
Camanche Reserve
Pardee Reservoir
Hetch
Hetchy
Reservoir
_i 50 mi
MOO km
All volumes, both
flow and storage,
are in acre-feet
250,000
100,000
Cross sections of the water conduits on the diagram
are directly proportional to the flow through them in
fiscal year 1975. Diagrammatic reservoirs, however,
are not scaled by capacity, nor are other point facilities.
Flow volumes in boldface type are reported values,
medium type represents inferred values. Dashed paths
represent no flow in fiscal year 1975.
At Pinchot's urging and with President Roosevelt's
endorsement, Garfield approved San Francisco's
application in 1908. He required, however, that San
Francisco's voters support the cost of initial con-
struction and that the work not be delayed. Preser-
vationists were shocked by the decision; the Roose-
velt men, they grumbled, were obviously angling for
political support from California. But Muir's associ-
ates had admittedly been "inexact dreamers" whose
arguments about beauty and precedent could not
even convince all members of the Sierra Club, not to
speak of the diverse interests of the city. Commercial
organizations warned that by 1950 San Francisco's
per capita water consumption would go from 87 gal-
lons to 130 gallons a day (a level not actually reached
until the 1960s). They also promoted the project
with claims that it would eliminate mosquito breed-
ing grounds and prevent typhoid epidemics, feats
which then enjoyed popular currency in connection
with the Panama Canal project. With Garfield's ap-
proval secured, voters in 1908 approved a $600,000
bond issue and the city's attorneys set about acquiring
rights of way along the proposed aqueduct from
the river valley.
The advent of William Howard Taft's administra-
tion in Washington, however, set Pinchot at odds
with the new Secretary of the Interior, Richard Bal-
linger. Ballinger visited Yosemite with members of
the Sierra Club in 1909 and then suspended his
predecessor's approval of the use of Hetch Hetchy.
The Secretary ordered the city to demonstrate the
insufficiency of all other alternative water supply
sites. His successor, Walter Fisher, extended the
deadline for decision to 1912, but then concluded as
he left office that the Right of Way Act gave no clear
authorization for granting such use of the national
park.
Despite these uncertainties, San Francisco's offi-
cials pushed forward with land purchases and plan-
ning for transportation routes into the Hetch
Hetchy. Their cause was substantially boosted when
a 1912 report demonstrated that three reservoir
dams in the Hetch Hetchy area could impound
enough water to meet every estimated municipal
need without impairing the irrigation requirements
of the Modesto and Turlock districts. Realizing at
last that no administrative permit could assure the
permanent approval San Francisco required, the city
focused its efforts upon obtaining statutory author-
ity for the Hetch Hetchy project. Although Muir was
resolute in his opposition and sought to block Con-
gressional approval with pamphlets and circulars "in
a country wide storm thick as snowflakes," Muir's
publicity was no match for what President Woodrow
Wilson described as "pressing public needs." And,
while California Senator John D. Works complained
that San Francisco's water project would wind up
costing the public $100 million, his warnings were
rejected because he came from Los Angeles. San
Francisco's ultimate victory, however, can perhaps
be ascribed to one single factor. For, both Congress
and the President relied upon the recommendations
presented by Wilson's new Secretary of the Interior,
Franklin K. Lane, a former city attorney of San Fran-
cisco who had written many of the briefs in the city's
long battle for the project.
The legislation authorizing the Hetch Hetchy pro-
ject, known as the Raker Act for its author Con-
gressman John E. Raker, attempted to satisfy all the
contending interests in the controversy. To appease
the preservationists, it compelled the city to con-
struct scenic roads and trails in Yosemite National
Park and donate them to the United States. To mol-
lify the concerns of irrigationists in the Turlock and
Modesto areas, it extended recognition of their
rights, assured their deliveries, and prohibited San
Francisco from diverting any more water from the
San Joaquin Valley than could be used for its own
domestic or municipal purposes. To protect the
interests of the Spring Valley Water Company, it
required San Francisco to use all local supplies before
any water could be taken from the Tuolumne. And,
to assure the fiscal stability of the project, it directed
the city to begin work immediately and to include
within the project a hydroelectric power system for
municipal and commercial use, provided that no
water or power from this public project could ever be
sold or given to a private interest for resale.
This last provision proved to be a point of continu-
ing controversy because the prospect of public power
development by the City of San Francisco posed an
immediate threat to the consortium of private utility
companies newly formed in the Pacific Gas and
Electric Company. Although construction began in
1914, progress on the tunnels that had to be drilled
was slow and the funding soon proved inadequate.
Storage of water at Lake Eleanor started in 1918 but
it took five more years to erect O'Shaughnessy Dam
at Hetch Hetchy. By this time some San Franciscans
had begun referring to the city engineer, M. M.
O'Shaughnessy, as "More Money" O'Shaughnessy.
In order to stretch its financing as far as possible
and reduce the burden on San Francisco's taxpayers
for the payment of interest and redemption charges
on the bonds for the project, the city decided to con-
centrate first on the revenue-producing aspects of
the project, specifically the development of power-
generating facilities. Recalling the prominent role
played by PG&E in the investigation of municipal
corruption under Boss Ruef, some thought it a little
too neat when the city announced it had run out of
funds for the construction of transmission lines just
as the project reached PG&E's transmission facilities
at Newark in 1924. The San Francisco supervisors,
however, promptly granted PG&E a contract to
wheel the Hetch Hetchy power to Bay Area com-
munities. Since PG&E paid San Francisco $2.4 mil-
lion for power it then sold at retail for $9 million,
longtime supporters of the Hetch Hetchy system
strongly objected to the contract as a violation of the
Raker Act's prohibition against sales to private enti-
ties and as an alienation of property the city had paid
for. Others thought the arrangement economical
and convenient: the company, they argued, was no
more than an agent for the city. Ray Lyman Wilbur,
another Californian in the Interior secretaryship,
ignored objections to the contract, and San Francis-
co's Mayor James Rolph, soon to be governor, sup-
ported it.
The controversy, however, continued to simmer
as the project moved forward with repeated injec-
tions of new funding. In 1928 city voters approved
an additional $24 million in bonds by a wide margin.
In 1930 they approved an expenditure of another
$41 million to buy out the Spring Valley Water Com-
pany. Further funds to complete O'Shaughnessy
Dam and construct hyrdoelectric power stations
were passed in the early 1930s despite the Depres-
sion. But in a series of eight political campaigns
between 1927 and 1941, the voters of San Francisco
repeatedly refused either to buy out PG&E's distri-
bution system or pay for the construction on their
own.
In the political climate of the New Deal, with its
abhorrence for business domination of public inter-
ests, PG&E's critics presented their objections to
Franklin Roosevelt's Secretary of the Interior,
Harold L. Ickes. A strong advocate of public power,
the secretary ruled in 1935 that San Francisco's con-
tract violated the terms of the Raker Act. After he
ordered the city to establish its own power distribu-
tion system, San Francisco tried twice to develop a
plan Ickes would accept. Even after Ickes approved a
plan, the city's voters twice failed to support the $50
million bond issue it would have required. When the
federal government won a suit enabling Interior to
ban sale of Hetch Hetchy power to PG&E, Ickes
found it necessary to suspend full enforcement of
the limitation until the city established an alternative
to the private monopoly. City voters, however, again
refused to support a $66.5 million bond issue to pay
for a municipal system. Two attempts to amend the
Raker Act failed and in 1942 wartime exigencies
finally convinced the federal government to confirm
a new contract between the city and PG&E.
Water from Hetch Hetchy began flowing to San
Francisco in 1934. As Senator Works had predicted,
the project wound up costing $100 million. But as
the city engineers had promised, the supply was suf-
ficient to meet the city's needs while at the same
time providing a surplus for sale to more than a
dozen Bay Area communities. The revenues from
these sales in turn provided funds for the continued
expansion of the system. In 1939, the city began the
development of additional storage and power-
generating facilities in the Cherry Valley. The
Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts joined San
Francisco in this project, which provides flood con-
trol as well as increased supplies of water and power
for all. As a further part of this cooperative effort,
the voters of San Francisco in 1961 over whelmingly
approved a $115 million water bond issue, of which
$45 million went to pay the city's share of the costs
of constructing the 580-foot Don Pedro Dam. The
completion of this project, in turn, has substantially
reduced PG&E's role in wheeling power for the City
of San Francisco.
The modern San Francisco water system delivers
nearly six times as much water as the original Hetch
Hetchy project. Federal funds constitute only about
two percent of the more than $500 million invested
in the system. San Francisco sells over half of its
water supplies to suburban communities in San
Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda counties. In addi-
tion to the $14 million these water sales generate
each year, the city earns gross revenues of $18.6 mil-
lion from its sale of electrical power. The project has
thus more than repaid its costs and it has assumed an
importance as a source of funding for the city which
is at least as great as the value of the water it
provides.
THE LOS ANGELES WATER SYSTEM
While San Francisco's Hetch Hetchy project
labored forward, Los Angeles, starting at the same
time, built its own system to a watershed adjoining
the Hetch Hetchy, a project half again as long and
nearly six times as large as San Francisco's in a fifth
the length of time it took San Francisco and for only
a quarter of the cost. The completion of this system,
which carries water from the Owens Valley 233
miles south to the San Fernando Valley, laid the basis
for the modern South Coast metropolis and helped
to assure Los Angeles' success in the race with San
Francisco for primacy among California's urban
centers.
Los Angeles' success in this enterprise can be
attributed to at least three principal advantages it
John Muir's last and least succes-
sful battle was fought for the
Hetch Hetchy Valley. Muir is
shown here with views of the val-
ley before and after it was flooded
in 1923 to provide a water supply
for San Francisco. In the valley
photographs, Tueeulala and the
lower Wapama falls can be seen
cascading down the north wall
of Tuolumne Canyon.
31
-IPS
WILLIAM MULHOLLAND
When asked once in court to describe his qualifications as
an expert on water engineering, William Mulholland
responded, "Well, I went to school in Ireland when I was a
boy, learned the three R's, and the Ten Commandments —
or most of them — made a pilgrimage to the Blarney Stone,
received my father's blessing, and here I am." From this
uncertain background, Mulholland rose to become at one
point the highest paid public official in California and
for nearly half a century the personal embodiment of Los
Angeles' water policy.
Born in 1855, Mulholland landed in New York in 1874 as a
journeyman sailor. After knocking about in the dry goods
business and the lumber camps of Michigan for two years,
he set to sea again on the way to California. After an unsuc-
cessful stab at prospecting, Mulholland settled in Los
Angeles in 1878, where he took a job as a ditch tender for
the Los Angeles Water Company. An earlier experience as a
laborer on a well-drilling rig had set the course of his career
in water. "When we were down about six hundred feet we
struck a tree," he recalled. "A little further we got fossil
remains and these things fired my curiosity. I wanted to
know how they got there, so I got hold of Joseph Le Conte's
book on the geology of this country. Right there I decided to
become an engineer."
Blessed with a natural flair for mathematics and a
phenomenal memory, Mulholland rose rapidly through the
ranks of the Los Angeles Water Company to become its
superintendent in 1886. When the city bought out the com-
pany in 1902, Mulholland remained in charge, in part
because the city had found that as a result of his profound
distaste for paperwork, the only records the city had of
the distribution system it had acquired were those Mul-
holland carried in his head.
His managerial skill and the stunning success of his
aqueduct to the Owens Valley quickly gained him the affec-
tion of the city and confirmed the confidence the public had
placed in his abilities. To the progressive reformers of the
period, Mulholland stood "as an example of what the
applied scientist can do for his state when he holds his brief
for the people." Mulholland, however, always held himself
apart from politics. When pressed to run for public office
after the opening of the aqueduct had assured his fame,
Mulholland responded, "I would rather give birth to a por-
cupine backwards than be Mayor of Los Angeles." Instead,
he pursued the cause of public water development, serving
as a consulting engineer to water projects for Sacramento,
San Francisco, Oakland, Seattle, and the State of California
while at the same time continuing his management of the
Los Angeles water supply.
The high esteem in which he was held, however, began to
decline after 1920 as relations between Los Angeles and
Owens Valley worsened. His prominence as the principal
exponent of Los Angeles' water policy cast him as the villain
in the Owens Valley. Events in the Owens Valley thus
worked to stiffen resistance to Muholland's drive to tap the
Colorado through the formation of the Metropolitan Water
District. His career came to an abrupt and tragic end with
the collapse of the Saint Francis Dam on the night of March
13, 1928. Mulholland had personally inspected the dam and
declared it safe on the morning before it fell. To his credit,
he accepted complete personal responsibility for the
hundreds of lives lost and millions of dollars of damage done
by this unnatural disaster. His reputation irretrievably lost,
he resigned only a month before President Calvin Coolidge
signed the legislation creating the Boulder Canyon Project
for the city he had served so long.
enjoyed over San Francisco in the development of a
distant water supply. In the first place, whereas the
Hetch Hetchy project stalled time and again while
the city sought additional funds to cover its escalat-
ing costs, Los Angeles appropriated all of the money
required for its project at the outset through two
bond issues which stretched the city's permissible
indebtedness to the limit. The first of these issues,
for $1.5 million in 1905, covered the cost of surveys,
planning, and initial land acquisitions; the second, for
$23 million in 1907, went to pay for the actual con-
struction of the aqueduct. The voters of Los Angeles
were making a desperate gamble: failure of the proj-
ect could have placed the entire city in receivership,
and the head of the city's newly municipalized water
system, William Mulholland, had no formal training
as an engineer and had never constructed a water-
works system of the size proposed for the aqueduct.
Mulholland had, however, directed the activities of
the private company which owned the lease on Los
Angeles' water supply before the turn of the cen-
tury, and when the city bought out the company's
distribution system in 1902, Mulholland made the
conversion from the private to the public sector with
a vengeance. In his first three years as head of the
municipal system, he rebuilt the outmoded distribu-
tion network, cut the rates for domestic service in
half, turned a profit for the city of $640,000, and, in
the third year, announced his plan for the Owens
Valley aqueduct. Once begun, Mulholland declared
that the project should be "public owned from one
end to the other." Municipal crews built all but 11
miles of the canal and a quarter-mile of the tunnels,
using municipal cement and municipal power, a pol-
icy which Mulholland estimated would save the city
20 percent of the cost of private contractors. Mulhol-
land also set quotas for the progress of his work
crews and paid bonuses when the quotas were
exceeded. As a result, the project raced forward, set-
ting records for drilling all along the way and finish-
ing ahead of schedule and under budget.
Los Angeles' second great advantage was that it
did not have to contend with the Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, which worked so effectively to
block efforts by San Francisco and the federal
government to assure that the Hetch Hetchy project
would be entirely public. In place of the unified
strength of the many corporations joined under
PG&E's banner, Los Angeles only had to deal with
three power companies which had divided the city's
distribution markets among themselves. Although
the power companies fought bitterly for the right to
distribute electricity from the aqueduct within Los
Angeles and succeeded temporarily in disrupting the
financing of the project by undermining the market
for the city's bonds, Los Angeles absorbed their sys-
tems one by one, making itself in the process the
largest municipal electric utility in the nation. Elec-
trical power, however, was not the original purpose
of the project, only a profitable by-product.
Opposition to the bond election for the aqueduct,
in fact, centered not upon the question of public ver-
sus private ownership but instead upon charges of
municipal corruption during the planning of the proj-
ect. In the midst of the 1905 bond election, the
Hearst press revealed the existence of a syndicate of
investors who stood to profit fabulously when the
aqueduct delivered water to their vast but hereto-
fore arid holdings in the San Fernando Valley.
Headed by Henry Huntington, the region's foremost
financier, the syndicate included not only a brace of
Huntington's associates in the railroad, banking, and
power industries but also the publishers of three of
the city's most prominent newspapers, the Times,
Herald, and Express. Although critics charged that the
project was being promoted principally for the profit
of these wealthy financiers, the existence of the syn-
dicate was apparently irrelevant to most of the
voters of Los Angeles. And the prospect that certain
private interests would profit personally from the
city's water project did little to discourage support
for a proposal which the voters believed would bring
prosperity for all.
Finally, and perhaps most important, unlike San
Francisco which saw its project repeatedly delayed
for further studies of the alternative water supplies
it could tap instead of the Hetch Hetchy, Los Angeles
had no choices available to it. Mulholland warned the
voters that Los Angeles' local supply could not sup-
port a city larger than 200,000 people. Although
Mulholland clearly understated the limits of the local
supply during the heat of the election, his essential
point was correct. For the Owens Valley aqueduct,
"There it is. Take it," Mulholland told his audience as the first
water from the Owens Valley arrived in the scene pictured
above. Also shown, construction along the line of the aqueduct.
like the Hetch Hetchy project, was built not to serve
actual and immediate needs but instead to serve the
prospective demands of a greatly increased future
population. Although the city surveyed the pros-
pects for drawing additional supplies from nearby
watersheds on Piru Creek in Ventura County and
the Kern, Santa Ana, Mojave, and San Luis Rey riv-
ers, all were tied down by pre-existing claims and
none could guarantee the kind of supply available in
the Owens Valley, which Mulholland declared was
capable of supporting a city of two million.
The aqueduct opened November 5, 1913, and
immediately began delivering four times as much
water as the City of Los Angeles was then capable of
consuming for domestic purposes. The city's ability
to dispose of this surplus, however, was severely re-
stricted. In response to charges concerning the land
syndicate's role in planning for the project's develop-
ment, President Theodore Roosevelt had attempted
to assure that water from this public enterprise
would not be used to benefit the syndicate's holdings
in the San Fernando Valley. As a condition for his
approval of the aqueduct's right of way in 1906,
Roosevelt therefore stipulated that no water from
the aqueduct should ever be offered to any private
interest for resale as irrigation water outside the city
limits.
The city responded to these restrictions by rapidly
extending its boundaries as a way of applying its sur-
plus. Between 1914 and 1923, Los Angeles initiated a
series of annexations which nearly quadrupled its
land area and eventually embraced all of the syndi-
cate's holdings. Once annexed by Los Angeles, the
32
barren tracts of the San Fernando Valley blossomed
into citrus groves, beans, and potato fields, and the
aqueduct, as an urban water development project,
functioned for its first years of operation principally
for the benefit of agriculture. With the opening of the
Panama Canal in 1914, however, Los Angeles began
to establish itself as the principal port and commercial
center of the West Coast. The end of World War One
brought a flood of new immigrants to the city at the
rate of 100,000 per year. Overall, between 1900 and
1920, the population of the Los Angeles metropolitan
area quintupled, while that of the San Francisco Bay
Area did not quite double, with the result that the two
regions had drawn equal in size by 1920.
The aqueduct project did not operate entirely with-
out controversy. In contrast to San Francisco, which
found its new water supply in an unpopulated water-
shed within the public domain, Los Angeles had to
purchase its water rights and the lands that went with
them from the agricultural communities of the
Owens Valley. When Mulholland first toured the
Owens Valley in 1904, the area was already under
investigation by the newly created federal Reclama-
tion Service as the prospective site for a systematic
irrigation project which would have doubled the
acreage then in agricultural production within the
valley. When Los Angeles declared its own interest in
the region, the Reclamation Service withdrew, in part
at the urging of its Chief of Southwest Operations,
Joseph B. Lippincott, a loyal Angeleno who resigned
to take a high position on Mulholland's staff after it
was revealed that he had been under contract to Los
Angeles while drawing his federal salary. When the
residents of the Owens Valley protested the actions
of the Reclamation Service and the City of Los
Angeles, President Roosevelt reviewed their claims at
the time that he considered whether to grant a right
of way for the aqueduct. Roosevelt, however, re-
solved the question in Los Angeles' favor, arguing, "It
is a hundred or a thousand fold more important to
state that this [water] is more valuable to the people
as a whole if used by the city than if used by the people
of the Owens Valley."
At first, Los Angeles' water exports did not inter-
fere with agricultural productivity in the Owens Val-
ley because the point of intake for the aqueduct lay
downstream from the valley's irrigation systems.
Moreover, the prosperity of the valley was enhanced
by the business activity associated with the construc-
tion of the aqueduct and by the extension of a railroad
line to service the aqueduct which opened Los An-
geles markets, for the first time, to the valley's prod-
ucts. For a time, the valley and the city flourished
together.
As Los Angeles' population growth, however,
rapidly outran all of the predictions upon which the
construction of the aqueduct had been founded, the
city began to expand its water exports by extending
its land acquisitions steadily northward into the heart
of the valley's principal agricultural regions. Fearing
that their homes and the future of their region as an
agricultural area were threatened, the ranchers and
businessmen of the Owens Valley banded together
during the 1920s in an effort to extract from the city
the highest prices they could for their lands. When
the city resisted, the aqueduct was repeatedly blown
up and at one point, in 1924, the aqueduct's principal
diversion works at Alabama Gates were seized by an
angry mob of valley ranchers. In the end, Los Angeles
wound up purchasing virtually all of the private lands
in the Owens Valley not already held by the federal
government, thereby creating the anomalous situa-
tion by which one public entity, the City of Los
Angeles, has become the principal landowner and
taxpayer for another public entity, the County of
Inyo. Since the 1930s, Los Angeles has exercised its
control over more than 300,000 acres of the Inyo and
Mono basins to transform the region from an agricul-
tural area into a major recreational resource for the
people of the South Coast.
The acute pressure of its population growth,
coupled with a severe drought Which descended on
Southern California in the mid-1920s, forced Los
Angeles to begin looking for new sources of water
within only ten years of the completion of the aque-
duct. In 1924, Los Angeles filed applications with the
federal government for 1.1 million acre-feet from the
Runoff from the melting snows
of the Sierra Nevada provides
the principal source of water for
vegetation in the areas of the
Owens Valley which appear as
red in the photograph at left.
From its headgates in the upper
right corner, the aqueduct traces
a course which roughly parallels
that of the Owens River to the
east. Independence is near the
middle of the photograph and a
fault trace can be seen between
the river and the aqueduct.
33
Colorado River Aqueduct
o
Pomona
v rr
.sir ' PW /
•"•^••Hfv.p^,-' Prado Flood \-. I, ,..«*(
.'"" /^C Control Basin; ^,'tS'
Pac/Y/c Ocean
20 mi
3000
c 2000
g
15
>
ai
1000
Newport
Beach
*/ Saijta Ana/..,
\ J3|
V
x^~
SB? a**
\ake
■ e»
.V
r:^fe«iJM w *'*"
?*aJ#'i
Profile: Colorado River Aqueduct
Pacific Ocean
Palos Verdes Res r
34C
Elsinore, y" =6s5 >«'-' y . J
'"VV Ji
V-" i/ X
Eagle Rock/
Palos Verdes Feeder
330
Upper Feeder
Distribution System
San Jacinto Mtn
Coachella Mtns
(shaft) < sha,t >
Lake Mathews
<0HfMb
Morris Res
© o
o o o o° o
210
200
190
(9) Foothill PwP -59. J
Los Angeles Aqueduct
'--— _ y— ^"^ %>•' i V- ! / 1 — Hlomhall
....••*< £ Castaic Lake
(8) San Fernando PwP -44.4
r/7 V~$f
(6) San Francisquito #1 PwP -305.
(7) San Francisquito #2 PwP - 128.0
Pomona
/ ' ■ rjFr~Xr>Prado Flood
Control Basin
8000
7000
6000
5000
§ 4000
Profile: Los Angeles Aqueduct
3000
2000
1000
>~-^
Rosamond i /
Lake \ — y
Mojave° <fc>^
/
y
/'■
r"
v ^n/--? Rodgers Lake } f
(5) Haiwee PwP -33.5
/
:
2QU. ^v (5 y
"*Mst '.'
Bouquet
Res
Jawbone Canyon
Antelope Valley
Fairmont Res
I San Francisquito #1 PwP
Los Angeles Res Complex
Los Angeles
370
350
AJc
W$—l Foothill PwP
San Fernando PwP
340
San Francisquito #2 PwP
^p*p==
Haiwee PwP
jL.jj Haiwee Res
Profile of 2nd Los Angeles Aqueduct
320
310
300
290
250
220
210
200
■■■'■■'■ ■ ■■ ' . ' ' : ■.,■
180 170
Distance (in miles)
System Structures
bssess Tunnel
Pipeline
s - • Conduit
Open Channel
River
e,
B
140 130 120 110
30
Lake/Reservoir
Power Plant (PwP)
Pumping Plant (PpP)
Siphon
MWD Feeder Lines
MWD Service Area
Los Angeles City Boundary
LADWP-Owned Lands
Surface System
Underground System
Tunnels
Power Plant Generation (million kwn)
Pumping Plant Consumption (million kwn)
10
Southern
California Urban
Delivery Systems
Topography is a major factor in distinguishing the operations of
the interbasin delivery systems serving Southern California's urban
population. As a gravity-fed, passive delivery system, water flowing
through the Los Angeles Aqueduct generates electricity, the sales
of which help to keep city power rates low. The Colorado River
Aqueduct, in contrast, consumes large quantities of electricity in
pumping its water over mountain barriers.
The Los Angeles Aqueduct provides approximately 80 percent
of the water used by the City of Los Angeles; the balance of the
city's needs are met by local supplies and purchases from the
Metropolitan Water District (MWD). Each of 27 member agencies
of the Metropolitan Water District have a preferential right to a
share of the district's supplies proportionate to that agency's con-
tribution to the district's overall taxes. Some agencies, such as Los
Angeles, draw far less water from the district than this right would
entitle them to receive; others, such as San Diego, draw far more.
On an overall basis, however, the Metropolitan Water District's
supplies from the Colorado River and the State Water Project
provide approximately 40 percent of all the water used within its
5105 square-mile service area.
MWD Operations, 1974/1975
(All figures in thousands of acre-feet)
Water Supply Use of MWD Water
o
o
co -o
O i-
—1 D_
35.3'
"E
a>
E
a>
11
5.7
> en
> a>
O CD
1— O
cd
>
ha
-S «
co -o
°§
° 5
to
*ts
a> a>
TO O
CO ct
CO
ex
'cz
CO
~5
o
<
28-
cd or
Anaheim
7.4
6.6
.8
7.2
.2
0.0
Beverly Hills
2.8
23.9
11.2
.5
10.7
11.2
0.0
0.0
Burbank
13.6
25.3
9.9
.1
9.8
9.9
0.0
0.0
Calleguas MWD
16.9
26.2
49.5
0.0
49.5
46.3
3.2
0.0
Central Basin MWD
152.3
216.0
141.4
66.6
74.8
57.1
0.0
84.3
Chino Basin MWD
164.5
33.6
8.8
8.8
0.0
5.9
.9
2.0
Coastal MWD
1.1
27.9
42.0
41.9
.1
41.9
.1
0.0
Compton
6.0
7.6
2.6
1.0
1.6
2.6
0.0
0.0
Eastern MWD
91.3 2
12.1
40.6
40.6
0.0
7.7
32.9
0.0
Foothill MWD
7.5
15.0
7.5
7.1
.4
7.5
0.0
0.0
Fullerton
13.6
10.2
14.7
14.3
.4
14.0
.7
0.0
Glendale
14.4
26.7
8.8
.5
8.3
8.8
0.0
0.0
Las Virgenes MWD
.5
3.6
13.6
0.0
13.6
13.6
0.0
0.0
Long Beach
29.7
69.2
39.9
14.3
25.6
39.9
0.0
0.0
Los Angeles
534.2 s
540.8
32.5
14.6
17.9
22.1
4.0
6.4
MWD/Orange County
167.0
129.5
215.5
161.6
53.9
93.1
23.4
99.0
Pasadena
15.5
30.0
17.7
16.7
1.0
17.7
0.0
0.0
Pomona Valley MWD
60.5
30.3
19.2
18.4
.8
18.7
.5
0.0
San Diego CWA
27.8
160.5
378.1
378.1
0.0
289.5
88.6
0.0
San Fernando
3.1
.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
San Marino
4.8
5.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Santa Ana
23.9
12.4
9.6
9.4
.2
9.6
0.0
0.0
Santa Monica
7.2
22.7
9.9
.4
9.5
9.9
0.0
0.0
Torrance
3.3
20.5
18.8
6.6
12.2
18.8
0.0
0.0
U. San Gabriel V. MWD
175.2
68.6
34.7
13.9
20.8
.3
0.0
34.4
West Basin MWD
42.6
151.1
158.8
35.3
123.5
124.6
.6
33.6
W. MWD/RiversideCo
167.1
35.1
36.3
36.3
0.0
9.8
26.5
0.0
Totals:
1.781.8 1,710.9
1,329.0
893.6
435.4
887.7
181.6
259.7
1 Excludes deliveries by MWD of Orange County
2 Includes 4.9 thousand acre-feet of seepage into San Jacinto Tunnel
3 Includes Owens Valley imports
Urban
Delivery
Systems
MWD Service Area
MWD Feeder Lines
State Water Project
(California Aqueduct)
Power Plant
Pumping Plant
The photograph at right displays
the three stages of transition
that descended almost simulta-
neously upon the San Fernando
Valley as a result of its annexa-
tion by Los Angeles. Water from
the Owens Valley transformed
this formerly barren valley into
rich croplands which were rap-
idly converted to urban develop-
ment as Los Angeles' population
grew. This view, taken in 1928,
looks northward from a point
over the intersection of Winnetka
Avenue and Sherman Way.
Colorado River, a supply four times greater than its
aqueduct to the Owens Valley could deliver. The
$220 million cost of such a project, however, lay
beyond even Los Angeles' resources, and the city con-
sequently led the drive to form a consortium of south-
land communities in the Metropolitan Water District
which would underwrite the costs of a canal to the
Colorado, a process described in detail in the next
chapter.
With the approval of the Colorado project in 1928
and the completion of its acquisition of the Owens
Valley soon after, Los Angeles in 1930 initiated a 105-
mile extension of its aqueduct still further northward
into the Mono Basin. Although completed in 1940, the
Mono extension could not be operated at its full
capacity because the water rights the city had secured
within the Mono Basin would deliver more water
south than the original aqueduct could carry. If the
rights were not exercised, however, Los Angeles was
-» 9 * ■ .
"0,
&
&,
Original Grant
178
Ir-
Los Angeles City
Annexations
1781-1913 I
1914-1923 I
1924-1977 C
5 miles
The arrival of water from the Owens Valley laid the basis for
the modern metropolis of Los Angeles. Through a series of
massive annexations, the city of Los Angeles nearly quadrupled
its land area in order to make full use of the surplus waters its
aqueduct delivered. This map distinguishes the areas added to
the city in the 10 years between the first arrival of aqueduct
water and 1923, when the city's rate of growth finally caught up
with its new water supply and the city called a halt to further
large-scale annexations.
in jeopardy of losing them. Faced with this risk and
the prospect that deliveries from the Colorado would
be reduced under the United States Supreme Court
decision in the lawsuit between California and Ari-
zona, the city, in 1964, began construction of a second,
smaller aqueduct, paralleling the first, which is
designed to carry not only increased exports from the
Mono Basin but also additional supplies to be pumped
from the Owens Valley's groundwater basin. The
second aqueduct was completed and put into opera-
tion in June 1970. Although the city's pumping pro-
gram is intended in part to provide for the first time
an assured dry-year supply for 19,000 acres of leased,
irrigated city lands in the Owens Valley, groundwater
pumping has been restricted as a result of litigation by
Inyo County, which wants to assure that the environ-
mental effects of the proposed pumping program are
fully evaluated.
Los Angeles today derives 80 percent of its water
supply from the aqueducts to the Owens Valley and
Mono Basin. Local supplies make up another 17 per-
cent of the approximately 600,000 acre-feet of water
the city uses each year. Local supplies play so promi-
nent a role because the advent of imported water in
the San Fernando Valley coupled with the water
spreading and streamflow regulation programs of the
Los Angeles County Flood Control District have sub-
stantially enhanced the region's groundwater stor-
age. The balance of the city's needs are drawn from
the Metropolitan Water District's supplies from the
State Water Project and the Colorado River.
The city's full entitlement to water from the Met-
ropolitan Water District assures it access to a water
supply far in excess of its current needs. Although
currently entitled to approximately 30 percent of the
1.2 million acre-feet MWD provides today, Los
Angeles rarely draws more than a small portion of its
share. By 1977, for example, Los Angeles had received
only 1.6 of the 21.5 million acre-feet to which it was
entitled as a charter member of MWD. Los Angeles
prefers to rely principally upon the Inyo-Mono aque-
ducts because the aqueduct water is of a higher qual-
ity than the Colorado River, because the aqueduct
supply is cheaper than the water MWD must pay to
pump into the region, and because reductions in the
aqueduct flow would reduce as well the quantity of
hydroelectric power generated along the city's gravi-
ty system.
The water Los Angeles does not use from MWD's
supply goes to enhance growth and development in
the other districts and cities served by MWD, while
maintenance of Los Angeles' entitlement offers the
city a margin of safety against decreases in MWD's
supplies or droughts which may affect the city's other
water sources. MWD membership, however, is an
expensive form of insurance because Los Angeles has
had to pay its share of the costs of MWD's develop-
ment regardless of how much water it actually
derives from the system. Between 1942 and 1972,
when the city took only eight percent of the total
MWD water to which it was entitled, Los Angeles
taxpayers paid a cumulative total of $335 million in
property taxes to maintain the city's right of access to
MWD's supply. And the first time conditions oc-
curred which might have compelled Los Angeles to
draw a large part of its full entitlement during the
drought of 1976-77, the city was unable to secure
more than a modest increase in the water it purchased
from MWD and Los Angeles consequently became
the only one of MWD's members to undergo manda-
tory water rationing.
In comparison to the other major water delivery
systems in California today, that of the City of Los
Angeles does not loom particularly large; it distrib-
utes only a little more than 600,000 acre-feet of water
to a population of three million. Long-range planning,
the aggressive pursuit of new water sources, and a
continuing commitment to construction in advance of
demand have, however, given it an importance far
greater than its relative size. The success of the city's
original aqueduct provided an early and convincing
demonstration of the potential benefits that could be
gained through public water development. Its water
projects today reach out hundreds of miles across the
Southwest, while its electrical power is drawn still
farther from projects scattered throughout six states.
The fact that the city controls one of the largest
blocks of votes within the Metropolitan Water Dis-
trict gives it the opportunity to exercise continued
influence in the overall development of the South
Coast. And its decisions consequently help to shape
water policy not only for California but for the entire
western United States.
OWENS VALLEY WATER WAR
The events later popularized as California's "Little Civil
War" have had a substantial influence in shaping the devel-
opment of water law and policy in the twentieth century.
Driven by drought and the demands of its ever-increasing
population, Los Angeles in 1920 began a series of acquisi-
tions of riparian lands upstream of the aqueduct's intake.
Owens Valley resistance to the city hardened in 1922 when
negotiations failed for the construction of a reservoir at
Long Valley which many local ranchers believed would
have provided sufficient storage to sustain their crops while
at the same time supplying the city's needs. When the city
brought suit in 1924 to prevent upstream diversions which
interfered with the streamflows to which the city felt it was
entitled, the ranchers responded by blowing up the aque-
duct.
The seizure of the Alabama Gates that fall riveted
popular attention to the struggle in the valley. Except for
the Los Angeles newspapers, accounts of the conflict were
generally supportive of the valley's position and an investi-
gative report by the State Engineer, W. F. McClure, in 1925
was severely critical of Los Angeles' actions. Thus encour-
aged, the valley interests pressed their demands, not only
for purchase of their lands but also for "reparations" to
reimburse valley merchants for the trade Los Angeles'
actions had denied them. While the city stood ready to
purchase land and water rights, it steadfastly refused to pay
reparations, despite the passage of legislation in Sacra-
mento specifically authorizing such payments.
Although no blood had yet been shed, the threat of
violent conflict increased in the summer of 1927 when the
bombing of the aqueduct was renewed and the city dis-
patched trainloads of guards armed with Tommy guns to
protect its embattled water project. In the midst of this
tension, a state audit conducted at Los Angeles' suggestion
revealed substantial misdealings by the valley's local
bankers, who were themselves leaders in the resistance to
the city. The collapse of the banks destroyed the valley's
economy and broke the back of the resistance. In a concilia-
tory gesture, Los Angeles purchased the townsites and
outstanding agricultural holdings at prices well above their
depressed fair market values.
The example of the Owens Valley helped to underscore
the need for the more orderly system of statewide water
development proposed in the Constitutional Amendment
of 1928. In order to assure that no other remote region
would face the fate of the Owens Valley, the Legislature in
1931 passed the "County of Origin" law which prohibits the
draining of one area's water supply for the sake of another.
These same provisions were amended into the legislation
authorizing the Central Valley Project, which went a long
way toward removing the concerns of water-rich north-
ern counties to that proposed development. The contro-
versy also had a profound effect upon Los Angeles, which
has seen its plans for new water projects repeatedly
countered by opponents recalling "the rape of the Owens
Valley." In this way, Los Angeles' actions in the Owens
Valley provided an invaluable tool to the opponents of pub-
lic water development, as exemplified by these editorial
remarks from the Sacramento Union which appeared at the
time of the controversy: "Here is a case where political
ownership of public utilities had full sway for demonstra-
tion. The city concerned reverted to ruthlessness, savage
disregard for moral and economic equations, to chicanery
and faith breaking.... The municipality became a destroyer,
deliberately, unconscionably, boastfully."
Through the development of roads, fish hatcheries,
recreational reservoirs, and wildlife preserves, Los Angeles
has worked to shift the economy of the Owens Valley from
agriculture to recreation. As a result, many valley residents
today regard the city's stewardship as beneficial because,
by preventing urban development, Los Angeles has helped
to preserve the valley's scenic splendors intact.
Resistance to the city, however, has been renewed with
the litigation over the city's proposed pumping program
which many valley residents fear will work irreversible
damage to the valley's environment by effecting a perma-
nent reduction in the groundwater table. With questions of
groundwater management now emerging among the criti-
cal issues for California's future, the example of the Owens
Valley may thus once again play a central role at another
critical juncture in the development of California water
law.
36
In 1901, William Smythe, a prom-
inent advocate of systematic irri-
gation in California, predicted
that the Los Angeles area would
grow no further because it lacked
a natural water supply sufficient
to sustain a large population.
Smythe failed to foresee the
massive delivery systems whose
construction made possible the
modern metropolis of the South
Coast. In this satellite image red
colors indicate the presence of
vegetation. Thus, a reddish tinge
distinguishes the suburbs from
the blue areas where urban
development has been concen-
trated. The few remaining agri-
cultural lands on the coastal plain
appear as bright red patches on
the right.
37
CHAPTER 5
The Colorado River
In the absence of a delivery sys-
tem like the Colorado River
Aqueduct, agricultural lands in
desert areas are sometimes irri-
gated by pumping from ground-
water basins that cannot be
replenished. The bright red areas
mark the irrigated lands in this
photograph of such a "water
mining" operation above Mes-
quite Dry Lake near the border
of California and Nevada. These
practices were common in large
areas of Arizona before the de-
velopment of the Central Arizona
Project to bring water from the
Colorado River.
W\
&
w
%
3V
tm
}-m
Unlike many other states, California's water
system is in large part self-contained. With few
exceptions, Californians have focused their efforts at
water development upon surface and groundwater
resources which lie almost entirely within the state's
borders. The all-important exception to this general
rule is the Colorado River, which today supplies
water to half the state's population while at the same
time supporting an agricultural industry which
produces crops and livestock valued at many hun-
dreds of millions of dollars a year.
One of the great rivers of North America, the
Colorado rises in the Rocky Mountains and flows
southwesterly through the states of Wyoming,
Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, California,
and Nevada. Along its 1,400-mile course to the Gulf
of California, the Colorado River Basin drains an
area of 242,000 square miles or about one-twelfth
the area of the contiguous United States, and an
additional 2,000 square miles in the Republic of
Mexico.
The unregulated flow of the river varies widely
during the year, from year to year, and over long
periods of years. The long-term average virgin flow
of the river is approximately 15 million acre-feet per
year. Although early and possibly incomplete records
suggest that there were higher flows during the
early part of this century, the flows at Lee's Ferry,
Arizona, dividing point between the upper and lower
Colorado basins, have averaged approximately 14
million acre-feet per year from 1922 to the present.
In order to minimize the effects of extreme
fluctuations in the Colorado's flow, the federal
government has constructed a network of immense
storage reservoirs. Anchored by Lake Mead in the
Lower Basin and Lake Powell in the Upper Basin, the
nine major storage reservoirs in the Colorado River
Basin have a total usable storage capacity of 61.6
million acre-feet. After deduction for required flood
control capacity, these reservoirs make available
approximately 56.4 million acre-feet of usable
storage on January 1 of each year.
These reservoirs have also worked to ameliorate
the problem of siltation. In its natural state, the
Colorado was one of the heaviest carriers of silt in
the world, bearing a concentration of sediments
about five times that of the Rio Grande, ten times
that of the Nile, and 17 times that of the Mississippi.
As the river slowed near its delta, it dropped much of
these sediments, thereby creating the alluvial flood
plains of the Yuma and Imperial valleys. Since the
construction of Glen Canyon and Hoover dams, the
other dams throughout the Colorado River Basin,
and works to stabilize the channel and river banks,
the river's silt load at Imperial Dam has dropped to
only a fraction of the total load and concentrations
encountered under natural conditions.
Through these regulatory works and the con-
struction of diversion canals to urban and agricultural
regions lying hundreds of miles outside the river
basin, the Colorado currently serves a population of
nearly 12 million people in the coastal plain of
Southern California, and the Denver, Salt Lake City,
Phoenix, and Las Vegas areas. The supplies of the
Colorado, however, are inadequate to meet all of the
demands planned to be placed upon it in the future to
serve one of the most arid and fastest-growing
regions in the United States.
As a result of the various demands placed upon the
river's flow by the seven states and Mexico, the
38
Colorado has become one of the most litigated,
regulated, and argued about rivers in the world. This
keen competition for the river's water supply can be
expected to intensify as water use increases throughout
the Colorado River Basin. Because California's
current withdrawals from the Colorado are approxi-
mately equal to the combined use of the other six
basin states, the future of this "river of controversy"
has become a key element in shaping the prospects
for California's continued growth and development.
DEVELOPMENT FOR CALIFORNIA
AGRICULTURE
Californians first turned to the Colorado for the
means of opening the rich desert lands of the
Imperial, Coachella, and Palo Verde valleys to
agriculture. A onetime Indian agent, Dr. Oliver M.
Wozencraft, first conceived of irrigating the Imperial
Valley with a gravity-fed canal from the Colorado
when he passed through the area on his way to the
gold fields in 1849. His scheme foundered, however,
upon his determination to own not only the water
system but the land it served as well; although the
State Legislature endorsed his request for a federal
grant of 1,600 square miles of the public domain in
1859, Congress refused.
In 1877 Thomas Blythe secured from the state a
grant of 40,000 acres in the Palo Verde Valley near
the town which bears his name. Blythe filed one of
the earliest diversion rights on the Colorado River
for a canal he built using Indian labor from a point
one mile above the valley's present diversion dam.
Farming on these lands languished, however, after
Blythe's death in 1883, and despite continued
exhortations to develop the Colorado by nineteenth
century advocates of systematic irrigation such as
John Wesley Powell, second director of the United
States Geological Survey, no serious effort was
made to realize Wozencraft's original dream until
California's agricultural potential had been firmly
established in the 1890s.
In 1896 Charles R. Rockwood took Wozencraft's
idea and the financing which his association with the
prominent water engineer George R. Chaffey helped
him to secure, and formed the California Development
Company. Commencing in 1900, Rockwood tapped
the Colorado just north of the international border
and began feeding water into the Alamo, an overflow
channel of the Colorado River which ran through
Mexico and bypassed the large, shifting sand hills
that separated the river from the Imperial Valley on
the American side of the border. The first water
reached the valley in 1901, and within eight months,
400 miles of canals and laterals had been built and
more than 100,000 acres were ready for cultivation
within the Imperial Valley.
Those who followed Rockwood into the desert
soon began to doubt the venture. Because the Alamo
flowed through Mexico for 50 miles before turning
north again to the United States, Rockwood had
promised to provide half the water diverted into the
Alamo to Mexico in exchange for permission to cross
Mexican lands. The land in Mexico, however, sloped
toward the United States and the Imperial Valley
farmers consequently found themselves threatened
by flooding unless they constructed and maintained
levees in Mexico to protect their lands on the
American side of the border.
The heavy silt load of the Colorado River soon
complicated their problems. The intake of the Alamo
Canal was blocked by silt during the winter of 1903-
04, but when bypasses were built around the
headgate, these too quickly silted up. To avoid this
problem, the company opened a cut between the
canal and the Colorado River within Mexico but
failed to protect the cut with an adequate headgate.
Unfortunately, 1905 proved to be an unusual year
and five major floods eventually hit the canal intakes
that winter and spring with the result that by
August 1905 the entire river was pouring into the
intake, a half-mile wide at its juncture with the
Colorado. In a matter of weeks, most of the Salton
Sink filled to form the Salton Sea. The flood ruined
the California Development Company and in 1905
the firm surrendered its management and much of
its stock to the Southern Pacific Railroad. The
railroad, however, did not turn the river's flow back
to the main channel until February 1907.
By 1909 the land boom Rockwood initiated had
drawn more than 15,000 people into the Imperial
Valley where more than 160,000 acres had been
Chaffey's skill as a promoter was reflected in his decision to
change the name of the Colorado Desert to the Imperial Valley.
Railroad companies applied similar stratagems to lure new settlers
to California with posters like the one above.
turned to agricultural production. The water system
upon which these settlers depended, however, had
by this time passed into a joint receivership with
Mexico and neither the Southern Pacific nor any
other private company seemed interested in operating
it. The farmers, therefore, banded together to create
the Imperial Irrigation District in 1911 which, five
years later, assumed the assets of the California
Development Company for a payment of $3 million.
Rather than bear the continuing costs of a flood
control program which benefited an increasingly
unstable government in revolutionary Mexico, the
residents of the Imperial Valley immediately set
about securing support for a new canal from the
Colorado which would lie entirely within the United
States. In this effort to construct an "all-American"
water project, the Imperial Valley soon found it had
an unexpected and not entirely welcome ally in the
City of Los Angeles.
THE BOULDER CANYON PROJECT
It should have come as no surprise that urban
interest in the Colorado River would be spearheaded
by Los Angeles. As early as 1912, Los Angeles had
sent an investigator to the river who reported on the
stream's capacity to support "a large and prosperous
population." "We have in the Colorado an American
Nile awaiting regulation," declared Joseph B.
Lippincott, one of the pioneers in western
reclamation, "and it should be treated in as intelligent
and vigorous a manner as the British Government
has treated its great Egyptian prototype."
In 1912 city leaders felt no compelling need to turn
to so distant — nearly 240 miles — and, consequently,
expensive a source. Just nine years earlier the United
States Supreme Court had confirmed the city's title to
the Los Angeles River, thus assuring control of the
major local water supply; and the city's 233-mile-long
aqueduct to the Owens Valley was by then within a
year of completion. But by 1920, with its population
approaching 600,000, the city's water planners
turned their eyes again to the Colorado.
The city's concern at first was for electricity rather
than water. As late as 1890, electricity for household
use had been unheard of in Los Angeles. But
thereafter, electrical use increased rapidly and by
1920 a severe shortage was predicted. At the current
rate of population growth, stated a special report
prepared for the city council, the power supply would
be inadequate to meet the demand within three to five
years. Construction of local plants could postpone the
shortage, but city fathers agreed with William
Mulholland, chief of the Bureau of Water Works and
Supply, and E. F. Scattergood, head of the Bureau of
Power and Light, that only the Colorado River could
provide enough electric power "for all future needs"
of Los Angeles. Though hindsight would eventually
reveal the overoptimism of that prediction, no one
doubted the impending shortage and the Colorado as
a means of meeting the city's hydroelectric
requirements for years to come. The city council
therefore welcomed the news that the United States
Reclamation Service had joined with settlers along
the lower Colorado, especially those in the Imperial
Valley, in advocating the construction of a high dam
in Boulder Canyon that could be built so as to
GEORGE CHAFFEY
At the time he joined Charles Rockwood in the desert,
George Chaffey was probably the most successful example
of the engineer as entrepreneur in his generation. Chaffey
built the first hydroelectric plant in California and the first
electrically lighted house west of the Rockies. He achieved
his greatest success, however, through the invention of
mutual water companies, a system of organization for the
private development of water resources which helped to
open large sections of Southern California to settlement
during the late nineteenth century.
Born in Canada in 1848, Chaffey was for the most part a
self-taught genius. His formal education ended at the age of
13, when his parents withdrew him from school due to ill
health. After his family moved to California in 1880,
Chaffey studied the success of the Riverside Colony and
then initiated his own water colony, Etiwanda, the next year.
Ontario, "the model colony" described in greater detail
in the preceding chapter on nineteenth century water
development, followed in 1882. The success of these ventures
prompted an invitation in 1885 for Chaffey to bring his
organizing principles and engineering skill to Australia.
Although his Mildura Colony prospered in the first years of
its existence, a financial crisis in 1893 led to a revolt of
Chaffey's Australian shareholders and government inves-
tigations ended in charges of gross inefficiency in Chaffey's
design.
Chaffey's reputation in the United States, however, was
untarnished and upon his return he set about the project
with which his name would be most enduringly linked in
California history, the development of the Imperial Valley.
It was Chaffey's idea as a masterful promoter, in fact, to
name the area Imperial instead of its more forbidding iden-
tification as the Colorado Desert. Chaffey brought to the
project not only his profits from Ontario but more impor-
tantly the good name Rockwood needed to attract financial
backing. Although his son warned him against association
with Rockwood, Chaffey was determined to "do one more
big thing before I die." Soon after signing on as president,
manager, and chief engineer of the California Development
Company, Chaffey realized he had been swindled. The
company owed more than $400,000 in unpaid taxes to New
Jersey, where Rockwood had chartered it. These debts,
combined with Rockwood's complicated arrangements with
Mexico for a right of way on the Alamo, forced Chaffey to
sell out his interest in 1901 in order to save the company
from receivership.
Chaffey was thus not involved in the engineering mis-
take that would form the Salton Sea and destroy the com-
pany. His last years were spent in developing the East
Whittier-La Habra Valley and in an unsuccessful effort to
create a new colony at Manzanar in the Owens Valley. This
last venture set him at odds with the Los Angeles Depart-
ment of Water and Power, whose aqueduct to the Owens
Valley was already bringing the end to the era of water
development through private capital in which Chaffey had
flourished. He died in 1932.
39
accommodate a large power plant. On August 30,
1920, the city council officially endorsed construction
of the dam and boldly announced its intention to
obtain electric power "direct from the Colorado
River."
News of Los Angeles' action at first alarmed the
farmers and smaller cities on the south coastal plain.
They too needed additional electric power and they
viewed with concern the rapidly deteriorating state of
Los Angeles' relations with the Owens Valley. "I am
skeptical of Los Angeles," announced a San
Bernardino official whose views were shared widely.
"She has always been inimical to the interests of the
back country when she should be the reverse." A
representative from Riverside went still further,
declaring, "I would rather pay $1.27 per kilowat[t]
hour and get it than have Los Angeles take it all and
we get nothing."
The city's efforts to improve its image among
neighboring communities took on added importance
in 1923 when a dry cycle caused the city to announce
that it now wanted water as well as electricity from
the Colorado River. The interest in water brought
with it the realization that expensive aqueducts and
pumping stations would be required to tap the distant
river. Considerations of cost and a belief that there
was enough water for everyone prompted city leaders
in 1924 to negotiate with representatives of nearby
communities for the creation of an agency to oversee
water distribution, arrange for construction, and
assess costs. The State Legislature approved the idea
and in 1927 the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California was created "to provide a
supplemental water supply to the coastal plain of
Southern California."
Los Angeles and its allies in the Metropolitan Water
District recognized that a desire for Colorado River
water and the creation of an agency to distribute the
water assured them of no water whatsoever. First,
the river would have to be regulated since an aqueduct
was a practical impossibility so long as the Colorado
remained a raging torrent during part of the year and
little more than a creek at other times. The wide
fluctuation in streamflow from year to year also
meant that regulation would be necessary to assure a
dependable supply of water throughout the year.
This merely served to reinforce their enthusiasm for
the proposed dam at Boulder Canyon, even though a
dam of that size would be so expensive that only the
federal government could finance it. The United
States Reclamation Service vigorously supported the
project, but Congress balked. The representatives of
the other Colorado River Basin states feared that
California would use the project to get the lion's share
of the river. They refused therefore to support the
undertaking until an agreement could be reached
among the states as to their respective water rights.
As the fastest-growing state in the basin and the
state which contributed the least amount of runoff to
the river, California had early aroused concern
among the other basin states — Wyoming, Colorado,
Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, and Arizona. The
doctrine of prior appropriation, which prevailed
throughout the basin, vested a right to water in the
first person who used it — "first in time, first in right."
When the United States Supreme Court in June 1922
in Wyoming v. Colorado announced that this principle
was applicable to states as well as to individuals, the
concern of the other basin states turned to alarm.
Already uneasy because of the rapid increase of water
use in California's Imperial Valley and the news of Los
Angeles' interest in the river, their resistance to the
Boulder Canyon project stiffened sharply following
the court action. They could do nothing to undo the
development in the Imperial Valley, but their control of
key congressional reclamation committees gave them a
powerful weapon with which to combat California's
attempts to obtain federal regulation of the river.
In 1928 California finally achieved the Boulder
Canyon Project Act, but to get it California's
representatives had to agree to two major restrictions
which still govern the state. The first was embodied in
the Colorado River Compact of 1922 and the second
in the California Limitation Act of 1929. The
Colorado River Compact appeased most basin
opponents to the Boulder Canyon legislation by
dividing the river's waters between Wyoming,
Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico in the upper basin
and the lower basin states of Arizona, California, and
Nevada. The agreement apportioned the beneficial
consumptive use of 7.5 million acre-feet per year to
each basin and, in addition, permitted the lower basin
to increase its apportionment by a million acre-feet.
Construction along the Colorado River Aqueduct
The provision for this latter million acre-feet was
added at the insistence of Arizona, which wanted
compensation for the runoff of major tributaries of
the Colorado which drained the state. Since the
compact divided the water between basins and not
among individual states, however, Arizona could not
be assigned this water by name. Instead, the million
acre-feet were apportioned to the lower basin,
though the negotiators fully expected this water to be
assigned specifically to Arizona in a future
lower-basin agreement. Regrettably, this lack of
specificity in the compact would later fuel bitter
controversies between Arizona and California.
In 1922, however, the agreement was considered a
major achievement, the first time in American
history that a group of states had apportioned the
water of an interstate stream and the first time that
more than two or three states had negotiated a
treaty to settle any sort of problem among themselves.
The compact apportioned a total of 16 million acre-
feet, leaving, according to estimates at the time, a
surplus of about two million acre-feet for later
apportionment. The existence of this alleged surplus
and the setting aside of water for slower-developing
states in the basin helped remove a major barrier to
California's river development plans.
Unfortunately, California and Arizona began
quarreling almost immediately over their shares of
the apportionment to the lower basin. The compact
had repealed the doctrine of prior appropriation so
far as it applied between the basins, but the principle
still applied to the states within each basin. Of the
three states within the lower basin, only Nevada was
relatively unconcerned. Her topography was such
that she sought only a small volume of water, and
Arizona and California readily agreed to her requests.
The two states were unable to harmonize their own
demands, however, and their differences intensified
as each discovered potential uses for Colorado River
water and hydroelectricity not anticipated earlier.
Arizona's concern was so great that her Legislature
repudiated her representative at the compact
negotiations and refused to approve the agreement.
When the quarrel had dragged on for nearly six
years, thereby frustrating federal attempts to control
the river's often devastating flood waters, Congress
intervened with a solution of its own. It would
approve the Boulder Canyon legislation, but the
measure would become effective only if Arizona
joined the other basin states in ratifying the compact.
Failing that, the measure could still take effect, but
California would first have to limit itself to a specific
volume of water. Congress set the amount of this
limitation at 4.4 million acre-feet per year plus no
more than half of any surplus water unapportioned
by the compact. Because Arizona believed California
should be restricted even further, she persisted in her
refusal to approve the compact. On March 4, 1929,
the California Legislature therefore agreed to the
limitation imposed by Congress. The Boulder Canyon
Project Act, approved by President Calvin Coolidge
on December 21, 1928, was declared effective by
President Herbert Hoover on June 25, 1929.
Californians enthusiastically greeted news of the
Boulder Canyon legislation. Especially delighted
were those in Los Angeles and the other coastal
communities, but also elated were the farmers and
investors in agricultural lands along the lower
Colorado. The new law called for an Ail-American
Canal to free the Imperial Valley from dependence
on the canal that went through Mexico. More
important from the point of view of the communities
on the coastal plain, the law authorized construction
of the long-sought high dam and power plant. The
enormity of the undertaking and the onset of the
Great Depression in 1929 complicated construction
plans, but by 1935 Hoover Dam had been completed
(in Black Canyon, rather than Boulder Canyon as
originally envisaged) and a year later hydroelectric
power from the river was being used on the South
Coast. California's willingness to contract for all of
Hoover Dam's power at a time when there were no
other customers in the basin made construction of
the dam and power plant possible. Arizona and
Nevada eventually contracted for power but, until
they did so, the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California, the Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power, the Southern California Edison
Company, and several small contractors obligated
themselves to purchase the electricity and underwrite
construction costs.
Regulation of the river by Hoover Dam (then the
world's highest) and the availability of large amounts
of electricity now made possible the construction of
High natural moisture demands
in naturally arid regions like the
Imperial Valley are an important
factor in determining the amount
of water required for desert ag-
riculture and the types of crops
that can consequently be grown
most efficiently. The plate on the
facing page compares evapotrans-
piration by selected crops in the
various regions of the state.
41
diversion works and pumping plants to bring water
to Southern California. By 1940 the Metropolitan
Water District had completed the 242-mile-long
Colorado River Aqueduct and on June 17, 1941, the
first water was delivered to the coastal plain. The
next year, the Ail-American Canal commenced
service to the Imperial Irrigation District's 1,600-
mile distribution system. In 1947 San Diego completed
its connection to the Colorado River Aqueduct. And
two years later, Colorado water began arriving in
the Coachella Valley.
The advent of Colorado River water had a
profound impact upon Southern California, com-
mercially, industrially, and agriculturally. Los
Angeles nearly doubled its population between 1940
and 1970, growing from 1.5 million inhabitants to
about three million. Other communities registered
even greater growth rates, and new cities sprang up
where earlier there had been only vacant fields. The
four coastal plain counties of Ventura, Los Angeles,
Orange, and San Diego tripled their combined
populations during the three decades after 1940,
increasing from 3.3 million to more than ten million.
Those portions of Riverside and San Bernardino
counties receiving Colorado River water from the
Metropolitan Water District experienced similar
growth patterns during these years. Especially
dramatic was the population explosion in the City of
Riverside which nearly quadrupled in size.
i#
Although initially reluctant to
join MWD, San Diego today is
one of the principal beneficiaries
of water from the Colorado
River. In the photograph above,
Point Loma is in the foreground
while the Salton Sea and Imperial
Valley can be seen gleaming in
the distance. Even more striking
is the fact that the International
Boundary between Mexico and
the United States is actually vis-
ible here as a straight line on the
right defined by the different land
uses which an abundant water
supply makes possible.
THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
The Metropolitan Water District today is a wholesaler of
water to cities and water districts serving 11 million people
over a 5,105-square mile area. The sheer size of its opera-
tions assures it a major role in the determination of water
policy for California. For the first years of its existence,
however, MWD sometimes seemed an idea whose time
would never come.
When the first water from the Colorado arrived in 1941,
MWD only had 13 members: Anaheim, Beverly Hills,
Burbank, Compton, Fullerton, Glendale, Long Beach, Los
Angeles, Pasadena, San Marino, Santa Ana, Santa Monica,
and Torrance. Other communities were slow to join
because, in addition to the rates they pay for the water
itself, the member agencies of MWD must pay through
property taxes their respective shares of the overall cost of
the project itself. To assure that no late-joining community
escapes its portion of this burden, back taxes are assessed as
well as a four percent delinquency charge for the amount
that a new member would have paid had it joined the MWD
in 1928. Rather than pay these high and ever-escalating
costs of entry, many areas of the southland preferred
simply to rely upon their local groundwater sources. Rain-
fall in the South Coast was high during the first years of
MWD's operation and in 1941 the district delivered only
15,000 of the 430,000 acre-feet of water its system was
capable of handling. For the first five years, MWD operated
at less than two percent of its capacity. And despite sub-
stantial annexations to the MWD service area between
1948 and 1952, MWD's huge pumps as late as 1954 could
deliver all the water that was required by operating only
half the time.
San Diego's long resistance to membership was perhaps
the most surprising because San Diego had been one of the
earliest and most enthusiastic advocates of Colorado River
development. In 1917, San Diego led the formation of the
League of the Southwest to promote the Boulder Canyon
Project as the means to making San Diego a major port and
industrial center. Although Los Angeles' decision in 1923
to seek Colorado water for itself dashed San Diego's dreams
of leadership, the city's reluctance to join thereafter in
support of the Boulder Canyon Project was based on more
than spite. For, San Diego had filed its own application for
112,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water and this right
would have to be turned over to MWD if the city ever
joined. Throughout the 1920s and 30s, San Diego's water
planners dreamed anew of someday constructing their own
system to connect with the Ail-American Canal. With the
advent of World War Two and the vital role San Diego's
shipyards came to play in that conflict, it seemed that
federal funds for such a massively expensive undertaking
might be made available in the interests of national defense.
But the war ended before San Diego's plans came to fruition
and, faced with a continuing drought that cut deeply into
the city's water supply from 1944 onward, San Diego in
1946 gave up its precious right to the Colorado flows in
exchange for a connection to the MWD system. This
arrangement ultimately proved to work to San Diego's
advantage in that the San Diego County Water Authority
today takes approximately four times as much water as its
own filing with the Department of Interior would have
allowed.
MWD's early difficulties in finding a market for its ample
supplies were further complicated by the fact that few of its
members took as much water as their assessed valuation
entitled them to receive. San Marino, although a charter
member, did not receive a drop of Colorado River water
until 1960 and has only taken a total of 32 acre-feet since
then, and Los Angeles has taken only seven percent of the
water it might have received since 1941. Despite these
problems, however, MWD pressed ahead in 1952 with
a $200 million expansion program to bring its underused
pipeline up to its full 1.2 million acre-feet a year capacity. By
the 1960s, demand at last began to catch up with MWD's
supply, and with the addition of the water it has contracted
to receive from the State Water Project, the system's total
deliveries are expected to reach 3.2 million acre-feet after
1990.
Each of MWD's 27 member agencies appoints at least one
representative to MWD's board of directors and one addi-
tional director for each three percent of MWD's total as-
sessed valuation that is taxable for district purposes. Each
representative in turn is accorded one vote for every $10
million of his or her agency's assessed valuation. Directors
for each member agency are required, however, to cast
their votes as a block, and no member may have more votes
than all the other members combined. This last provision
assured that Los Angeles would never exercise more than
half the votes of the district. Although the City of Los
Angeles' share of the votes has declined since 1953 from 50
percent to only about 25 percent, the city still commands
almost twice as many votes as any other single member. By
vesting control of its operations in its constituent members,
however, MWD acts as a forum for the development of
water policy for most of the South Coast.
THE COLORADO TODAY
Contracts between Southern California agencies
and the Secretary of the Interior for Colorado River
water currently total 5,362,000 acre-feet per year.
The United States Supreme Court decree in Arizona
v. California apportioned 4.4 million acre-feet to
California of the first 7.5 million acre-feet per year
available for consumptive use plus 50 percent of any
surplus above 7.5 million. Actual use, however, is
somewhat less than the full contracted amount,
currently about 4.7 million acre-feet per year.
Annual withdrawals by the Metropolitan Water
District, for example, peaked at approximately 1.2
million acre-feet between 1967 and 1972. Since that
time (with the exception of the drought year of
1977), the district gradually reduced its consumption
and has been using about 800,000 acre-feet in each
year since 1975. The arrival in 1973 of the first
deliveries from the State Water Project in part made
this reduction possible and thereby helped to relieve
MWD of the high cost of electrical energy needed to
pump greater quantities of water through the
aqueduct. MWD's allotment of low-cost power from
Hoover and Parker dams is sufficient to pump
800,000 acre-feet a year. It is expected that some time
during the middle 1980s, when the Central Arizona
Project commences deliveries, California will cut back
its use still further to the basic 4.4 million acre-feet
per year entitlement.
Overall, the Colorado River supplies a little more
than half of all the water used in Southern California.
Nearly 80 percent of California's entitlement is used
by the four agricultural districts of the Imperial,
Coachella, and Palo Verde valleys and the Bureau of
Reclamation's Yuma Project. The Yuma Project,
which serves the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation and
the adjoining Bard Water District, is one of the
earliest federal reclamation projects and the first to
be developed on the Colorado. Today, however, it is
the smallest of the four; in 1977, for example, only
12,156 acres were under irrigation here as compared
with the more than 500,000 acres cultivated that
same year in the mammoth Imperial Irrigation
District. Nearly three-fourths of the 675,000 acres
receiving irrigation water from the Colorado in
California during 1977 lay within the Imperial
district, where crops and livestock production that
year were valued at more than half a billion dollars.
This great agricultural productivity is a function of
the district's success in achieving a delicate balance
with the salts that suffuse the land and water upon
which settlement depends. The Imperial Valley's rich
earth is made up almost entirely of waterborne
sediments which extend not six or ten inches deep
but, in most areas, a mile or more below the surface.
Because of the prevalence of fine-grained clay and
silt deposits in the sediments, water does not drain
readily through most of the soils of the Imperial and
Coachella districts. Consequently, farmers in these
areas have had to install a vast complex of thousands
of miles of tile drains to carry away the salts which
42
substantial
the floods,
would otherwise accumulate near the surface as a
result of extended agricultural production. Seasonal
variations in the salinity of the Colorado's flows
make these drainage systems all the more essential;
for the Colorado tends to carry its highest concen-
tration of salts during the autumn and winter when
the most salt-sensitive crops are being planted and
seed germination is taking place.
The accident which destroyed Rockwood's California
Development Company has been made the heart of
the Imperial and Coachella valleys' drainage system
and the basis, therefore, of their continued prosperity.
As an unnatural body of water, the Salton Sea has
been maintained as a drainage sump which receives
90 percent of its surface inflow in most years from
the saline wastewater of the Imperial and Coachella
districts. For the Palo Verde Irrigation District, on
the other hand, the only one of the four districts not
served by the All-American Canal, the problem of
securing adequate drainage was not solved until the
river itself was moved into a new channel in 1970.
This channel, called the Cibola Cut, bypassed the
meanders of the old channel and lowered the water
levels in the Palo Verde Outfall Drain and feeder
drains by several feet.
Careful management, backed up by
capital investments, has thus dammed
reduced the sediment loads, and set about controlling
the salts which would otherwise have made agriculture
in the Colorado Desert impossible. Increasing
demands upon the limited water resources of the
region could, however, someday upset the delicate
balance that has been achieved. The Imperial
Irrigation District, for example, has done more than
prevent the accumulation of salts; since 1955, the
district has been a net exporter of salts, draining out
approximately 15 percent more salt than the
Colorado carries into the district each year. Because
the drainage flows into the Salton Sea are about one-
tenth the concentration of salinity levels within the
sea, these drainage waters slow the rate of increase
in the Salton Sea's overall level of salinity. Studies
have shown, however, that salinity in the Salton Sea
will increase, despite the diluting effect of drainage
waters, with the result that recreational and fish and
wildlife resources of the Salton Sea could someday
be in danger unless measures are taken to reverse
the rise in salinity.
Salinity levels in the flows of the Colorado are
expected to increase substantially as the upper basin
states expand their consumptive uses of the river for
agricultural and industrial development. Recognizing
this problem, Congress passed the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974, which established
a salinity control program designed to maintain
salinity levels in the lower basin at or below the
levels set in 1972. In addition, the basin states have
adopted numerical salinity standards and a plan of
implementation to achieve this goal. These are major
steps, but considerable work remains to be done
before the salinity problem can be considered fully
resolved.
The responsibility for dealing with these problems
and protecting the state's interest in the river is
vested in the Colorado River Board of California.
Created by the Legislature in 1937, the board
originally consisted of representatives from the six
public agencies with rights to Colorado River water
and power: Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial
Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water
District, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California, the San Diego County Water Authority,
and the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power. In 1976 the State Legislature added five
additional members to the board — three individuals
representing the public and the directors of the
Department of Water Resources and the Department
of Fish and Game. In the years ahead, this body will
continue to play a central role in the major issues
surrounding California's continued reliance on the
Colorado.
THE FUTURE OF THE COLORADO
Southern California has been successful in using
the resources of the Colorado River to support a
rapid rate of growth, but it faces continuing
problems in the future. One of the most serious of
these has been the gradual realization that the
Colorado River has much less water than earlier
believed. Although the negotiators of the compact
believed there were 16.4 million acre-feet at Lee's
THE ARIZONA NAVY
Arizona's long resistance to development of the Colorado
River for California reached a bizarre turn in 1934, when
the Governor of Arizona dispatched a waterborne army to
"repel the threatened invasion of the sovereignty and terri-
tory of the State of Arizona." In February of that year, dril-
ling began for the construction of Parker Dam, which
would provide the principal water source for the aqueduct
to California's South Coast. Although financed by the
Metropolitan Water District, the dam was built by the
Bureau of Reclamation because California had no authority
to construct a project on the Arizona side of the river which
would be used exclusively for the benefit of Californians.
On March 3, Governor B. B. Moeur of Arizona dis-
patched his personal secretary and Major F. J. Pomeroy in
command of the 158th Infantry Regiment, Arizona Na-
tional Guard, with orders to "protect the rights of the State
and report at once any encroachment on the Arizona side of
the river." Finding that the drilling site was virtually
inaccessible by land, Pomeroy borrowed the Julia B, a ferry-
boat owned by Joe and Nellie Bush which normally plied the
trade between Parker, Arizona, and Earp, California. Work-
ing their way upstream to the point at which drilling was
being conducted from barges anchored to the riverbanks,
the military force found its way blocked by the barge cables.
The workmen, however, obligingly sent a rowboat to the
Julia B to convey the soldiers to a suitable bivouac site
upstream. Leaving a six-man scout team at the encamp-
ment, Pomeroy returned home to enthusiastic applause
from loyal Arizonians who w£re by now calling upon Con-
gress to dispatch the battleship Arizona up the Colorado to
reinforce the Julia B.
After a nine-month vigil on the river, the scout team tele-
graphed an urgent message in November that construc-
tion of the dam had at last reached the Arizona side of the
river. Governor Moeur immediately declared martial law in
the area and ordered up the army once again, promising
United States Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes that he
was prepared to "go down fighting." Eighteen army trucks
carrying a hundred troops, machine guns, and a mobile
hospital, set out for the dam site on November 12. Because
the river was low at that time of year, the Julia B could not be
used. The next day, Ickes ordered all work stopped, and
both sides adjourned to the courts. Pointing out that the
dam had not been specifically authorized by Congress,
Arizona succeeded on April 29, 1935, in obtaining a court
order that the dam should not be built. Four months later,
however, Congress corrected its oversight, granting speci-
fic authority for the construction of Parker Dam and
thereby ending the threat of military action between the
states.
Ferry, the river's actual annual flow at Lee's Ferry
since 1922 has averaged about 14 million acre-feet.
Although there is presently a surplus of water in the
river when compared to current uses, there will not
be sufficient water to cover all of the apportionments
made by the compact.
This lowering of reliable expectations most
directly affects the upper basin, which obligated
itself in the compact to provide the lower basin with
"75,000,000 acre-feet for any period of ten consecutive
years." This provision obligated the upper basin to
deliver to the lower basin an average of 7.5 million
acre-feet annually. Although deliveries may vary
from year to year, the effect of this apportionment
meant that the upper basin's depletion measured at
Lee's Ferry would not be more than the residual
amount of water available after meeting the required
deliveries to the lower basin. The upper basin states
of Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Utah
currently deplete the flow of the river at Lee's Ferry
by 3.8 million acre-feet per year. By 1990 upper basin
uses are projected to total about 4.2 million acre-feet
per year. Beyond 1990 the demands are highly
conjectural, being dependent upon available water
supply, agricultural development, and the uncertain
prospects for development of the area's huge
reserves of oil shale and coal. Although numerous
projections have been made of the basin's future
water demands, California water planners believe
that the upper basin will not reach a level of use of
5.8 million acre-feet per year until early in the
twenty-first century. The overestimate of the 1920s
has thus compelled the basin states to reassess their
plans. Although there have not been any actual
shortages of water so far, the fact that there is less
water today in the Colorado River system than the
negotiators of the compact estimated has caused
more pressure on planners than there would have
been under more favorable water flow conditions.
In addition to the sharply reduced estimate of
streamflow, there have been other developments
which have further restricted or threatened to
restrict water use in the Colorado River states. One
of these was the Mexican-American Water Treaty of
1944. This treaty, which Californians vigorously
opposed, awarded Mexico 1.5 million acre-feet, an
amount which approximated the Republic's maximum
uses prior to the agreement. The treaty requirement
represents a first lien on the river and it must be
satisfied ahead of any uses in the United States.
According to the Colorado River Compact, Mexico is
to be supplied from surplus waters unless there is
insufficient surplus, in which event each basin must
provide half the Mexican obligation. The two basins,
however, currently disagree over the extent of their
respective obligations to Mexico; the heart of their
disagreement involves the manner in which the
lower-basin tributaries are to be counted in deter-
mining the existence of a surplus. Both basins agree,
nonetheless, about the seriousness of the Mexican
burden.
The gravity of the matter was reinforced in 1961
when heavily saline "return flow" — water already
used at least once — from Arizona's Wellton-Mohawk
Project crossed into Mexico. While the United States
insisted that the 1944 treaty imposed no obligation
"with respect to the quality of the water," Mexico
disagreed and demanded water as good as that which
was being used when the treaty was signed. In
August 1973, after lengthy negotiations between the
two countries, the United States agreed to build a
desalination plant at Yuma and to construct other
facilities designed to provide a "permanent and
definitive solution" to the salinity problem. The
agreement represented a major step forward, but the
future must reveal whether it will bring about the
desired results.
The severest blow to Southern California's plans
o
o
o
c
o
0>
o.
(0
r
s
tn
T3
O
</>
■o
a>
_>
o
(/>
(A
(0
.o
AG
39
38^
^7 -1
36
\
3*5
3<1
^
1
1
1
i
■
>
■
1
1
i
Salinity is an important factor in
determining the future value of
this artificial inland sea as a re-
source for recreation and wildlife.
This chart traces the salinity lev-
els of the Salton Sea between
1948 and 1977. The values shown
are the average of samples taken
from Bertram Station, Desert
Beach, Sandy Beach, and Salton
Sea Beach.
1950
1960
1970
43
Colorado River Basin 1975
This map displays the amounts of water used for various
purposes in each of the seven states of the Colorado River
Basin and Mexico during calendar year 1975. The water is
obtained from the mainstream of the Colorado River, its
tributaries, and the groundwater basins. The map also details
evaporative losses from the principal reservoirs on the lower
mainstream, the location of major Indian reservations, the
quality of flows at key stations along the river, and the Imperial,
Coachella, and Mexicali valleys outside the basin. Also shown
are the assumed apportionments to the four Upper Basin
states, the apportionments of mainstream water for the three
Lower Basin states, and the 1944 treaty obligation to Mexico. In
most instances, direct comparison of apportionment to
consumptive use is not possible, as explained in the
accompanying discussion 'Apportionment and Use of the
Colorado River Water Supply.'
<?
WYOMING
Consumptive Uses And Losses (1,000 Acre-Feet)
96.7
101.0
20.3
439.2
842.0
Irrigated Agriculture
Municipal and Industrial
Undifferentiated Exports
Reservoir Evaporation and Wildlife
Total Consumption and Losses
Apportionments
416
Main Stem Reservoir Evaporation and Channel Losses
Water Quality as shown here is
measured in parts per million of total
dissolved solids. The data have been
related to flows in order to express
mean annual flow-weighted levels of
concentration for 1975.
776 •
Indian Reservations
Aqueducts and Pumping Plants
Fontenelle Res.
253.2
31.3
6.6
.2
291.3
720.0
COLORADO
Flaming Gorge
<tf
a
***- 147
Craig
1166.1
42.9
~562lT
5.8
1777.4
2661.0
25
20
15
10
5
1900 1910 1920 1930
Virgin Flow at Lee Ferry
(millions of acre-feet)
1940 1950 1960 1970
Duchesne . 521
o
\N"' te
."&
Granby Lake
Strawberry I
371
UTAH
560.2
25.2
104.2
8.1
897.7
1183.0
, Price
Green River ,
7650
• 444
Grand Junction
Q.
o>°
O y
o Moab
St. George
• 392
"son
/?/,
Blue Mesa
UPPER BASIN
Lake Powell
Juan
NEVADA
1.9
155.7
300.0
2029
Las Vegas
<?/>
379
*S"i
Durango
• Lake Mead G°S
ra'
do
<%:
|Lee Feo^M 5 Glen Canyon Dam
-^ 1
* 555
Farmington
Navajo Res,
Hoover Dam 1
r^
CALIFORNIA
690
Grand Canyon
NEW MEXICO
\ Lake Mojave
<—, Davis Dam
LOWER BASIN
as
4461.5
4937.3
4400.0
Flagstaff
131.9
39.6
145.2
6.0
322.7
579.0
Needles I
o
Ver,
°o/ t
Or.
*ob
S>.
&&
Lake Havasu
e*£>^
J >>
Parker Dam
703
Indio
Salton Sea
Blythe
ARIZONA
CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT
^„ (Under Construction) (~^<- y ~~ "~\
Salt
<S
PHOENIX °
Roosevelt Lake
San Carlos Res.
R iye r
El Centro
All-American \ Canal/
829
PI
vef
Mexicali
f%° Yuma
mperial Dam G" a
MEXICO
(Proposed)
ty.
50
100 mi
100
200 km
Tucson °
1655.6
1500.0
4892.8
397.0
2.2
222.3
5514.3
2850.0
APPORTIONMENT AND USE OF THE COLORADO RIVER WATER SUPPLY
The Upper Basin states and the Lower Basin states do not
agree on the interpretation of the Colorado River Compact.
The most significant issue of disagreement involves the
Upper Basin's obligation with respect to the Mexican Water
Treaty. Although the Compact apportions an average of 7.5
million acre-feet per year to the Upper Basin, it seems clear
that downstream requirements and the actual water supply
will limit use in the Upper Basin to less than this amount.
The estimate most commonly used is that the Upper Basin
will not be able to use more than 5,800,000 acre-feet per
year. The Upper Colorado River Basin Compact appor-
tioned 50,000 acre-feet per year to Arizona and the remain-
der according to the following percentages: Colorado 51.75,
New Mexico 11.25, Utah 23.00, and Wyoming 14.00.
In the Lower Basin, the United States Supreme Court's
decree in Arizona v. California apportioned the first 7.5 million
acre-feet per year available in the lower Colorado River
mainstream for consumptive use by the three Lower Basin
states as follows: Arizona 2.8 million, California 4.4 million,
and Nevada 300,000. If more than 7.5 million acre-feet are
available, then California is apportioned 50 percent of the
surplus, Arizona 46 percent, and Nevada 4 percent. During
shortage conditions, the Secretary of the Interior is directed
first to satisfy present perfected rights and then to appor-
tion the amount remaining to the states. The 1968 Colo-
rado River Basin Project Act gave California's basic appor-
tionment of 4.4 million acre-feet per year priority over the
Central Arizona Project. Streamflows from the tributaries
in the Lower Basin have not been apportioned by compact
nor adjudicated among the states.
For the Upper Basin states, the total water use shown on
the map for Colorado and Wyoming may be compared with
the indicated apportionments. The total water use shown
for Utah and New Mexico includes use in both the Upper
and Lower Basins, whereas the indicated apportionments
are for the Upper Basin only since the Lower Basin tribu-
taries have not been apportioned.
For the Lower Basin, the apportionment shown for
Nevada is of Colorado River mainstream and tributaries.
For Arizona, the apportionment shown is the sum of the
state's Upper Basin apportionment plus the state's Lower
Basin apportionment from the mainstream only. The water
Arizona uses is drawn from three major sources: the main-
stream of the Colorado River, its tributaries, and ground
water basins. For California, both the apportionment
shown and the total use are from the mainstream only.
California's 1975 water use is in excess of the indicated basic
apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet because the 1970
Operating Criteria provides that California can use as much
water as it can put to beneficial use under its contracts with
the United States until the Central Arizona Project be-
comes operational in 1985. California has water delivery
contracts with the Secretary of the Interior totaling
5,362,000 acre-feet annually.
for the Colorado occurred in 1963 in the United
States Supreme Court decision of Arizona v. California.
Arizona went to court when she proved unable to
reach an agreement with California over their shares
of the water apportioned to the lower basin by the
Colorado River Compact. Though California in 1929
had agreed to limit itself to 4.4 million acre-feet of
the 7.5 million acre-feet apportioned by the compact,
this assurance had not settled fundamental differences
between the two states over how Arizona's tributaries
were to be counted. Aware of the declining water
supply, California insisted that the tributaries be
counted in a way which would lessen Arizona's share
of mainstream water and thereby assure sufficient
supply for California's contracts for surplus water.
The court's decision disappointed California and
gave Arizona a major victory. Of the first 7.5 million
acre-feet available in the mainstream for the lower
basin, the court, basing its opinion on its interpretation
of the Boulder Canyon Act of 1928, awarded Nevada
300,000 acre-feet, California 4.4 million acre-feet,
and Arizona 2.8 million acre-feet plus all the water
in her tributaries. The court further apportioned 50
percent of any surplus water to California, 46
percent to Arizona, and 4 percent to Nevada.
Arizona, which currently uses about 1,250,000
acre-feet per year from the mainstream, is forecast
to increase its use to 2.8 million acre-feet per year
upon completion of the Central Arizona Project.
Nevada's use of approximately 100,000 acre-feet per
year is projected to increase to its full 300,000 acre-
feet per year apportionment by the year 2000.
Mexico is guaranteed 1.5 million acre-feet per year
under the terms of the 1944 Mexican-American
Water Treaty. The effect of the Supreme Court
decision thus left California with the prospect of its
uses being reduced to the basic 4.4 million acre-feet
per year when the proposed Central Arizona Project
becomes operative and the further prospect of
additional reductions. The congressional legislation
authorizing the Central Arizona Project in 1968,
however, protected California's use of its 4.4 million
acre-foot apportionment by assigning it a higher
priority than the demands of the Central Arizona
Project. Thus, diversions to the Central Arizona
Project, estimated to average 1.2 million acre-feet a
year, would have to be completely eliminated before
California's apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet
per year could be reduced.
Water use and depletions by the United States and
Mexico currently total approximately 11.4 million
acre-feet per year. Reservoir losses to evaporation
from Lake Mead are approximately balanced by the
inflow between Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover
Dam. River losses and reservoir evaporation below
Hoover Dam total approximately 600,000 acre-feet
per year. Thus, the current overall use of the entire
mainstream, which must be essentially met by the
virgin flow at Lee's Ferry, is approximately 12
million acre-feet per year. This can be compared with
what is considered to be the dependable flow of the
river at Lee's Ferry of about 14 million acre-feet per
year. Surplus water has been going into Lake Mead
and the large reservoirs constructed in the upper
basin in the last decade. There has been almost no
flow to the Gulf of California since 1961. If average
runoff conditions prevail for the next several years,
reservoirs will reach the flood control space in about
five years and the probability is high that ap-
proximately 56 million acre-feet of water in storage
can be obtained prior to commencement of operation
of the Central Arizona Project.
Total basin uses are projected to approach the
dependable annual flow of 14 million acre-feet by
about 1990, after the Central Arizona Project goes
into full operation. Thereafter, as annual uses in the
upper basin increase to the maximum annual level of
5.8 million acre-feet that the lower basin's planners
project, water could be withdrawn from reservoir
storage at a rate equal to the increases in upper basin
uses. Based upon current projections of future
storage increases and runoff, California's water
planners are therefore confident that the basic water
requirements can be met for many years beyond the
turn of the century. Shortages would occur earlier,
however, if the rate of growth in the upper basin
proceeds more rapidly than assumed, or if long
periods of below-average flow should occur.
In addition to the risks inherent in any long-range
forecast, however, there is another consideration
which threatens to reduce California's supply of
Colorado River water. This threat comes from the
basin's forgotten people — the American Indians.
Scattered throughout the Colorado River states are
numerous reservations, including the nation's
largest, the Navajo. The Indians living on these
reservations possess characteristics that are the envy
of no one: lowest income in the nation, highest
unemployment, highest suicide rate, least formal
education, highest death rate from alcoholism.
Indian leaders are arguing that the economic and
other conditions of their reservations cannot be
improved unless they obtain a sufficient supply of
water, and they have turned, or are planning to turn,
to the courts for help.
What the outcome of their suits will be is difficult
to predict, but they have powerful precedents on
their side. One is the so-called Winters Doctrine, first
enunciated in 1908 in the U. S. Supreme Court
decision of Winters v. United States. This doctrine holds
that Indians possess a special right which dates from
the time a reservation is created and continues
unimpaired whether the Indians are using the water
or not. In Arizona v. California, the court reaffirmed
the doctrine and held that the quantity of the right
was determined by the extent of the "practicably
irrigable" acreage on the reservation. On this
occasion the court limited itself to the reservations
along the mainstream of the lower Colorado where
five tribes are entitled to about 900,000 acre-feet of
diversions, mostly in Arizona, with actual con-
sumptive use estimated to be 600,000 acre-feet. But
the decision has prompted other tribes in the basin to
plan suits of their own. The Navajo, for example,
have talked about suing for as much as ten million
acre-feet or about 70 percent of the flow of the
Colorado River. The outcome of Indian claims and
their impact on Southern California's water uses will
not be known for years.
Colorado River water has permitted Southern
California to become one of the great industrial and
agricultural centers of the world. The use of the
river's waters has also led to bitter legal, political,
and engineering battles and there is the prospect of
more such controversies. Behind those disputes has
been the realization that the Colorado contains
enough water for only a limited number of cities and
farms. Significant questions remain with respect to
the rate of growth that will occur in the upper basin,
the effectiveness of salinity control programs, the
interpretation of the compact, and the extent of
Indian claims. But the seven basin states have
recognized that they use one common resource and
that it is more advantageous to work cooperatively
in resolving problems than to take adversary
positions with respect to one another.
Southern California vigorously supported the
State Water Project, which has been bringing about a
million acre-feet of water from the northern portion
of the state since 1973. Eventually, plans call for
more than two million acre-feet to be diverted
southward and the availability of this water will
more than offset expected losses of Colorado River
water and thus help to meet the needs that will be
created with expected increases in Southern California's
population. But water shortages will occur unless
alternative sources are discovered or patterns of
consumption altered. The water being brought
southward, as events in 1977 indicated, can be shut
down when drought hits the north. Southern
California did not resist the shutdown in 1977
because sufficient water was still available from the
Colorado. These conditions will change, however, as
states elsewhere in the basin begin using their full
shares of water.
That the Drought of 1976-77
affected other parts of the state
more severely than Southern
California is suggested by this
photograph of the snow which
fell on the Angeles Crest in Jan-
uary 1977 — a rare event in any
year but especially so in the midst
of the worst drought of this cen-
tury. Expanded deliveries from
the Colorado enabled MWD to
turn back water from the State
Water Project in order to assist
other regions in need.
45
CHAPTER 6
The Great Valley Systems
This map by Ham Hall displays
the extent of irrigation in the
Fresno area in 1885. The Central
Colony, prototype for the ple-
thora of water colonies clustered
here, lies to the southwest of the
Central Pacific Railroad line near
the middle of the map.
ciLinnu mn minimi mnmmi DETAIL IRRIGATION MAP fbesno sheet.
i.-:r-
li
ytoti*
■M&>*
-»*$*
,-■■•
//
iMM
/
— i"
/
T J«S
/SuhH aJ Cat/ 1
n 12
ft fy
EXPlAMTtOM
Gtraxl jLtrtts .
<Stro«m4 , ..._„_ ,r~"—
C&uttt vndjfi&fa* . . , . ■ i ... " , , i ~^\ . r ~^— —
J!rlMtzn.>rai* ..,„,,'• © © ©
JSnwp ondlhxrfi.Zerul ........ V~~ ]
■Mxtt.laxA ...... . . . ... .( ~1
IAM0S lAMBi UW4
mnfsmver a xdrw«e . . p7p f_J C~~~l
J***** P™~ : ~1 C~~"~) ~ I
MmOrSWt* 1 j CZ3 \ 1
*>«&*»*■ ■ - - - .gi] CZ3 r — 1
£i&*rfy„ . g| LZZD 1 *~1
GenOfrvtfit and Ainfffary . f~~
-Mv#*f #nith
/
GmriSe#*r$
Jt,f*at
i
4jmj*._
/,/
/
y
r>£tia n
/
\s
* »A*
"t iS S ,j « 20 E,
/
ww***
/
sr
/
•
/i/
£*&.,
r/
/■ /
A/
f
/
PIZ
/
•
•
^U3?£k<
/
/
^
,teJSm
™,/(t=. i Twi'V.JJ»
/
WHoiHaii.. State Emrin
Inl«dlojvD<ito,1865.
SCALE:! MlLK to IInCH.
46
The Central Valley and State Water Projects were
born in the agricultural transformation of Califor-
nia's Central Valley during the first two decades of
the twentieth century. Early settlers of the Central
Valley had foreseen the potential of the area for irri-
gated agriculture if additional surface water could
only be delivered to it, and the first State Engineer,
William "Ham" Hall, proposed the development of a
great system of irrigation canals in the 1880s. But it
was the dry farming of wheat which instead domi-
nated valley agriculture in the latter half of the nine-
teenth century. The ruthless exploitation of the soil
by this one-crop economy, however, gradually
lowered the yield of grain, and increasing competition
from the Mississippi Valley and Russia brought the
collapse of California's wheat empires by the end of
the century. Enthusiasts of systematic irrigation such
as William Smy the, author of The Conquest of Arid Amer-
ica, saw in the passing of the wheat barons a blessing
for the future of California. "The fall in wheat prices
has broken the land monopoly which kept labor ser-
vile and gave the most fruitful of countries to four-
footed beasts rather than to men," wrote Smythe in
1900. "With the supremacy of wheat will go the
shanty and the 'hobo' laborer . . . . In their places will
come the home and the man who works for himself.
Civilization will bloom where barbarism has blighted
the land."
The turn of the century marked the end of a pro-
longed economic depression that had affected agricul-
ture throughout California and the West. For the
next two decades, California farmers enjoyed height-
ened prices for their products which were accentu-
ated especially during the era of World War One.
With prosperity came a flood of new immigrants.
Between 1900 and 1920, approximately 45,000 new
farmsteads were formed in California. Uniquely for
the Golden State, most of the new farms were created
from the subdivision of former grain and cattle
ranches; only about a half million acres of new farm-
land came under cultivation in this period. The subdi-
vision phenomenon produced smaller, family-sized
farms than the typical mid-American quarter-section
farm of 160 acres. Of the 45,000 new farms formed in
this period, census data reveal that 37,600 of them
were smaller than 50 acres in size. The San Joaquin
Valley in particular surpassed the other regions of the
state in the growth of its rural population. Fully a
third of the state's overall growth in farm population
occurred here, tripling the population of the area in
only two decades.
The expansion of intensive, diversified, irrigated
agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley followed the
model established by the various colonies commercial
companies had set up in the Fresno area during the
1870s. Developers such as William Chapman and
Moses J. Church created the prototype Central Col-
ony and its successors in clusters around the sites of
Fresno, Selma, Dinuba, Kingsburg, and Reedley.
Water companies such as the Fresno Canal and Irriga-
tion Company laid out roads and town centers,
planted shade trees, established nurseries for the cul-
ture of raisin grapevines, and divided the agricultural
land into 20-acre plots. The developers sought homo-
genous social populations for each colony so that
compatible, hard-working ethnic groups would make
a successful adjustment. The settlers' water rights
were made a part of their land purchase agreements.
The colonization program that began with a
nationwide publicity campaign in the first decade of
the twentieth century and ended in the 1920s, how-
ever, differed materially from earlier colonization
efforts in other parts of the state. The promotional
programs launched by the Sacramento Valley Devel-
opment Association, the California Promotion Com-
mittee, the California Development Association, the
colonization departments of the Southern Pacific and
Santa Fe railroads, and the advertisements of innu-
merable land colonization companies emphasized the
economic prospects of specialized farming on small
acreage. The first years of the land boom after 1906
demonstrated the speculative profits that might be
derived by realtors from the subdivision of large
ranches where wheat land could be bought for $25 an
acre and sold as prime vineyard and orchard property
for prices ranging from $100 to $300 an acre. In
consequence, the developers proved to be concerned
principally with selling colony real estate. The custo-
mers, many of whom lacked actual farming
experience, were left to their own devices once the
contracts of sale and mortgage deeds had been exe-
cuted.
The survival of many of these poorly planned colo-
nies depended upon the grim determination of the
original settlers, their ability to learn from adversity,
and in many areas, the exploitation of groundwater
resources through the introduction of centrifugal
pumps powered by gasoline engines or electricity.
Such was the history of the Wasco colony initiated in
Kern County in 1907. The Patterson colony, estab-
lished in 1909, was the first to draw its water by
pumping from the lower San Joaquin River in Stanis-
laus County. Groundwater sources had been availa-
ble in the San Joaquin Valley prior to 1900 from
flowing artesian wells. But after the turn of the cen-
tury, pumping became more and more a necessity.
There were 597 pumped wells operating in the San
Joaquin Valley in 1906; by 1910, the census reported
5,000; 11,000 in 1920; and 23,500 in 1930. A million
and a half acres received the major portion of their
irrigation supply from groundwater by 1940. This
valuable supplement to the supply of surface streams
encouraged the land boom in small farm sites. Present
at all times, however, was the threat of lowering
groundwater tables as the number of wells increased.
The need for supplemental sources in order to halt
the depletion of groundwater reserves led in time to
demands for a comprehensive program of water
importation.
The plight of the small farmers encouraged the
coordination of water development. Some areas were
dependent upon commercial or cooperative water
companies for irrigation supplies that were drawn from
both surface water sources and underground aquifers.
During the 1920s, for example, some 400,000 acres of
Miller and Lux Company lands were sold on the west
side of the San Joaquin Valley. All water rights were
reserved by the Miller and Lux Company, and the
venerable San Joaquin and Kings River Canal Company
with its 350 miles of canal sold water to subdivided
tracts for less than two dollars an acre a year.
Undoubtedly the most successful colonies in the
Central Valley, however, were those whose members
organized public irrigation districts. The advantages of
this type of organization for water delivery were patent.
The district raised money and built its facilities through
the sale of bonds, all landowners were subject to
common taxation, and democratic organization assured
local responsibility and a means to solve mutual
problems as the farmers became their own water
suppliers.
Legislative changes in the Wright Act in 1909 and
1911 encouraged the subdivision of large,
unimproved tracts in each district and provided
greater security for district bonds, thus assuring their
marketability. As a result, there was a real spurt in the
number of irrigation districts formed after 1915. In
1922 three million acres in California were served by
irrigation districts. By 1930 there were almost 100
districts financed by bonds valued at $100 million.
The most successful districts in the San Joaquin Val-
ley were the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts
with water rights to the Tuolumne River, the Merced
District drawing from the Merced River, and the
Fresno Irrigation District created in 1920 from the
Fresno Canal and Irrigation Company. The financial
success of the Modesto, Turlock, and Merced districts
was assured by their development of storage reser-
voirs equipped with generators for the production
and sale of hydroelectric power to local utilities. Alto-
gether, irrigation districts provided 92 percent of the
water used for irrigation in the San Joaquin Valley
before the Central Valley Project came on line with its
supplemental supplies.
By the time the boom in agricultural land sales
The realities of farming in the
Central Valley before the devel-
opment of the Central Valley
Project often differed consider-
ably from the idyll depicted in this
nineteenth century painting of
agriculture in the California
paradise.
finally began to taper off in the middle of the 1920s,
the San Joaquin Valley was the acknowledged leader
among the agricultural sections of the state. While
the output of the valley as a whole was varied, individ-
ual farms and localities specialized in crops and pro-
ducts which had a national or statewide market and
which were specially adapted to local climatic and soil
conditions. Thus, cotton came to be associated with
Kern County, oranges and lemons with the Porter-
ville region, deciduous fruit and nut trees together
with vines from the Fresno, Merced, and Turlock
areas, alfalfa and dairy products from Modesto and
the West Side. Cotton and melons also began to make
their appearance on the west side of the San Joaquin
River. And the Delta featured truck vegetables such
as potatoes, onions, celery, and asparagus.
The nation's agricultural depression of the 1920s
was delayed in reaching California until 1930 by con-
tinued capital investment and immigration to the
state. The prevailing optimism associated with Cali-
fornia agriculture in the 1920s was reflected in the
stable value of California lands as prices remained
fairly constant between 1921 and 1930. Nevertheless,
trouble spots did begin to appear on the horizon in the
1920s as small farm owners found irrigation increas-
ingly expensive. The speculatively inflated land prices
were but the starting point for a small farmer's costs;
to these expenses were added ground leveling, ditch-
ing, and charges for water rights. Generally it was
thought that a farmer must have $5,000 in hand in
order to make an effective start. As a result foreclo-
sures and the failure rate among small farm owners
were much higher than anticipated.
The mounting costs of farm operations thus
seemed to favor large-scale agricultural operations.
Certain areas in the San Joaquin Valley had never
been subdivided but were farmed instead by corpo-
rate entities. The Kern County Land Company and its
associates, for example, owned 300,000 acres drawing
water from the Kern River. Corporations possessed
over half the expansive Tulare Lake Basin and on the
upper west side, banks, oil, railroad and
food-processing companies controlled over 700,000
acres in the area that today makes up the Westlands
Water District.
Tenantry was spreading. The Delta district, com-
posed of some 350,000 acres of reclaimed land, was
largely farmed by tenants of foreign extraction. Their
truck crops were contracted to commission
merchants who then deducted rental fees from the
proceeds in favor of the large owners responsible for
reclamation district operations. Alarmed by the
growth of tenantry and the plight of the small farmer,
the state itself inaugurated a land development col-
ony program at Durham and Delhi in 1917. The pub-
lic at large, however, considered the experiment a
costly mistake with little effect on land tenure pat-
terns and the state liquidated the program in 1930.
These mounting problems were compounded after
1917 by a series of subnormal rainfall years which
encouraged overpumping and thereby depleted the
water-bearing gravels in the upper San Joaquin Val-
ley. Deeper wells consequently had to be drilled and
new pumps installed. This additional $5,000 expense
for a 60-acre tract proved fatal for many small opera-
tions in the disastrous drought years from 1928 to
1935 when 400,000 acres in the South San Joaquin
Valley were seriously overdrawn and 20,000 acres
had to be abandoned. The fate of California's most
productive agricultural region thus came to be seen as
dependent upon a successful state plan which would
provide the engineering design for a vast water
importation scheme to serve the Central Valley.
THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT
Although attempts had been made for decades
before 1920 to bring the state government directly
into the business of water development, it was the
private publication of a statewide water plan by
Colonel Robert B. Marshall in that year which finally
induced the state to undertake an ambitious program
of water resource planning. Publicized broadly
throughout the state by the California Irrigation
Association in an ad hoc campaign subsidized by the
agricultural interests of the Central Valley,
Marshall's bold proposal caught the imagination of
the public. Working from the concept of a coordi-
nated, basin-wide water plan for the Central Valley,
Marshall proposed the construction of a storage
reservoir on the Sacramento River above Redding
which would feed two parallel aqueducts running
down both sides of the Sacramento and San Joaquin
valleys to Dos Palos on the west and the San Joaquin
River to the east. The plan also called for saltwater
barriers at the Carquinez Straits and a tunnel to
divert the waters of the Kern River south, through
the Owens Valley to Los Angeles. Additional water
for the Central Valley would also be drawn from the
Stanislaus River.
The scheme was far too grandiose to win ready
acceptance among public officials and the engineering
fraternity. There were more factors at work to create
support for some kind of state program, however,
than the emerging problems of Central Valley agri-
culture. A statewide conference on water use in 1916,
for example, had identified navigation, irrigation,
electric power generation, flood control, drainage,
and land reclamation as problems needing special
attention. The conference solved nothing, but it did
advocate state aid for the creation of a general plan to
attack these problems. Inspired by the popular enthu-
siasm Marshall's plan generated, and the example of
the spectacular success of Los Angeles' aqueduct to
the Owens Valley, the Legislature in 1921 initiated a
series of comprehensive studies of California's water
resources by the State Division of Engineering which
eventually stretched out over the next ten years and
cost over a million dollars.
The obstacles to the development of a state water
project, whether Marshall's or anyone else's, were
immense. For one thing, California's entire system of
riparian rights had first to be modified. Those seg-
ments of public opinion most anxious for a compre-
hensive state water program were warned that large
47
Central Valley Project water Year 1975
Deliveries
The width of the flow lines is proportional to the quantity of water, in acre-feet,
delivered to that water contractor from October 1974 through September 1975.
WATER CONTRACTORS
(Contractor/Canal/Acre-Feet)
Minor x 4 (A) * 27,285
Orland WUA (B) 252,788
Minor x1 (C) 13,650
Minor x 2(D) 27,110
Contra Costa CWA(E) 76,137
Hospital WD (F) 31,600
W. Stanislaus ID (F) 36,100
Minor x 26 (F)
208,419
Central Cal. ID (F,G) 527,894
San Luis CnC. (G) 169,711 —
Chowchilla WD (H) 129,867 —
Minor x 1 (H) 441 —
Grassland WD (F,G) 52,089 —
Minor x 2 (L) 147 —
Madera ID (H) 188,888 —
Minor x 14 (G) 75,386 —
Columbia CnC. (G) 61,740 —
Firebaugh CnC. (F,G) 79,162 —
Panoche WD (F,i) 1 13, 745 -
San Luis WD (F,i) 104,291 —
City of Fresno (K) 23,000 —
Fresno ID (K) 78,365 —
Mendota WMA (G) 22,581 —
Tranquility ID (G) 33,919 —
James ID (G) 47,051 —
Orange Cove ID (K) 35,300 —
Minorx7(l,J) 6,798 —
Westlands WD (G,i) 1,250,279
Minor x 15 (K) 97,565
Tulare ID (K) 186,000-
Lindmore ID (K) 50,200
Lower Tule River (K) 223,000
Porterville ID (K)
Saucelito ID (K)
Delano-
Earlimart ID (K)
23,700-
42,200
168,100
S. San Joaquin
MUD (K)
138,700
Shafter-Wasco ID (K) 72,900
191,200
\ Arvin Edison
WSD (K)
(3)«
rm
< 7 >i
ok
V(8)
(B)/V
(A)
<A
(12)
o)£>
may
,no)
L(G)
(16) f
n v\6
K
6
P 6 U \ J(20)
\6(L)
«o
(J)I \
"° I <K)
-o Of
Of'
Facilities
Lake or Reservoir
and ID # for graph
Pumping Plant
and ID # for graph
Power Plant
and ID # for graph
Contractor's location
River
Central Valley Project—aqueduct/canal
(B) Canal ID letter (see below)
Canal/Unit:
(A)
Corning
(B)
North and South
(C)
Tehama-Colusa
(D)
Folsom South
(E)
Contra Costa
(F)
Delta- Mendota
(G)
San Joaquin River and Mendota Pool
(H)
Madera
0)
San Luis
(J)
Coalinga
(K)
Fri ant-Kern
(L)
Millerton Lake
Abbreviations:
CnC
Canal Company
CWA
County Water Agency
ID
Irrigation District
MUD
Municipal Utility District
PpP
Pumping Plant
PwP
Power Plant
Res
Reservoir
WD
Water District
WMA
Waterfowl Management Agency
WSD
Water Storage District
WUA
Water Users Association
100 km
Minor: Represents the total number of water contractors (x n) that received 20,000 acre-teet or less from that canal during
the water year. The numerical figure represents the total amount delivered collectively to all these contractors.
»8
• ••••
• ••••
d)
(2)
• 4
• ••••
• ••••
(3)
600
500
° 300
200
H
100
-<D-
(4)
O
••••• •«
••••• •••••
••••• •••••
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
• ••••
• ••••
• ••••
(9)
• «
5
2
to
E
Q_
o
o
— '
a
a
X!
£z
E
c
c
o
o
z
O
O
(
I I
(10)
(11)
(2) (3)
-(4)-
(5)
(6)
(7)
(12)
O
(13)
(8)
(9)
(10)
• <
(14)
-(15)-
■
J£
CO
_l
E
o
w
o
U-
•
0-
a.
a.
5
0.
0.
»s
>>
a.
o
a.
CL
H-
b
(16)
(11)
-(12) (13)
Energy Generation, Use,
and Water Pumped
•••••
•••«
(17)
-(18)-
(14) (15)
(16)
-(17)-
(19)
50 million kilowatt hours
of energy generated
50 million kilowatt hours
of energy consumed
Total water pumped
Absence of symbol indicates less than 25
million kilowatt hours consumed or generated.
•Joint federal/state facility. Only federal
share is shown.
Reservoir
Capacities
Water
storage
capacity
•Joint federal/state
facility. Total
capacities are shown.
(18) (19)
(20)
land holders with unrestricted riparian water rights
could block the large-scale transfer of water essential
to any plan. These fears, in turn, helped build support
for passage of the constitutional amendment in 1928
that limited the owners of riparian rights to a reaso-
nable use of water, the same sort of requirement
heretofore imposed on appropriative water rights.
Financing proved an even more vexatious obstacle.
Supporters of the Marshall Plan in the Legislature set
to work implementing it through a proposed Califor-
nia Water and Power Act which would have provided
for state distribution of all power generated by state-
financed projects. The revenues from the sale of
power would thus be used to offset the cost of water
development. Such a proposal posed a direct threat to
the private power companies, whose markets would
be undercut by public power. Having failed to secure
passage of the bill in the more conservative Assembly,
backers of the bill promoted it as an initiative. In three
successive campaigns in 1922, 1924, and 1926, the
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, whose member-
ship included virtually all of the light and power com-
panies in Northern and Central California, paid out
hundreds of thousands of dollars in support of suc-
cessful efforts to defeat the proposal.
With the onset of the Depression, however, devel-
opment of a water project for the Central Valley
seemed a desperately needed curative for the state's
troubled economy. In 1931 the State Engineer,
Edward Hyatt, finally produced the results of the
investigations the Legislature had begun ten years
before. In his Bulletin 25, Hyatt addressed only the
most critical water problems. Most of his proposed
dams, canals, pumping stations, and the necessary
hydroelectric generating plants to help pay for the
innovative interbasin water conveyance system,
however, were ultimately included in the modern
Central Valley Project. The Legislature in 1933
approved the project with a provision calling for pub-
lic construction of both generating plants and trans-
mission lines. And that same year, $170 million in
bonds were authorized by the voters to pay the initial
costs of the project's development. PG&E fought back
with a referendum campaign which attacked the pro-
ject as a whole, claiming that additional irrigation
would add to the state's agricultural surpluses while
imposing an unfair burden on Southern California's
taxpayers for a project that would benefit the north-
ern and central portions of the state. Even though Los
Angeles County voted two-to-one for repeal, the act
authorizing the Central Valley Project was sustained
by a narrow statewide majority December 19, 1933.
In the depths of the Depression, however, no
market could be found for the state's bonds, and so
they were not put up for sale. The lawmakers had
foreseen the inability of the state government to
finance the project and had therefore included within
the act authorizing its construction a provision for
negotiations to be carried forward for federal con-
struction and operation. The first acceptance of some
federal responsibility for implementing the Central
Valley Project appeared in a federal-state commission
report sponsored by President Herbert Hoover and
Governor Clement Young in 1930. Here the recom-
mendations were that the federal government build
the dams and supporting facilities while the state
would repay construction costs with interest and
operate the project. The federal government would
reimburse the state for flood control and navigation
benefits. By 1934, however, it became apparent to
state authorities that the entire burden of construc-
tion cost would have to be supported by Congres-
sional appropriation. Thereafter, State Engineer
Edward Hyatt was in the forefront of a continuing
round of conversations with federal officials. Tenta-
tive proposals for loans from the Public Works
Administration in Washington proved unacceptable
to a financially troubled state administration. The
way was finally cleared for the Bureau of Reclamation
to take over construction of the project in 1935 when
President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized
emergency relief funds and the Bureau turned in an
approving feasibility report.
The Bureau set up its headquarters in Sacramento
in 1935 and began construction of the first unit, the
Contra Costa Canal, in 1937. It was blandly assumed
in the Golden State that the project which had come
from the state engineer's reconnaissance and drawing
boards would be built at the same rate of speed the
Bureau completed Hoover Dam. Development of the
Central Valley Project, however, proved to be a far
more complex undertaking, and the resulting delays
in its construction had significant consequences for
Although many of the wheat empires were initially divided up
into small family farms, Mexican laborers still made up a significant
part of the farm labor force in the Central Valley, as suggested by
the scene at top of a summer work camp in 1897.
the administration of the initial facilities. There were
several reasons why the project did not come on line
with its first power sale from Shasta Dam until 1944
and its first delivery of Shasta Dam water to irriga-
tors in the San Joaquin Valley until 1951. There was
the time-consuming problem of right-of-way and
water rights acquisition through eminent domain and
purchase. Construction delays came through
revamping some of the state's design to enlarge
Shasta Dam and substitute the Delta-Mendota Canal
for a proposed San Joaquin River pumping system.
The organization of the Bureau was strained to pro-
vide engineering capability for the many public works
projects it undertook in the West during the New
Deal. Policy-making mechanisms for administering
the new type of multi-purpose projects had to be
developed from scratch. There were demands for
continued local or regional control over the opera-
tions of Hoover Dam, the Columbia Basin Project,
and the Central Valley Project. Most important, the
outbreak of World War Two depleted the ranks of the
Bureau's personnel and brought material shortages
which interrupted development of many of the key
structures in the Central Valley Project.
The celebrations of August 1951 marked the end of
14 years of construction and the fulfillment of a
dream as water flowed through the Delta-Mendota
and Friant-Kern canals, capping a triumphant engi-
neering achievement in the Central Valley interbasin
transfer system. The key structure was the majestic
600-foot concrete Shasta Dam which impounded 4.5
million acre-feet of Sacramento River water for
release through its five generators to an afterbay
created by Keswick Dam. Here, more electric power
was generated and water moved downstream to meet
the irrigation needs of the Sacramento and San Joa-
quin valleys. At the same time, the flows aided navi-
gation, flood control, and protection of the Delta from
saline intrusion. Protection of the Delta, however,
was not one of the purposes of the project specified by
Congress. A high-voltage power line ran to the Tracy
pumping station where Shasta public power operated
the pumps to lift Sacramento water to the Delta-
Mendota Canal. The concrete-lined Contra Costa
Canal, running 48 miles along Suisun Bay from the
West Delta near Oakley to the Martinez Reservoir,
began to deliver water to municipal and industrial
customers in 1940 but was not completed until after
the war. It represented an engineering answer to the
demands of industrial and agricultural interests
which had been troubled during the 1920s with salt-
water seepage into groundwater tables and Suisun
Bay saline pollution. The Delta Cross Channel was
dredged out by Reclamation engineers between Wal-
nut Grove on the Sacramento River and a natural
slough that channeled Sacramento River water to the
Tracy and Contra Costa pumping stations. The huge
Friant Dam north of Fresno is a straight, concrete,
gravity dam 315 feet high, which impounds a half
million acre-feet from the San Joaquin River
watershed. Its reservoir, Millerton Lake, provides
flood control and conservation storage as well as a
capability for diversion into the Madera Canal run-
ning to the Chowchilla River, and the 152-mile-long,
concrete-lined Friant-Kern Canal ending at the Kern
River near Bakersfield. The total cost of these initial
facilities has been estimated in excess of $400 million.
THE STRUGGLE FOR CONTROL
The extended delays in the completion of the project
frustrated the efforts of New Deal social reformers to
realize their goals for the distribution of public power
and enforcement of the family farm provisions of rec-
lamation law through the Central Valley Project. The
years between 1944 and 1954 were, in consequence,
crucial to the political struggle between California and
Washington to determine how the Central Valley Proj-
ect would be administered. Important decisions were
made in this period concerning control of the facilities
by the state or the Bureau of Reclamation, whether
competing water delivery systems would be permitted
to intrude upon the comprehensive, basin-wide, inte-
grated water management system planned by the
Bureau of Reclamation, and who would benefit from
the distribution of cheap public power and the disposal
of interest-free water for irrigation purposes.
The state Chamber of Commerce sounded the
alarm in 1945 giving expression to the view that the
Central Valley Project was more than a complex multi-
purpose water delivery system; it was a force repre-
senting a remote Washington bureaucracy which might
through its irrigation and power facilities determine
the shape of California's society and economy. The
Chamber was reacting to the findings of the Central
Valley Project Studies, a cooperative Bureau of Agri-
cultural Economics program initiated in 1941 to antici-
pate social and economic impacts of the completed
Central Valley Project. One study, for instance, noted
the concentrations of corporate land ownership in the
Central Valley and recommended changed cropping
and marketing practices so that the family farm provi-
sion of reclamation law could be enforced.
A reorganization of the Bureau of Reclamation in
1944 put a strong advocate of public power and the
excess lands law requirement in charge of the Bureau's
activities in California. The large farm interests in the
upper San Joaquin Valley were apprehensive over the
strivings of the Bureau to expand its public power facili-
ties with new transmission lines as well as a steam
plant. They saw the energetic campaign for public
preference customers as a betrayal of the state's Cen-
tral Valley Project Act which had proposed public
power development merely as an adjunct of the system
to help pay for the delivery of irrigation water. Public
power and the 160-acre limitation provision of recla-
mation law thus came to be the evils that must be
exorcised. A campaign that merged the forces of the
state Chamber of Commerce, the Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, the Farm Bureau Federation, and
the Irrigation Districts Association sought achieve-
ment of their ends through state purchase of the Cen-
tral Valley Project, the introduction of the Corps of
Engineers as a competitor to the Bureau in the Central
Valley, and the Congressional exemption of the proj-
ect's water services area from enforcement of the 160-
acre limitation requirement.
In the prolonged battle against power distribution
neither side could claim a complete victory. So long as
PG&E refused to allow its own facilities to be used for
the transmission of project power, the Bureau sought to
build its own distribution system. And although PG&E
through its allies in Congress successfully blocked all
appropriations for the development of government-
owned transmission lines while construction on the
project went forward, a compromise had to be reached
when the project finally came on line in 1951. Under the
so-called wheeling agreement of that year, power
49
The reclaimed areas in the pho-
tograph above have been turned
into richly productive croplands
through the development of the
modern water system. Clifton
Court and the facilities of the
State Water Project and Central
Valley Project are at the lower
left and the San Joaquin River
is at the upper right corner.
THE 160-ACRE LIMITATION
Few legislative acts have had as enduring an effect in cre-
ating the economic basis for the modern prosperity of the
western United States as the adoption under the administra-
tion of President Theodore Roosevelt of the Reclamation Act
of 1902. In addition to creating the modern Bureau of Recla-
mation, this act and its succeeding amendments established a
framework for the administration of lands benefiting from
the Bureau's programs which has been the focus of intense
controversy through this century.
Rather than breaking up large landholdings already in
existence in 1902, the reclamation act sought in part to create
new farmlands in the 17 contiguous states west of the 100th
meridian which would then be reserved for settlement as
small family farms. As Roosevelt told the Congress in calling
for the reclamation act, "These irrigation works should be
built by the National Government, the lands reclaimed by
them should be reserved by the Government for actual set-
tlers, and the cost of construction should, so far as possible, be
repaid by the lands reclaimed Our people as a whole will
profit, for successful homemaking is but another name for
the up-building of the nation."
In order to assure that reclamation projects will not be
operated for the benefit of large landowners within their
service areas, the act requires that water from these public
projects cannot be delivered to landholdings larger than 160
acres. Individual owners or the members of a family may,
however, combine their 160-acre plots into larger agricul-
tural operations. And no single owner of more than 160
acres can be compelled to break up his holdings so long as he
does not take water from the project for more than 160
acres. But those who do are required to sign contracts
agreeing to sell any lands in excess of this 160-acre limita-
tion within a specified period of their first receipt of proj-
ect water. Lastly, in order to prevent these owners from
profiting unduly from the sale of their lands at the increased
values they would obtain as the result of the availability of
project water, an amendment to the original act in 1926
provided that these "excess" lands must be sold at a price
approved by federal officials that reflects the value of the
land without the delivery of project water.
Since its adoption, virtually every aspect of the act has
been the object of extended litigation and the precise effect
of the 160-acre limitation and the obligations it creates for
landowners is a question that remains before the courts to-
day. As the agency responsible for enforcement of the 160-
acre limitation, the Bureau of Reclamation has been criti-
cized at various times and in different quarters for being
either too lax or too vigorous in its efforts to implement the
restriction. No state, however,has benefited more than
California from federal reclamation programs, and in no
state, consequently, has the contoversy over the 160-acre
limitation raged with greater intensity. Of the 16,891,000
acres subject to the excess lands provision in all Bureau of
Reclamation projects throughout the United States in 1977,
fully 4,867,00 lay within California.
In recent years, questions involving the enforcement of
the 160-acre limitation within California have centered
upon two of the state's largest agricultural districts: the Im-
perial Irrigation District and the Westlands Water District.
The Imperial Irrigation District secured a letter from the
outgoing Secretary of the Interior, Ray Lyman Wilbur, in
the closing days of the Herbert Hoover Administration sup-
porting the district's contention that it should be exempt
from the 160-acre limitation because its lands and irriga-
tion systems had already been partly developed before the
completion of the Ail-American Canal. Although the dis-
trict has relied upon that letter in the years since, the fed-
eral government has sought since the 1960s to compel the
district to accept a new water service contract which would
apply the 160-acre limitation to lands of the Imperial Irriga-
tion District. This question is still pending in the courts.
At least 217,700 of the approximately 600,000 acres in
the Westlands Water District must be sold as excess lands
between 1978 and 1987 under the contracts district land-
owners signed when they first accepted water service from
the San Luis Unit. In addition, the district needs to enter
into new water service and construction contracts with the
Department of the Interior in order to continue receiving
federal funds for the further development of the district's
water distribution and drainage system. Numerous ques-
tions concerning the operations of the district and its com-
pliance with federal law, however, were raised by a local,
state, and federal task force in 1978. The administration of
future land sales in the Westlands district and the precise
terms of the contracts the district requires are consequently
unresolved questions at this time.
generated at Shasta was transmitted by the Central
Valley Project to its pumping station at Tracy over its
own lines. In exchange, PG&E became the retail
distributor for the project's public preference
customers. The Bureau was denied its own steam
generating plant to provide back-up power — PG&E
agreed to provide that service. PG&E buys power from
the project at nearly the same low rates the Bureau
charges to its preference customers, but the power
PG&E buys is only that which is surplus, after the
project's needs and those of the Bureau's preference
customers have been met. The rates at which PG&E
sells project power are much higher than the public
power advocates demanded in their zeal to provide
cheap electricity for the public. But the large farm
interests approved the rates because they help to pay a
substantial portion of their irrigation water costs. The
wheeling agreement has had the effect of binding the
Bureau and PG&E together in a mutually beneficial
arrangement. PG&E gets cheap power the project
cannot use, and this helps delay the utility's need to
build new power plants of its own. The Bureau, in turn,
is able to extend the distribution of project power at low
rates to a wider range of customers.
In 1944 representatives of California's major
agricultural interests in Congress secured the passage
of a flood control act which authorized the Corps of
Engineers to initiate a chain of dams in the Central
Valley whose principal function of flood control also
provided water conservation capability. Although few
of the Corps' projects could be integrated into the
Central Valley Project, these proposed dams interfered
with the original intent of the Central Valley Project to
coordinate the flow of water and power throughout the
basin under unified Bureau of Reclamation direction.
Rivalry between the Bureau of Reclamation and the
Corps of Engineers prompted both agencies to advance
planning documents on proposed future dams for the
Central Valley in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Of the
initial series of Corps projects, only Folsom Dam was
integrated into the Central Valley Project and
subsequent efforts at coordination between the twp
federal agencies have not prevailed.
Because the Bureau markets all irrigation water from
Corps projects in the West, the intervention of the
Corps in Central Valley water development did nothing
to relieve corporate farms within the Bureau's service
area from the strictures of the 160-acre limitation. The
large-scale agribusiness concerns, in league with many
irrigation districts, have therefore fought the
imposition of family farm controls on Central Valley
Project service area lands from 1944 until the present
day. In memorable Congressional struggles in 1944 and
again in the period 1947-49, efforts to secure exemption
for the Central Valley Project from the 160-acre
limitation met defeat. Efforts to challenge these
limitations in the courts were finally blocked as well in
the United States Supreme Court Ivanhoe Irrigation
District v. McCracken decision in 1958. Administrative
devices, like the use of ten-year recordable contracts,
combined with fluctuating degrees of enthusiasm for
enforcement by federal authorities, relaxed the most
immediate constraints of the law, but the threat of its
implementation remained.
The movement for state purchase of the Central
Valley Project came to nought when the system became
fully operational in 1951. Many districts were quick to
sign up for the interest-free federal water which eased
the problems of groundwater depletion in the eastern
San Joaquin Valley. Support for state ownership of the
project facilities fell away, in the last analysis, because of
the sheer cost of purchase. Inquiries had been made in
1945 when the Secretary of the Interior suggested a
purchase price of $357 million. In 1952 the Legislature
appropriated $10 million for feasibility studies of the
proposal. But in 1954 the drive for state purchase
foundered on the Bureau of Reclamation's reappraisal
which doubled the value of the project. Governor
Goodwin Knight's decision in October 1954 to drop the
proposal altogether thus shifted attention to plans which
the State Engineer, A. D. Edmonston, had put forward
for the state to construct its own project on the Feather
River.
THE STATE WATER PROJECT
Despite the opening of the Central Valley Project in
1951, the rush of migration to California in the years
after World War Two combined with corporate
agriculture's dissatisfaction with the 160-acre limitation
to create a renewed interest in state development of
additional water supplies to serve California's swelling
population. In 1945 the Legislature created the State
50
Water Resources Control Board and directed it to make
a comprehensive investigation of the water resources of
California and to develop plans for a project to meet
California's water needs in the near future. These
studies were carried out for the board by the Division of
Water Resources of the Department of Public Works.
The first phase of the comprehensive study, and
inventory of water resources throughout the state, was
published in 1951.
The publication of the inventory coincided with the
appearance of two proposals for the development of
new water projects, one by the Bureau of Reclamation,
and the other by the state engineer. The Bureau
approached the problem of California's water supply
from a broad perspective that took into account the
needs of neighboring western states. Its study proposed
the diversion of more than six million acre-feet from the
Klamath River, whose flows California shares with
Oregon, to serve the Central Valley and South Coast of
California. Of this total, only 286,000 acre-feet would
go to municipal uses, although the Bureau proposed
taking another 1.2 million acre-feet from the Colorado
River basin for unspecified purposes. Even more
dramatic from the point of view of California's water
planners, the Bureau proposed allocating the waters of
Los Angeles' Owens Valley aqueduct to the Mojave
Desert and diverting a part of the flow of the American
River to Nevada.
Although Edmonston's report contained many of the
features of the Bureau plan, it excluded, of course, the
controversial proposals for massive shifts in the sources
of Southern California's water supply and diversions to
other states. Instead, Edmonston proposed a much
smaller project to divert water from the Feather River
to a multi-purpose dam, reservoir and power facility
near Oroville which would control floods, augment the
natural dry-weather flows to the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta, and provide a source of supply for a
state-constructed delivery system to transport water
from the Delta to portions of the San Francisco Bay
Area, the farmlands in the San Joaquin Valley, and to
the people and industry of Southern California.
The Legislature authorized funds for continued
planning for Edmonston's proposal and in early 1955,
Edmonston made a more detailed report which
reviewed the engineering and financial feasibility of the
project and recommended modifying the original plan
to include the San Luis Reservoir in the western San
Joaquin Valley and additional service to the Bay Area.
This report was then submitted to the Bechtel
Corporation, an independent consulting firm, which
approved the basic engineering concepts and financial
arrangements by year's end. That winter a devastating
flood hit Northern and Central California, causing loss
of life and extensive property damage. This disaster
pointed dramatically to the need for flood control on the
Feather River and, with the start of its next session, the
Legislature appropriated over $25 million to begin
preliminary work on the Feather River Project.
The state government, however, had never con-
structed a water supply project of any size and was
poorly organized to undertake a project of the dimen-
sions Edmonston proposed. There were 52 indepen-
dent California agencies with responsibility for some
aspect of water development and more than 90 state
officers working on water problems without coordina-
tion or central direction. Eight separate agencies dealt
with questions of water rights, 14 handled pollution
control, three flood control, and planning was con-
ducted by four different offices. To bring order to this
tangled bureaucracy, Governor Knight called a special
legislative session in 1956 which created the Depart-
ment of Water Resources as an amalgam of these for-
merly independent entities.
With the groundwork thus laid for his project, and
his office as State Engineer abolished as a result of the
formation of the new department, Edmonston retired.
While inventories of the state's water resources con-
tinued and studies of alternative routes for the project
were pressed forward, the task of building popular
support for Edmonston's proposal fell to the ad hoc
Feather River Project Association. Enthusiasm for the
project, however, remained concentrated in the agri-
cultural interests of the San Joaquin Valley. Edmon-
ston had succeeded in enlisting urban allies in the
Santa Clara Valley by including the Alameda-Santa
Clara-San Benito Aqueduct in his 1951 proposal to
supply the rapidly expanding communities of the
South Bay. But most water interests in the north were
unhappy with plans to export "their" water. If surplus
water were to be sent south, they wanted the right to
the water when they needed it. They also wanted
funds to develop their own local projects.
Even worse, the urban communities of the South
Coast who were the proposed beneficiaries of the proj-
ect greeted the plan through their representatives on
the Metropolitan Water District with suspicion and
outright hostility. Although their supply from the
Colorado was threatened by the suit Arizona filed in
1952, many directors of MWD were reluctant to
weaken their case before the Supreme Court by com-
mitting themselves to a large alternative source of
water from the proposed state project. And, although
Southern Californians recognized that they would
eventually need an additional source of water, they
were afraid that if they contracted for water from the
Feather River, the Legislature at some future time
might overturn their contracts, taking back "their"
water for Northern California.
MWD, representing most of the population in that
area, therefore demanded a state constitutional
amendment guaranteeing its water deliveries from the
project. When two-thirds of the state legislators
proved unable to word an amendment acceptable to
the different water interests they represented, MWD
was in the forefront of the opposition to bills authoriz-
ing the project in 1958 and 1959. Under the leadership
of Governor Edmund G. Brown, Sr., however, a new
approach was tried. Instead of a constitutional amend-
ment, guarantees for the proposed delivery contracts
were written into a bond measure to be passed by the
Legislature and submitted to the voters of the state.
Although still opposed by MWD, this State Water
Resources Development Bond Act, known as the
Burns-Porter Act, passed the Legislature in 1959, sub-
ject to ratification by the voters at the 1960 General
Election. In addition to authorizing $1.75 billion in gen-
eral obligation bonds to help finance construction of
specific state water facilities, the act provided for
future dams on northern rivers and a drain to remove
agricultural wastewater from the Central Valley.
The act attempted to strike an accommodation
between competing regional interests. For the north-
ern part of the state, it specifically guaranteed protec-
tion of water rights in the areas of origin of the water,
and provided that $130 million from the sale of the
bonds would be designated for loans and grants to
public agencies for construction of local water projects
as provided in a companion bill called the Davis-
Grunsky Act. For water interests in the south, it
required that the state not impair contracts for sale
and delivery of water during the lifetime of the bonds.
The campaign for authorization of the bonds in 1960
nevertheless became one of the most fiercely contested
elections in the history of the state.
Proponents cited the need for water for California's
rapidly growing cities and to supplement the badly
overdrawn groundwater basins in agricultural areas.
But many Northern Californians simply did not want
Southern California taking "their" water. While some
people felt that the state must help provide water for
the growth of the Los Angeles area, especially if water
from the Colorado River were not available, others did
not want to provide water which they felt would
encourage growth in an area which could not accom-
modate it. Some believed that the state's high rate of
growth would not continue unabated, that the projec-
tions of future water needs were consequently unreal-
istic, and that the water, therefore, would not be sold.
While the large-scale, industrialized farmers in the San
Joaquin Valley were anxious for a new source of water
not subject to acreage restrictions by the federal
government, the State Grange opposed the project and
many people felt that the 160-acre limitation was desir-
able in order to preserve small family farms. Organized
labor, which today provides one of the most resolute
reservoirs of support for public works projects of every
kind, split on the issue of the bonds. While the team-
sters, steelworkers, and operating engineers supported
the project, the California Labor Federation opposed it,
arguing that the project would principally benefit
agribusiness, which the Federation regarded as the
enemy of the farmworkers it hoped to organize. Envi-
ronmentalists pointed to possible adverse effects on the
Delta and San Francisco Bay, and the future dangers of
development on the North Coast rivers. Furthermore,
they felt that not enough attention had been paid to
VALLEY DELIVERERS
In contrast to Mulholland and Chaffey, the self-taught
geniuses who shaped water development in an earlier era,
the men who conceived the Central Valley Project and State
Water Project were products of the governmental bureau-
cracies and twentieth century engineering professions
which have come to dominate the modern course of water
development. Robert Bradford Marshall joined the United
States Geological Survey after his graduation from
Columbian (now George Washington) University in 1888,
and rose over the next 20 years to become its chief
geographer. Arthur D. Edmonston, a native Californian,
took his civil engineering degree from Stanf ordUniversity in
1910 and spent virtually his entire professional career inside
the Department of Water Resources.
Both men served with the army engineers during World
War One; Marshall as a Lieutenant Colonel, Edmonston as a
Second Lieutenant. But, whereas Edmonston joined the
state after the war, Marshall left government service in 1919
to promote his plan for the Central Valley. The long hours
Marshall devoted to arguing for his project ultimately cost
him his voice, although a bellows-like device developed by
the Bell Telephone Company in 1929 enabled him to regain
at least partial speech.
Following the loss of his campaign and the decision to turn
development of the Central Valley Project over to the federal
government, Marshall ended his career as an employee of the
California Division of Highways. Marshall lived to see the
transformation of his dream into concrete reality before his
death in 1949, and it was Edmonston, as the state's Principal
Hydraulic Engineer, who was responsible for drawing up
many of the specific plans and designs for the Central Valley
Project. Edmonston, however, died within a year of his
retirement and so never saw his plan for the State Water
Project take shape.
To a greater extent probably than
any other part of the state, the
development of agriculture in the
Central Valley has been the pro-
duct of technological innovation.
Before the introduction of cen-
trifugal pumps powered by gas-
oline or electricity made the use
of groundwater possible on a
large scale, valley farmers ex-
perimented with wind and horse
power to pump the water they
required.
51
State Water Project water Year 1975
The width of the flow lines is proportional to the quantity of water, in acre-feet,
delivered to that water contractor from October 1974 through September 1975.
NapaFC&WCD
South Bay
WATER CONTRACTORS
(Contractor/ Acre-Feet)
Feather River
Last Chance Crk WD 19,129
PlumasFC&WCD 477
Butte County 238
Thermalito ID 468
North Bay
Service Areas and Facilities
6,919
ACFC&WCD (#7) 17,179
Alameda Co. WD 5,760
Santa Clara
Valley WD 103,881
San Joaquin
Tracy G&CC 6
Oak Flat WD 7,266
Kings County 1,580
Empire WSID 6,528
Tulare Lake WSD 201,202
Green Valley WD 2,217
Dudley Ridge WD 80,356
North
Bay
Devil's Den WD
Hacienda WD
Buena Vista WSD
16,871
8,952
6,397 1
Kern County WA 788,409
Feather River
(V
(2)
(7)
> A!
' (9)
(1)
Delta
■(3)
South
Bay
mm)
(13) V
^
Lake or Reservoir
and ID # for graph
Pumping Plant
and ID # for graph
Power Plant
and ID # for graph
Contractor's location
River
State Water Project— aqueduct
Service area boundary
General area of distribution points for
Kern County Water Agency members
6
o
Abbreviations:
AC
Alameda County
AV-EK
Antelope Valley-East Kern
FC
Flood Control
G&CC
Golf and Country Club
PwP
Power Plant
ID
Irrigation District
MWD
Metropolitan Water District
PpP
Pumping Plant
Res
Reservoir
VM
Valley Municipal
WA
Water Agency
WCD
Water Conservation District
WD
Water District
WS
West Side
WSD
Water Service District
50 mi
i 1 1
100 km
(9) \
S
San Joaquin
Southern California
AV-EK WA 6,87
Mojave WA 1
Littlerock Crk ID 77:
Coachella WD 6,84
Desert WA 10,90
San Gabriel VM WD 2,71.
<Ss.ni)
(12)\
Southern
California
MWD-
Southern
California
479,565
Crestline-
t Lake Arrowhead WA 768
I San Bernadino
VMWD 5,385
C3
• •••
• ••••
•••••
•••••
•••••
•••••
• ••••
a
Q_
• ••«
CO
o
o
(12)
(13)
(14)
O
(15)
• •
(16)
a>
CC
CO
®
CC
o
sz
o
OT
o
C
as
as
CL
CD
as
O
Li_
o
>>
E
c
a>
CL
a>
UJ
I I
(11)-
(12) (13)
(14)
(15)
(16) (17)
(18)
Energy Generation, Use,
and Water Pumped
The graph compares the amount of energy generated
by power plants along the system with the still larger
amount of energy consumed by pumping plants to
maintain flows within the system and to lift water over
physical barriers. The absence of a symbol for certain
pumping plants indicates the energy consumed was
less than 25 million kilowatt hours.
• 50 million kilowatt hours of energy generated
• 50 million kilowatt hours of energy consumed
I Total water pumped
"Joint federal/state facility. Only state share is shown.
Reservoir Capacities
Project reservoirs have a total storage capacity of about
6.8 million acre-feet. Seasonal variations in supply and
demand produce significant differences in the amount
of water stored in a given month. Also, the reservoirs
provide different functions for the system. Oroville, for
example, retains water near its source in the Sierra; San
Luis stores water in transit within the system; and Pyra-
mid holds water for distribution to an urban area.
(19)
(20)
Water storage capacity
*Joint federal/state facility. Total capacities are shown.
alternative sources of water such as desalination,
geothermal deposits, and wastewater reclamation,
although others pointed out that these alternative
sources of water were not yet economically available.
Controversy focused especially upon the provisions
of the bond measure for financing the project. Of the
estimated $2.5 billion total cost of the project, only
$1.75 billion would be covered by the sale of bonds.
The Burns-Porter Act appropriated to the project por-
tions of the state tideland oil revenues, which project
proponents hoped would provide another $500 million
by the time these funds were needed for construction.
But the Davis-Grunsky Act pledged $130 million from
the bond sales for a host of local projects, the promise
of which had been crucial in lining up votes for the
proposal in the Legislature. Additional promises had
been given for so-called "second stage works" which
opponents argued would cost the equivalent of all the
tideland oil revenues set aside for the project itself.
In an effort to resolve these questions and additional
complaints that the discount rate used for evaluation
was too low and that the proposal underestimated the
effects of inflation, the state retained two independent
consulting firms to report on the project's economic
feasibility. Two weeks before election day, their pub-
lished reports gave a qualified endorsement of the plan
but noted that the funding was sufficient only if infla-
tion did not further erode the value of the dollar. The
failure of this conclusion to resolve the controversy is
suggested by the fact that the Los Angeles Times, which
supported the project, reported that the consultants
had given the plan a "sound rating" while the San Fran-
cisco Chronicle, virulent in its opposition, headed its story
on the reports, "State Water Plan Called Impossible."
As the election drew near, MWD's board of directors
began to waver in their adamant opposition to the
plan. When the Burns-Porter Act first cleared the
Legislature, MWD made clear its rejection of the plan
by announcing plans to develop a project of its own,
tapping the Eel River for the benefit of the South
Coast. When this gesture of defiance prompted memo-
ries throughout the state of Los Angeles' activities in
the Owens Valley, MWD found its position increas-
ingly isolated as communities in the South Coast
began individually endorsing the project. Four days
before the election, the board reversed its earlier oppo-
sition and signed a contract with the state for the deliv-
ery of 1.5 million acre-feet of project water. On
November 8, the bond issued passed by a margin of
173,944 votes out of a total of 5.8 million cast. Wide-
spread popular support in Sothern California delivered
this narrow victory; among the counties of Northern
California, the bond issued passed only in Butte
County, site of the proposed dam at Oroville.
MODERN OPERATIONS
The 1950s, when the State Water Project was pro-
posed, planned and designed, was a period of wide-
spread expansion for water projects throughout
California. While the state was raising funds for its
own project, Congress, under the leadership of friends
of California water development such as Clair Engle,
untied the federal purse strings. In 1949 the Bureau of
Reclamation published a study of the Central Valley
Basin which detailed no less than 38 future dam sites
for multi-purpose projects with connecting canals and
power support facilities. And the two decades which
followed saw the implementation of many of these
proposals.
Unplanned irrigation diversions from the Sacra-
mento River brought an awareness that Shasta Dam
did not provide enough capacity to meet the manifold
water requirements of the Delta Pool. Folsom Dam,
the major facility of the American River Division, was
built by the Corps of Engineers between 1948 and
1956 and then taken over by the Bureau, which built
Nimbus Dam as a downstream regulating facility.
When the Sacramento Valley Canals Unit was sent to
Congress by President Harry S. Truman, he, tied its
construction to a North Coast or Trinity River source
for augmenting flows in the Sacramento River. The
Trinity River Division, built between 1957 and 1964,
carries water from Clair Engle Lake to the Lewiston
Dam, then through a 17-mile tunnel through the
Coastal Range to Whiskeytown Dam before reaching
the Sacramento at Keswick Dam. The San Luis Unit, a
combined operation with the State Water Project, also
had its inception in the Bureau's Central Valley plans
of 1949. Its reservoirs were designed to augment the
underground water table on the west side of the San
Joaquin Valley where a half million acres of farmland
Future Deliveries of the State Water Project
Maximum
First
1975
1975
Annual
Year of
CONTRACTOR
Actual
Contracted
Contracted
Maximum
Type of Water
Delivery
Entitlement
Entitlement
Entitlement
Feather River Service Area
1.
Butte County
Entitlement Water
253
1,050
27,500
1990
2.
Last Chance Creek Water District
Regulated Delivery of Local Supply
18,602
3.
Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Entitlement Water
405
560
2,700
2016
4.
Thermalito Irrigation District
Regulated Delivery of Local Supply
Yuba City
413
5.
Entitlement Water
9,600
1990
North
Bay Service Area
6.
Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Regulated Delivery of Local Supply
Entitlement Water
6,840
25,000
1990
7.
Solano County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Entitlement Water
42,000
1990
South
Bay Service Area
8.
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District - Zone 7
Entitlement Water
4,618
16,000
46,000
1997
Regulated Delivery of Local Supply
Alameda County Water District
1 1 ,702
9.
Entitlement Water
986
20,500
42,000
1994
Regulated Delivery of Local Supply
Santa Clara Valley Water District
7,739
10.
Entitlement Water
88,000
88,000
100,000
1994
Surplus Water
18,470
San Joaquin Valley Service Area
11.
Buena Vista Water Storage District
Repayment of Preconsolidation Water
6,797
12.
Devil's Den Water District
Entitlement Water
10,700
10,700
12,700
1977
Surplus Water
7,495
13.
Dudley Ridge Water District
Entitlement Water
40,555
40,555
57,700
1990
Surplus Water
40,555
14.
Empire West Side Irrigation District
Entitlement Water
3,000
3,000
3,000
1969
Surplus Water
3,448
15.
Green Valley Water District
Surplus Water
2,217
16.
Hacienda Water District
Entitlement Water
3,758
3,758
8,500
1990
Surplus Water
3,759
17.
Kern County Water Agency
Entitlement Water
410,820
410,820
1,153,400
1990
Surplus Water
410,820
18.
Kings County
Entitlement Water
1,600
1,600
4,000
1987
19.
Oak Flat Water District
Entitlement Water
3,576
3,576
5,700
1990
Surplus Water
3,576
20.
Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District
Entitlement Water
82,500
82,500
110,000
1990
Surplus Water
132,206
Central Coastal Service Area
21.
San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Entitlement Water o
25,000
1990
22.
Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Entitlement Water o
57,700
1990
Southern California Service Area
23.
Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency
Entitlement Water
8,068
35,000
138,400
1991
24.
Castaic Lake Water Agency
Entitlement Water
7,500
41,500
1991
25.
Coachella Valley County Water District
Entitlement Water
7,000
7,000
23,100
1990
26.
Crestline-Lake Arrowhead Water Agency
Entitlement Water
825
1,450
5,800
1990
27.
Desert Water Agency
Entitlement Water
11,000
11,000
38,100
1990
28.
Littlerock Creek Irrigation District
Entitlement Water
520
520
2,300
1990
Surplus Water
356
29.
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California California
Entitlement Water
526,958
555,200
2,011,500
1990
30.
Mojave Water Agency
Entitlement Water
15,400
50,800
1990
31.
Palmdale Water District
Entitlement Water
5,580
17,300
1990
32.
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
Entitlement Water
13,865
52,500
102,600
1991
33.
San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District
Entitlement Water
5,450
13,100
28,800
1990
34.
San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency
Entitlement Water
17,300
1990
35.
Ventura County Flood Control District
Entitlement Water
20,000
1990
TOTAL STATE WATER PROJECT
1,911,152'
1 ,386,869
4,230,000
2016
1. This total includes 11,700 acre-feet wheeled for the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service to the San Joaquin Valley Service Area.
The configuration of water deliveries shown on the map of the
State Water Project is scheduled to change dramatically under the
contracts the Department of Water Resources has entered into
for the future. This table compares the actual deliveries made to
water contractors in 1975 with the amounts to which they were
entitled under these contracts in that year. Current deliveries are
in turn compared to the maximum amounts to which these con-
tractors are ultimately entitled and the years in which their enti-
tlements will reach these maximum figures. The dates of maxi-
mum entitlement shown here are those stipulated in the current
contracts; the actual dates when deliveries will reach these max-
imums may be different and the state is currently seeking to
make revisions in some of its contracts.
The state, in 1978, distinguished 15 types of water in connec-
tion with the operation of the State Water Project. The four types
commonly used in most years are shown here. Entitlement water
is the water made available to a contractor under the terms of a
contract with the state. Surplus water is the amount that can be
made available in any year after entitlement deliveries and the
requirements for construction and operation have been fulfilled.
Repayments of preconsolidation water involve the repayment of
water loaned to the state by local water agencies for purposes of
aqueduct construction; these amounts are currently scheduled
to be repaid fully by 1985. Regulated deliveries of local supply
occur where water derived from local sources but regulated by
state facilities is delivered to the contractor by the state; in most
cases, the local agency holds water rights within the watershed
of a reservoir on the State Water Project.
53
When the proposed admission of
California to the Union threat-
ened to upset the antebellum
balance of slave and free states,
Daniel Webster sought to allay
the fears of southern senators by
pointing out that California could
never undermine the economy
of their states because it was
incapable of producing cotton.
As the presentation of agri-
cultural water use on the facing
page makes clear, however, the
construction of the modern
water system has transformed
the natural conditions on which
Webster's assurances were based,
and cotton today accounts for a
major part of the irrigation water
applied each year in California.
The photographs on this page
include a construction scene
during the building of the State
Water Project, a pumping plant
west of Buena Vista Lake, and a
view of the Carquinez Strait at
Vallejo, the heavily industrial-
ized corridor through which the
great rivers of the interior flow
into San Francisco Bay and the
ocean.
were threatened by subsidence, salinity, and a rising
water table.
The San Luis site was included as well in Edmon-
ston's original plans for the Feather River Project in
1951. The agreement for joint construction, ownership,
and use of San Luis between the State of California and
the United States government marked the first such
undertaking by the Bureau of Reclamation and both
governments have realized economies of scale as a
result. The state paid 55 percent of the construction cost
of the facility and the Bureau of Reclamation provided
the balance. The giant, 600,000-acre Westlands Water
District is the principal contractor for federal water
from the San Luis Unit. Although the Congressional
authorization for the project in 1960 required arrange-
ments to be made for an adequate agricultural drain for
the San Luis water service area, negotiations between
the Bureau and the State Department of Water Re-
sources for the joint development of a San Joaquin
Master Drain collapsed in 1967 when the state with-
drew and the Bureau commenced building its own San
Luis Drain. This project is now partially completed from
Kettleman City north to a reservoir near Gustine.
Although it is planned to reach the southern Delta,
lawsuits are promised to protect the Delta from the
harmful effects of alkaline salt and nitrogen pollutants
which some fear the drain would introduce into the
Delta channels.
While these federal projects took shape, the state
pressed ahead with the development of its own State
Water Project. The first general obligation bonds were
sold in early 1964 and sales continued for several years,
supplemented by revenue bonds backed by hydroelec-
tric power sales and by the use of $325 million in
revenue bonds authorized years before for the original
state Central Valley Project. As interest rates in the
bond market increased, however, the state could no
longer sell the water bonds within the rate limit for
general obligation bonds required by the California
Constitution. In 1970 the voters approved increasing
the interest rate ceiling to seven percent, making the
bonds once again competitive. By the spring of 1972, the
last of the water bonds available for financing the initial
project facilities had been sold.
The first deliveries from the State Water Project were
made to Plumas County and to the Livermore Valley in
1962. In 1965 the project reached the Santa Clara Val-
ley. In 1967 both Oroville Dam and the San Luis Dam
were finished. In 1968 water began flowing to Napa
County and the San Joaquin Valley. And in 1971 the
first project water crossed the Tehachapis to Southern
California. By the end of 1968 the last contracts were
signed for the full project yield of 4,230,000 acre-feet of
water per year. And by 1973 the first phase of the State
Water Project, the facilities to provide water contracted
for until 1980, was essentially complete. The largest
area to be served is Southern California with 2.5 million
acre-feet. The Metropolitan Water District increased its
original contract to two million acre-feet when Califor-
nia lost the Colorado River decision. The second largest
area of use is the San Joaquin Valley with 1.3 million
acre-feet, most of which goes to the Kern County
Water Agency. Contracts with other service areas
include 188,000 acre-feet to the southern San Francisco
Bay area, 83,000 to the South Coast, 67,000 to the
northern San Francisco Bay Area, and 37,800 to the
Feather River Area. These contracts presently provide
for increasing amounts of water each year until 1990 to
provide time for the build-up of demand.
For years critics of the project had predicted financial
disaster. But by 1974 the Department of Water Re-
sources could report, "The State Water Project is a
financially viable project, producing revenues which are
sufficient to pay all costs of operation and maintenance,
repay all capital expenditures with interest and eventu-
ally producing surplus revenues for any future addi-
tions to the State Water Resources Development
System that may be authorized." The basic financial
concept of the State Water Project is that the costs are
paid by those who receive the direct benefits. Water
users pay 80 percent of the costs; power users, 13
percent. Funds for recreation and fish and wildlife
benefits, amounting to three percent of total project
costs, come from the state General Fund. The federal
government pays the one percent flood control costs,
and the other three percent comes from such sources as
interest, rentals, and the sale of excess lands. Water
rates are based on a Delta Water Charge, reflecting the
construction and operating costs of the conservation
facilities necessary to supply water to the Delta Pool,
and a Transportation Charge, which includes construc-
tion and operating costs of aqueducts and pumping
plants to deliver the water from the Delta to the specific
54
Applied Irrigation Water
1972
I J Pasture
I Meadow Pasture
| | Alfalfa
| I Grain
Crop Types
I | Miscellaneous Field
| | Rice
| Cotton
| | Deciduous Orchard
■ Subtropical Orchard
Miscellaneous Truck
Sugar Beets
Tomatoes
Grapes
□ Each block represents 5,000 acre-feet of water applied to that crop type
707,000 Number represents the total acre-feet of applied water in that Hydrologic Basin area
50 miles
i
100 kilometers
Before the construction of the
modern water delivery systems
of the Central Valley, residents
of Coalinga had to bring their
jugs to the distillation plant
shown here to purchase their
water for household use. Water
deliveries have also enhanced
the development of sophisticated
corporate agricultural operations
which farm vast tracts of land
using mechanized equipment like
the tomato picker at right.
The satellite image on the facing
page illustrates in part the inter-
action of natural and artificial
components of the modern water
system through the juxtaposition
of the Sierra Nevada and the
great rain shadow it casts to the
east with the intensive agri-
cultural activities which water
deliveries have helped to bring
about in the San Joaquin Valley
at left.
service areas. After 1983, when the project's current
energy contracts will expire, transportation charges for
areas south of the Tehachapis will increase dramati-
cally. All charges, however, include the repayment of
principal and interest on the bonds used for financing
construction. During the years when surplus water is
available, it may be sold for the incremental costs of
transporting the water and administering the program.
During years of drought when less water is available,
the state's contractual commitments for water are
decreased.
This system of full-cost financing for the State Water
Project contrasts markedly with the methods of financ-
ing employed in the Central Valley Project. The Bureau
today delivers approximately 6.5 million acre-feet of
water for irrigation on approximately two million acres
of the Central Valley served by 130 irrigation districts in
the project's water service area. Most of these districts
have their own distributing systems built under Bureau
programs and depend upon the Bureau only for supple-
mental needs; however, the Bureau of Reclamation
constructed distributing canals at reduced expense for
the huge Westlands Water District. The demand for
federal water is encouraged by the low price of this
water, about one-fourth the rate for an acre-foot in the
State Water Project service area.
These low rates, of course, are sustained by subsidies
such as the interest-free component in reclamation
project construction charges. Federal taxpayers as a
whole underwrite an estimated 13 percent of the cost of
the Central Valley Project. It has also been estimated
that public power sales from the Bureau's generating
plants subsidize approximately 65 percent of the true
cost of irrigation water deliveries. Detailed economic
analyses of the project's operations, however, vary
widely in their conclusions depending upon the
discount rates chosen, the separable costs of the project
that are attributed to irrigation, and the selection of
items that are counted as expenses for the project's
beneficiaries. Thus, while irrigators are chargeable by
official estimate with 63 percent of the project's reim-
bursable costs, some studies indicate that they in fact
repay only 17 percent, while power users pay 72 percent
and municipal and industrial users about 10 percent.
Ever since the completion of the Contra Costa Canal
serving residential and industrial customers along Sui-
sun Bay, however, the Central Valley Project has found
an increasing demand for its water in an expanding
urban market. Coalinga is one of the most recent cities
which has come to rely on project water. In 1975 a
reported 147,000 acre-feet of Central Valley Project
water served California's urban and industrial areas.
The total capital investment in the Central Valley
Project as of June 30, 1976, was $1,718,907,425.
Another two billion dollars would be required to com-
plete the project if all the authorized units such as the
Auburn-Folsom South Unit, the San Felipe Division,
and other major units were finished. No terminal date
has been attached to these projections, however, and
inflation may at some future time make these additions
prohibitively expensive. Completion would bring the
benefits of irrigation water to a total of three million
acres of prime Central Valley agricultural land while at
the same time making a million acre-feet of water avail-
able to municipal and industrial users.
Since the advent of the 1970s, however, environmen-
tal concerns have combined with the increasing costs of
project development to impose restraints upon the
rapid course of water development that marked the
1950s and 1960s. An early sign of these changing condi-
tions was the intense reaction sparked by a 1967 report
of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers proposing con-
struction of a dam on the Middle Fork of the Eel River at
Dos Rios. Water from this project would travel through
a 21-mile state-financed tunnel to the Sacramento Val-
ley for use in the State Water Project. A vigorous cam-
paign was waged against both the economic and
environmental aspects of the proposed dam and in 1971
Governor Ronald Reagan joined in opposing plans for
the Dos Rios Dam, thus forcing its suspension. A deci-
sion by the State Water Resources Control Board that
same year required the State Water Project to release
water for the protection of the environment of the
Delta. This decreased the amount of water available to
meet contractual obligations. The following year the
Legislature passed the California Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act of 1972, prohibiting the construction of dams or
diversion facilities, except for local needs, on those free-
flowing North Coast rivers which were once considered
as future water sources for the State Water Project.
Increased attention to water quality standards in the
Delta has also pitted the Bureau of Reclamation against
the California State Water Resources Control Board.
The Bureau must secure from this board permits to
water rights for unappropriated water to be impounded
by every new Bureau of Reclamation dam. The regional
director for the Central Valley Project went on record in
1957 stating that the Bureau's responsibility for con-
trolling salinity intrusion in the Delta channels was
limited to the waters adjacent to the pumping stations
for the Contra Costa and Delta-Mendota canals. Some
thought this stance a betrayal of federal obligations
going back to the Hyatt Report of 1930. The board's
decision in 1971 to require both the State Water Project
and the Central Valley Project to release fresh water in
the Delta so as to give protection to fish and wildlife
beyond the previous agricultural, municipal, and indus-
trial water-use standards placed significant constraints
upon the Bureau's plans for operation of the New
Melones and Auburn dams. Although the federal
government went to court to test the authority of Cali-
fornia to limit its water rights and operations in these
and related cases, the United States Supreme Court in
1978 upheld the board's power to impose requirements
upon the operation of the New Melones Dam so long as
these requirements do not conflict with the purposes
for the dam which Congress specified in its authoriza-
tion.
The prospects for eventual completion of all the Cen-
tral Valley Project's planned facilities are thus some-
what doubtful. The New Melones project, although
proceeding, has met with persistent opposition. Com-
pletion of the Auburn Dam has been held up by con-
cerns over seismic safety. Construction of the San
Felipe Division to divert water from the San Luis Reser-
voir to Santa Clara and San Benito counties has long
been delayed by environmental impact studies and a
lack of funding. The future activities of the Bureau in
California may consequently involve not so much new
construction as greater emphasis upon water manage-
ment. This could be achieved through efforts aimed at
more closely integrating the Bureau's operations with
those of the Corps of Engineers, improved manage-
ment of groundwater basins, enhancement of waste-
water reclamation, new efforts at water conservation,
and a re-examination of the Bureau's present agricul-
tural water pricing system. The National Water Com-
mission in 1973 recommended that water management
functions take priority over further construction by the
Bureau of Reclamation with emphasis directed toward
increasing the efficiency of water use in the western
states.
In the case of the State Water Project, the great
question for the future involves the development of the
proposed Peripheral Canal, which was initially proposed
by Bureau engineers as a means of conveying water for
export and was adopted by the Department of Water
Resources in 1965 as a means also of repelling tidal
salinity intrusion in the Delta. In 1974 the Department
of Water Resources released a draft environmental
impact report on the Peripheral Canal which met with
considerable opposition. A delay in the schedule for
building the canal was announced and the following
year, under a new administration, the Delta Alter-
natives Review Program was established to reconsider
the need for the canal or a different Delta transfer
facility. This study was later expanded to include
other water issues.
In 1977 the Department recommended the Periph-
eral Canal as part of a course of action which also
included additional construction of some surface stor-
age facilities; greater emphasis on conjunctive use of
surface and groundwater supplies through
underground storage in the San Joaquin Valley and
Southern California for later withdrawal in dry years;
and a series of new programs to encourage water con-
servation and the greater use of reclaimed water. With
respect to the Delta, the plan recommended completing
and implementing the Four Agency Fisheries Agree-
ment with other state and federal agencies directly con-
cerned with the Delta; completing a long-term federal
Central Valley Project-State Water Project operating
agreement; and requiring assurance of federal authori-
zation for the Central Valley Project to release stored
water to protect Delta water quality. The Department
argues that the Peripheral Canal is the best method of
protecting the environment of the Delta while
efficiently transporting water for export. While some
environmentalists agree, others feel that conveying the
water through natural Delta channels, which requires
the release of fresh water to repel salt water from the
ocean in order to protect the quality of export water, is
the only sure way to protect water quality in the Delta.
Congress has not yet appropriated funds for
construction of the Peripheral Canal and the
Department's overall program still awaits approval by
the California Legislature. The severe drought in 1976
and 1977, however, pointed forcefully to the need to
provide additional water and power to meet ultimate
contract commitments. While the future of the
Peripheral Canal is being debated, the Department is
working on a Water Action Plan, reviewing specific
water issues and suggesting ways to solve them. Thus,
for the Department of Water Resources as for the
Bureau of Reclamation, the emphasis of earlier years on
damming rivers to provide increasing amounts of water
has shifted to one which also includes the increased use
of management techniques to meet the expanding
range of demands that are being placed upon the water
supplies now available.
56
Hi
'* JpM
*§i
•>. '* «*
^ij
■
&
57
CHAPTER 7
The Operation of the
Modern Water System
The preceding sections have traced the sequential
development of the major components of the modern
water system. Within the brief span of only a little
more than a century, Californians have remade the
natural waterscape through the construction of a
great network of artificial lakes and rivers. The
modern water system, however, is more than these
physical elements: it is made up as well of the legal and
institutional structures we have erected to govern it
and the social and economic development it has
helped to foster. The wealth we have invested in the
transformation of the natural waterscape has worked
to make California the most populous and
agriculturally productive state in the nation. In the
process, however, we have become a culture which is
as dependent upon water as the great water-based
civilizations of ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the
Yang-tse and Yellow rivers. This section treats both
the power and the limitations of the modern water
system by examining the profound changes this
system has wrought in the natural water
endowment, the legal and institutional constraints
under which it operates today, and the limits which
nature nonetheless imposes upon the system through
the extreme events of flood and drought.
By draining the land and moving water over great
distances, the development of the modern water
system has altered the intricate balance of the water
environment. The natural infiltration of water into
the soil has been reduced by asphalt in our urban
areas and increased by repeated plowing in the
countryside. Evaporation from reservoirs, cloud
seeding, and evapotranspiration from irrigated
agriculture affect the flow and concentration of
atmospheric water. And intensive pumping of
groundwater basins has resulted in land surface
subsidence in some areas and induced underground
saltwater intrusion in others.
THE ALTERED ENDOWMENT
California today has more large dams with a
greater total storage capacity than any other state in
the Union. The myriad of surface storage facilities
which has been created as a result is displayed on the
map of California's major lakes and reservoirs in this
section. Although California has a large number of
natural lakes, their storage capacity, as the map
shows, is considerably smaller than that of the
reservoirs. The major exception, of course, is Lake
Tahoe, whose great volume vastly exceeds that of all
the other lakes and reservoirs shown here. The lakes
and reservoirs on this map have been distinguished
according to their surface elevations and surface
acreage, which are important factors in determining
the amount of evaporative loss any surface water
storage body will experience. Most of the major
reservoirs have been located in the mountains, where
the best reservoir sites exist. Building reservoirs at
these heights, however, also helps to reduce
evaporation and create gravity flows for the
generation of hydroelectric power. In the southern
parts of the state, where evaporation rates are higher
than in the north, reservoirs tend as well to be built
deeper with less surface acreage as a way of reducing
evaporative losses.
The comparison of unimpaired and measured flows
in this section provides probably the most graphic
demonstration of the impact of human development
on California's major rivers. With dams and diversion
structures, we have smoothed out the seasonal peaks
of natural streamflows and altered the concentration
of sediments and nutrients these rivers once carried.
As a result, the modern system of dams, reservoirs,
and artificial channels has encouraged erosion in
some areas and stopped it in others while slowing or
halting the formation of alluvial floodplains in some
parts of the state and accelerating their formation in
others.
The waterworks of California have also changed
the distribution and abundance of virtually every
native aquatic plant and animal in the state. No
natural landscape in California has undergone a more
severe alteration in this respect than its valley
bottoms. In 1850 the Central Valley was a vast
expanse of alkali flats, grassland prairie, and
marshlands composed of tule beds, oxbow lakes, and
freshwater bogs. In addition, forests of willow, oak,
cottonwood, and sycamore covered an estimated
775,000 acres. The bottomlands of the Sacramento
Smog covers the pine forests of the San Gabriel Mountains.
SUBSIDENCE AND SALTWATER INTRUSION
Groundwater as a source of local supply possesses nu-
merous advantages. Because it is insulated by an overlying
mantle of soil and rock, groundwater does not suffer evap-
orative losses, and its temperature is more uniform, a signal
advantage in instances where it is to be used for air condi-
tioning and certain other industrial uses in which water of a
particular temperature is required. Most important, in
areas where surface supplies are limited, it is often less ex-
pensive to pump from a local groundwater basin than pay
the costs of imported water. Overdraft by pumpage of a
groundwater basin, however, may lead to subsidence of the
land surface and, in some coastal areas, the usefulness of a
groundwater reservoir may be impaired by saltwater intru-
sion.
Saltwater intrusion can occur wherever the natural sea-
ward hydraulic gradient is reversed so that conditions favor
the landward movement of sea water as when groundwater
levels are drawn down below sea level by pumping. This
could happen in a groundwater reservoir anywhere along
the coast but the problem appeared first in Southern Cali-
fornia. As early as 1906 saltwater was found to have moved
up the San Diego River from Mission Bay, causing the
abandonment of wells in San Diego's Old Town pumping
field. Seasonal saltwater intrusion was noted as well in the
Tijuana and San Dieguito river basins in San Diego County.
And along the San Luis Rey River pumping for agricultural
and municipal use had by 1938 drawn groundwater levels
below sea level in a trough two to six miles inland from the
ocean. In the years since water from the Colorado River
became available, groundwater pumping in this area has
been reduced and surface water has been used to recharge
the groundwater basin, thus enabling the basin to hold its
own against saltwater intrusion.
The coastal plain in Los Angeles and Orange counties
has been the scene of the most serious occurrences of salt-
water intrusion and the most intensive countermeasures in
California. For more than 50 years pumping from numer-
ous wells progressively lowered groundwater levels until
by 1953 they were below sea level in a large part of the area.
Numerous wells near the coast had to be abandoned be-
cause of increased salinity, and brackish groundwater ap-
peared as much as eight miles inland. Most of the seawater
intrusion occurred in the West Basin of Los Angeles Coun-
ty, where groundwater levels fell to as much as 100 feet
below sea level. Although water levels in most of the West
Basin were still below sea level in 1970, saltwater intrusion
had been repelled by the development of a barrier ridge
created by injecting Colorado River water into a line of 93
wells. In Orange County pumping from wells has been
substantially reduced and Colorado River water is spread
for artificial recharge.
Further north, in Santa Barbara County, fears of salt-
water intrusion were widespread during the drought of
1945-55, when the City of Santa Barbara and numerous
outlying communities were dependent upon groundwater
pumping from three small coastal basins. The intrusion did
not occur because these basins are separated from the ocean
by impermeable materials, which did not permit the migra-
tion of sea water.
In contrast to saltwater intrusion, which is limited for the
most part to the coastal areas of California, subsidence can
occur wherever overdrafts of a groundwater basin reduce
the upward hydraulic pressure that supports the overlying
land surface. In the San Joaquin Valley, the site of the most
extensive groundwater overdraft in California, subsidence
became a noticeable problem by the 1920s. By 1970, an esti-
mated 5,200 square miles of the valley had dropped to a
maximum of 28 feet in the area west of Mendota. This sub-
sidence in turn has created a need for expensive repairs to
the Delta-Mendota and Friant-Kern canals, which were
fractured as the ground beneath them subsided.
The Santa Clara Valley along the southern arm of San
Francisco Bay has achieved particular success in combating
the problems of subsidence. Abundant artesian water
supplies helped to establish the Santa Clara Valley as a
principal center of fruit canning and drying in the 1930s.
At this time, more than 110,000 acres of the valley were
devoted to fruit and nut bearing orchard crops. The water
demands of these crops, however, caused groundwater
levels to drop over 150 feet in an area where 2,000 artesian
wells once flowed and extensive subsidence became evident
in 1933. The rate of subsidence declined, however, during
the wet years the valley experienced from 1936 to 1943 and
groundwater levels in some parts of the valley rose as much
as 80 feet.
After World War Two the Santa Clara Valley underwent
intensive urban and industrial growth as the area's popula-
tion increased from 291,000 in 1950 to 900,000 by 1965.
The ensuing changes in land use from agriculture to urban
development further taxed the local groundwater supplies.
The overall volume of land subsidence from 1934 to 1967 is
estimated to have been half a million acre-feet, the equiv-
alent of about ten percent of the water pumped in this 33-
year period. In some areas, the land surface dropped by as
much as twelve feet between 1930 and 1969, causing mil-
lions of dollars of damage. The Santa Clara Valley Water
District responded by instituting a cloud seeding program
and by purchasing water from the Hetch Hetchy project.
These deliveries were used both on the surface and to re-
charge the depleted aquifers. In 1965, water from the State
Water Project became available through the South Bay
Aqueduct, and the valley's annual imports increased to
120,000 acre-feet by 1970. From 1967 to 1970 water levels
in more than a hundred wells rose an average of about 56
feet, and land subsidence was consequently brought to a
halt.
Principal Lakes and
A 1
Earth & Rock
Unsorted, or sorted to
use materials optimally.
Earth Fill
Inexpensive. Must be pro-
tected from erosion and
damaging percolation.
New Melones
New Exchequer
(McClure)
Hell Hole
Pyramid
Salt Springs
Court right
Wishon
Bucks
Cherry Valley (Lloyd)
Whiskeytown
Terminus (Kaweah)
Buchanan
Bradbury (Cachuma)
New Hogan
Clear Lake Reservoir
Calaveras
Oroville
Don Pedro
Trinity (Clair Engle)
Union Valley
Mammoth Pool
Castaic
San Luis
Casitas
Mathews
Stampede
L. L. Anderson
(French Meadows)
Indian Valley
Twitchell
Merced River
1966
Rubicon River
1966
Piru Creek
1973
No. Fk. Mokelumne R.
1931
Helms Creek
1958
North Fork Kings River
1958
Bucks Creek
1928
Cherry Creek
1956
Clear Creek
1963
Kaweah River
1962
Chowchilla River
1975
Santa Ynez River
1953
Calaveras River
1964
Lost River
1910
Calaveras Creek
1925
Feather River
1968
Tuolumne River
1970
Trinity River
1960
Silver Creek
1963
San Joaquin River
1960
Castaic Creek
1971
San Luis Creek
1967
Coyote Creek
1959
trib. of Cajalco Creek
1938
Little Truckee River
1970
Mid. Fk. American R.
1965
North Fk. Cache Creek
1975
Cuyama River
1958
Merced Irrigation District
Placer Co. Water Agency
Dept.of Water Resources
Pacific Gas & Electric
Pacific Gas & Electric
Pacific Gas & Electric
Pacific Gas & Electric
City & Co. San Francisco
US Bur. of Reclamation
Army Corps of Engineers
Army Corps of Engineers
US Bur. of Reclamation
Army Corps of Engineers
US Bur. of Reclamation
City & Co. San Francisco
Dept. of Water Resources
Turlock & Modesto IDs
US Bur. of Reclamation
Sacramento MUD
Southern Calif. Edison
Dept. of Water Resources
US Bur. of Reclamation
US Bur. of Reclamation
Metro. Water Dist. So. Cal.
US Bur. of Reclamation
Placer Co. Water Agency
Yolo Co. FCWCD
US Bur. of Reclamation
IFRP
IMRP
CIMFRP
P
P
P
IP
CIMFl
IMRP
I FR
IFR
I MR
C I FR
IFR
CM
CIMFRP
CIMFRP
IMRP
C I MRP
MRP
CIMFRP
CIMRP
IMR
IM
IMFR
CIMRP
IMFR
IMFR
F flood control
R recreation
P power generation
N navigation (draft maintenance)
Gravity
Sheer mass of monolithic
concrete resists water
pressure.
New Bullards Bar
(Builards Bar)
Monticello (Berryessa)
Parker (Havasu)
Nacimiento
San Antonio
Santa Felicia (Piru)
Isabella
Camp Far West
Camanche
Vermillion Valley
(Edison)
Coyote (Mendocino)
Black Butte
Long Valley (Crowley)
Perris
Prado
Buena Vista
Shasta
Pine Flat
Pardee
O'Shaughnessy
(Hetch Hetchy)
Friant (Millerton)
Folsom
Shaver
North Yuba River
Putah Creek
Colorado River
Nacimiento River
San Antonio River
Piru Creek
Kern River
Bear River
Mokelumne River
Mono Creek
East Fk. Russian River
Stony Creek
Owens River
off stream
Santa Ana
Kern River
San Diego River
North Fk. Feather River
San Luis Rey River
Sacramento River
Kings River
Mokelumne River
Tuolumne River
San Joaquin River
American River
Stevenson Creek
1934
1927
1923
1949
1954
1929
1923
1947
1956
1927
City of San Diego
Pacific Gas & Electric
Vista Irrigation District
US Bur. of Reclamation
Army Corps of Engineers
East Bay Mun. Util. Dist.
CI M
I R P
CI R
IMF RPN
CI FR
M FR P
City & Co. San Francisco CM F P
US Bur. of Reclamation IFR
US Bur. of Reclamation I FM R P
Southern Calif. Edison RP
1970 Yuba Co. Water Agency IMFRP
1957 US Bur. of Reclamation IMFR
1938 US Bur. of Reclamation FMRP
1957 Monterey Co. FC&WCD CIMFR
1965 Monterey Co. FC&WCD CIMFR
1955 United Wtr. Conserv. Dist. CI M R
1953 Army Corps of Engineers CIFR
1963 South Sutter Water Dist. CIR
1963 East Bay Mun. Util. Dist. MF
1954 Southern Calif. Edison PM
1959 Army Corps of Engineers CIMFR
1963 Army Corps of Engineers IFR
1941 City of Los Angeles MRP
1973 Dept. of Water Resources IMR
1941 Army Corps of Engineers F
1890 Boswell Co. & Tenneco W. /
Arch
Thin, curved shell trans-
mits force of water to
canyon walls.
McCloud River
above Shasta
Lake
Each diagram pair represents streamflow past a gauging station in
the water year October 1974 through September 1975. The nearer
of the pair represents the actual flow as measured at the gauging
station. The farther diagram represents the hypothetical "virgin"
condition as it would have been if there were no artificial diversions
or storage facilities.
Green tints have been used wherever the yellow and blue tints over-
lap and where only an unimpaired flow is shown. Broken lines iden-
tify those periods during the water year when water flows were or
would have been zero.
Streamflow volumes vary significantly from one river to another. To
represent these differences, the values assigned to the horizontal
lines measuring volume vary according to the width of the diagram.
In the narrowest diagrams, each horizontal line represents 12,500
acre-feet. The wider diagrams employ multipliers of 2, 4, and 8, and
in these diagrams, the values of the horizontal lines increase ac-
cordingly to 25,000, 50,000 and 100,000 acre-feet.
Except for the Colorado, a single diagram identifies a river which
has neither significant regulation nor diversion. For the Colorado,
unimpaired and measured flows are shown only at Lee's Ferry,
where the amount of water available for lower basin users is
measured. Downstream, at Davis Dam, Palo Verde Dam, and the
international boundary, only the measured flows have been shown
as an index of the succession of diversions to California and
Arizona.
The impact of human develop-
ment upon the water environ-
ment is especially evident in the
southern end or San Francisco
Bay. In the photograph at right,
the bright green areas are salt
ponds, rusty red tints define
natural tidal marshes, and brown
marks the tidelands which have
been diked for reclamation but
not used.
and southern San Joaquin rivers and their tributaries
supported golden beaver, mink, and river otter.
Grizzlies and black bears made seasonal migrations to
hunt the salmon and freshwater fish like the thick-tail
chub, and Sacramento perch complemented the
salmon and sturgeon fisheries of the native peoples.
Great flights of ducks, geese, swans, cranes, and
shorebirds wintered on the hundreds of thousands of
acres of marsh, overflow lands, and waterways in
these valleys, the Delta, and around San Francisco
Bay.
By 1950 only three percent of the floodplain forests
remained, principally in the area between Red Bluff
and Colusa. Drainage systems dried up the nurseries
of the thick-tail chub and reduced the distribution of
California's vernal pools to a few remnants. And the
population of beaver, mink, and river otter was
depleted by reclamation of their habitat for irrigated
agriculture.
Waterfowl and shorebirds have felt the effects of
drainage most. They routinely stopped at the
Klamath, Buena Vista, and Tulare lakes, the overflow
lands south of the Tehachapis, and the non-alkaline
natural surface storage areas of Great Basin Lakes,
Owens Valley, and the lower Colorado. Buena Vista,
Tulare, and Owens Lake rarely exist at all today due
to diversion and drainage. The marshlands of the
lower Colorado and Owens River have largely
disappeared, although the Salton Sea has become a
man-made haven for migrating birds. The Klamath
Lakes were drained, but have been gradually replaced
by a managed wetland. San Francisco Bay and the
Delta, however, have lost an estimated 60 percent of
their marshland, including the famous Alvarado
Marsh in the South Bay which has been given over to
salt evaporation ponds.
No creature is a better "barometer" for the
existence or destruction of California's riparian
woodlands than the yellow-billed cuckoo. Originally,
the cuckoo nested in willow and cottonwood forests
in most of the valleys of the Coastal Range from San
Diego County to Sebastopol in Sonoma County. It
flourished as well throughout the Central Valley
from Bakersfield to Redding, in the Owens Valley,
and along the Colorado River. The cuckoo's breeding
habitat disappeared as groundwater levels fell
because of pumping, streamside vegetation was
cleared for flood control and farming, marshland
drained for extensive agriculture, and forests cut for
wood. Only 35 to 68 pairs were reported in the
Sacramento Valley in 1977. Although another
population may nest consistently on the lower
Colorado, the cuckoo is considered a rare bird in
California today.
In place of the yellow-billed cuckoo and other
riparian song birds such as the Bell's vireo, willow
flycatcher, and yellow warbler has come the cowbird,
a parasite which leaves its eggs in the nests of other
birds to be hatched and fed. Until 1900, only one
cowbird had been seen in all the Sacramento Valley.
With the spread of irrigated agriculture, however, the
cowbird population has been vastly expanded and
flocks of up to 10,000 birds have been counted along
the river in recent years.
The native members of the salmon family provide a
similar index of the effects of the modern water
system upon the state's fish and fisheries. Rainbow
trout once abounded in virtually all of the Sierra and
Cascade streams. King salmon inhabited most of the
larger foothill tributaries of the Sacramento and San
Joaquin rivers up to elevations of 3,000 or 4,000 feet.
King salmon were also abundant in the larger coastal
rivers and creeks. And silver salmon and steelhead
trout inhabited most of the coastal streams of
California in increasing numbers from south to
north.
Sedimentation from hydraulic mining in the
nineteenth century damaged the salmon runs along
the Yuba, American, and Feather rivers. The
excavation of railroad lines by dynamiting along the
banks of the Sacramento left barriers of rock and
debris which proved impassable for many fish. By
1883 the spring run of king salmon on the McCloud
River as well as the hatchery that tried to compensate
for detrimental activities downstream were both
closed. And by the 1920s, dams on the Stanislaus,
Tuolumne, and San Joaquin rivers closed the access of
king salmon to a major portion of their spawning
grounds.
Any barrier across a stream or river that prevents
the passage of salmon reduces their population. But
the barrier does not have to be a concrete wall.
Barriers are also created by increasing temperatures,
reducing the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the
Common Name
Native
or Year
Introduced
American Shad
1871
Asiatic Clam
1870-90
Bull Frog
1870's
Carp
1872
Crayfish
Native
and introduced
1900-25
Lahontan Cutthroat Trout
Native
Lake Trout
1889
Mullet
Native
Pond Turtle
Native
Roughfish (Greaser,
Blackford, Hardhead)
Native
Sacramento Perch
Native
Sacramento Pike or
Squawfish
Native
Salmon (all species)
Native
Steelhead (Rainbow Trout)
Native
Striped Bass
1879
Sturgeon (White and Green)
Native
White Catfish
1874
Inland Commercial Fishing
Commercially Fished
-Status-
Active or Year
Commercial
Fishing Ended
Sacramento-San Joaquin System
Sacramento-San Joaquin System
Statewide
Sacramento-San Joaquin System; Clear Lake;
Lake Almanor and other reservoirs
Lake Tahoe
Sacramento-San Joaquin System
Lake Tahoe
Lake Tahoe
Salton Sea; Colorado River
Sacramento-San Joaquin System; Tulare Lake
Clear Lake; Sacramento-San Joaquin System
Sacramento-San Joaquin System
Sacramento-San Joaquin System
Smith; Klamath; Eel; Mad
Russian; Sacramento-San Joaquin System
Smith; Klamath; Eel; Mad; Russian; Sacramento-
San Joaquin System; Central Coastal Streams
Sacramento-San Joaquin System
Sacramento-San Joaquin System
Sacramento-San Joaquin System
1957
Active
Active
Active
1970
Active
1917
1917
1952
Can be taken for
scientific and
educational
purposes only.
Active
1957
1951
1934
1957
1927
1935
1917
1953
Inland fishing was at one time an important commercial
activity in California. Salmon, steelhead, and other species
were extensively fished in the rivers of the North Coast
and in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. More than 25
canneries were operating in the Delta when the industry
reached its peak at the turn of the century. In the early
decades of the twentieth century, however, the industry
declined rapidly due to overfishing of the resource, siltation,
pollution, shipping activities, and the construction of dams
and water diversion facilities. This table summarizes those
species that were once or are still taken commercially.
Although the commercial fishing of many inland species has
been halted, many of these species can still be taken by
sport fishermen or under special exceptions such as those
granted to certain Indian tribes on the Klamath River.
water, and concentrating pollutants through which
salmon will not swim. These problems are especially
acute in the lower reaches of the Sacramento and San
Joaquin rivers. Reduced flows because of diversions
and dams can also delay the start of salmon migration.
The spring run of king salmon head upstream when
spring freshets reach the Delta. These freshets bring
increased currents and the odor or taste of the
salmon's stream of birth; king salmon follow this
"aquatic scent" to their ancestral spawning grounds.
In addition, reduced flows and dam diversions can
prevent the tributaries to streams from adding their
yearly load of sediment to the main channel, where it
is washed downstream leaving clean, aerated gravel
for salmon young. When the Lewiston Dam
prevented the flows of the Trinity River from
washing sediments out of the mainstream spawning
beds, for example, thousands of salmon were lost as a
result.
Dams also hinder the survival of young salmon
trying to move downstream. This problem has been
hard to quantify, but kills of young have been caused
by passage through hydroelectric turbines, by the
water quality in some reservoirs, and by predators
who wait for the juveniles to bunch up along dam
walls. Further downstream, the young encounter
agricultural canals and other diversions. If these
artificial channels are not screened with a relatively
fine mesh (which is unusual because maintenance of
clogged screens is costly), the young swim down these
diversions to become stranded in the fields. And in the
Delta, many young are sucked into the Tracy pumps
although some survive to be trucked back to the Delta
and a few even descend the Delta-Mendota Canal.
Hillside erosion and channelization cause many
physical changes to rivers that discourage salmon
survival. The stream bed becomes more uniform and
the deep pools needed for summer survival of king
and silver salmon and rainbow trout are lost. The
undercut banks and fallen trees which provide shelter
for juveniles disappear. And the lack of trees also
reduces shade, allowing temperatures to fluctuate
more widely.
Numerous local, state, and federal agencies have
joined forces to combat these influences and protect
fish populations through the development of
hatcheries and management programs that affect not
only dam operations but also modern logging
practices and a wide range of industrial, municipal,
and agricultural waste discharges. Artificial
hatcheries, however, cannot duplicate the
productivity of natural spawning areas.
Modern water technology has brought great
wealth to California and its people, but this
technology has also had serious environmental
consequences that would require large expenditures
of public funds to rectify. The opportunities for the
development of coordinated programs for the
resolution of these and other environmental and
social conflicts, however, have been greatly
complicated by the vast array of public agencies which
are involved in the administration of water today in
California.
WATER DISTRICTS IN CALIFORNIA
The responsibility for the day-to-day management
of water in most of the state is vested in more than
3,700 public and private agencies with administrative
authority over some aspect of water supply, delivery,
use, and treatment. Special districts organized under
general enabling statutes make up the majority of
these agencies. Although state statutes currently
provide for 17 different classes of special district for
water management, there are as well a number of
districts — the Kern County Water Agency as a
prominent example — which have been established
under special legislative acts which apply uniquely to
their operations. These special act districts have been
classified into three functional categories and
combined with the other districts formed under
general enabling statutes in the table of district
organization in this section.
These local agencies range from small agricultural
districts representing only a handful of landowners to
mammoth entities like the Westlands Water District,
Kern County Water Agency, and Metropolitan Water
District which exercise broad powers over large
segments of the state's land and population. The
proliferation and configuration of special districts and
the assignment of their responsibilities, however,
reflect many of the economic and social changes that
have shaped the history of water development in
California.
Water District Organization
Type of
District
1880
-89
1890
-99
1900
-09
1910
-19
Year
1920
-29
Organized
1930 1940
-39 -49
1950
-59
1960
-69
1970
No
Date
Dissolved
Total
in
1970
Community Service
1
38
56
14
1
2
108
Flood Control &
Water Conservation
2
1
5
8
Harbor & Ports
1
1
Municipal Improvement
2
2
4
Maintenance
2
8
1
25
36
Reclamation
1
3
5
9
Recreation & Parks
5
1
6
County Service Area
19
8
6
33
Municipal Utility
1
1
1
3
Public Utility
7
10
25
7
2
1
52
California Water
1
2
9
69
72
4
5
162
County Water
3
9
8
18
77
72
8
11
184
Metropolitan
1
1
Municipal Water
1
2
29
17
2
3
48
Water Agency
or Authority
11
9
1
4
25
Water Conservation
2
1
1
3
1
2
2
8
Water Replenishment
1
1
Water Storage
2
1
1
3
1
8
County Waterworks
2
5
4
4
30
21
2
24
2
90
Irrigation
5
1
2
23
44
4
8
8
1
1
10
2
105
TOTALS
5
1
2
30
75
32
69
283
286
42
89
22
892
Reclamation districts were the first to be
authorized, when the state's swelling population in
the 1860s created the need to reclaim the marshes,
swamps, and tidelands that were seen as obstacles to
widespread settlement. As agriculture assumed its
central role in California's economy, irrigation
districts organized under the Wright Act of 1887 and
its succeeding amendments became the
predominating form of special district. With the
concentration of the state's population in urban
centers and the consequent movement toward
municipal control of water resources after the turn of
the century, however, came a series of legislative acts
authorizing the formation of municipal and county
water districts in 1911 and 1913.
The adoption of the municipal and public utility
district acts in 1921 marked a shift in approach which
recognized water management as only one part of an
integrated program for the provision of utility
services to the public. Drought conditions in the
middle of the 1920s intensified the problems of
matching water supply to rising demands in many
parts of the state. Prompted in part by the particular
problems of groundwater overdraft which the Santa
Clara Valley experienced in this period, the
Legislature placed a new and special emphasis upon
the management of limited water resources through
the enactment of the water conservation acts of 1927,
1929, and 1931.
Since the 1930s the emphasis in new water district
formation has been placed upon the authorization of
entities with broader powers and areas of activity
than was accorded in the earlier statutes. The
Community Services District Law of 1951, for
example, extended a general authority for the
provision of public services to meet the needs of
California's growing suburban population in areas
which lacked municipal organization. This general
trend toward liberalizing the purposes for which
districts may be formed has brought in turn a
spectacular rise in the proliferation of districts.
Whereas an estimated 214 water utility districts of
one sort or another were organized in all the years
prior to 1950, 283 new districts were incorporated in
the 1950s and another 285 in the 1960s. These
relatively new districts formed since 1950 now
constitute a majority of the more than 900 water
utility districts operating in California. Most were
organized under the broad governmental powers
accorded to county water districts, California water
districts, and community services districts.
With "this trend toward the assumption of broad
governmental powers by new districts has come an
increasing" reliance upon property ownership as a
qualification for voting on bonds and the election of
district officers. Residency and the "one-man-one-
vote" rule govern the elections in public utility,
In the 1960s one Los Angeles
politician campaigned for public
office on a pledge to turn the
Los Angeles River blue by paint-
ing the concrete channel through
which it flows today. In the
photograph above a salt-laden
slough winds through the Suisun
Marsh.
63
The fluctuating surface area of
Tulare Lake once extended to
cover an estimated 700 square
miles of the Central Valley.
Modern diversion structures
keep the lake basin dry in most
years because the lands that
were formerly under water are
so valuable for agriculture. The
photograph below was taken
during a flood in October 1969,
which inundated 139 square
miles causing an estimated $20
million in damage. The faint
lines on the land surface which
can be seen encircling the in-
undated area trace the ancient
shoreline of Tulare lake. The
photograph at right shows the
interior of the State Water Proj-
ect's Delta Pumping Plant.
irrigation, and county water districts. The directors
of county service areas and districts for the
maintenance of ports and harbors, among others, are
appointed by county boards of supervisors. The
California Water District Act of 1913, however,
grants to the district electors one vote for each dollar
of the assessed value of their land. The provisions for
elections in water storage districts and water
conservation districts are also weighted in favor of
property ownership. It has been estimated that
approximately one-fifth of all the water utilities in
California currently require property ownership as a
qualification for voting in district elections. A total of
310 districts — more than half of the districts formed
between 1950 and 1969 — operate under these
restrictions on the electoral franchise.
In part, this preference for recognizing property
ownership in district elections reflects the emergence
of large-scale corporate agriculture in the
development of naturally water-deficient areas on
the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and other
areas of Southern California. This system of
agricultural organization, characterized by vast land
holdings owned by distant corporate interests,
contrasts markedly with the smaller, owner-occupied
farms which proliferated in the nineteenth century
along the stream-fed areas of the eastern San Joaquin
Valley. In certain extreme cases, the property
ownership requirements for district elections can
render a public district little more than the agent of a
few corporate interests. Four or five major
landholders in the Westlands Water District, for
example, can swing a majority of all the votes in the
district. In the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage
District, where four corporations farm nearly 85
percent of the district's land area, the J. G. Boswell
Corporation alone controls enough votes to
determine the outcome of district elections while 189
other landowners command only a little more than
two percent of the district's acreage and exercise a
proportionately small influence in the election of
district officers. And, when the Irvine Ranch Water
District was organized as a California water district in
1961, the Irvine Company owned fully 98 percent of
the district's land, while the remainder was divided
among 31 different owners.
Although statutory provisions requiring that
directors of the Imperial Irrigation District must
themselves be district landowners have been declared
unconstitutional in California, the related
requirements for property ownership as a
qualification to vote have been upheld by the United
States Supreme Court. The J. G. Salyer Land
Company brought suit against the Tulare Lake Basin
Water Storage District after its property was flooded
in 1969. The flood could have been contained and
Salyer's property protected, but this would have
interfered with the agricultural operations of the J. G.
Boswell Corporation on land within the Buena Vista
Lake Basin to which the flood waters would have been
diverted. Since Boswell held a majority of the votes
within the district, the district's board of directors
never activated its flood control system to save
Salyer's property. In its majority opinion, the
Supreme Court denied Salyer's complaint on the
grounds that the district's powers were not so broad
as to qualify as being truly "governmental" and that
the district's activities, therefore, "fall so
disproportionately on landowners as a group that it is
not unreasonable that the statutory framework
focuses on the land benefited, rather than people as
sue
h.'
LEGAL CONSTRAINTS: THE LAW OF RIGHTS
As important as the panoply of local, state, and
federal agencies may be in the provision of water
services, the ultimate authority over the distribution
and management of California's water resources has
resided with the judiciary ever since the earliest days
of white settlement. An earlier section of this volume
traced the struggle over riparian versus appropriative
rights up to the time that the constitutional
amendment was adopted in 1928 recognizing the
interest of all the people in the state's water resource.
Since that time, California's dual system of riparian
and appropriative doctrines has continued to evolve
and the courts have established specific rules
governing each type of right.
In the frequently quoted statement that Arizona's
adoption of the English common law, which had
recognized the supremacy of riparian rights, "is far
from meaning that the patentees of a ranch on the
San Pedro are to have the same rights as owners of an
estate on the Thames," Chief Justice Oliver Wendell
Holmes Jr. capsulized the central tenet of the law of
waters in the western United States. In California,
one of the most fundamental controversies has
concerned the definition of riparian land, and three
major tests have emerged. First, some part of the land
in question must actually touch the stream (except in
the infrequent case where a deed has preserved the
riparian rights of the portion separated from it).
Second, only that portion can be riparian which lies
within the watershed of the stream, although any
portion draining into another stream may be riparian
to that other stream. In the case of tributaries, a
special application of this watershed test requires that
land adjoining one tributary of a river does not have a
riparian right to water extracted from another
tributary upstream from the junction of the two
tributaries. Finally, once any portion of the riparian
land loses its riparian character by being separated in
title from the portion touching the stream, it can
never again be riparian, not even if it is later joined in
title to land which remains riparian.
Although the parties to a sales transaction may
provide for the continued use of water by a severed
tract of land, this chain-of-title test has steadily
reduced the amount of riparian acreage in California
as land is continually subdivided and sold. Thus, in a
city bordering on a river, only the owners whose land
touches the river would ordinarily have riparian
rights in it; the owners in the next block away from
the river would not. Even if a riparian owner with a
house facing the river bought the lot behind to serve
as a back yard and joined it in title with the lot which
touches the river, there would be a right to take water
from the river for the front lawn but not for the
garden in the newly acquired back yard. Nor does it
make any difference that the entire city adjoins the
river; riparian rights are a matter of land ownership,
not municipal boundaries. The city may take water
for riparian use on its own riparian land, as for a park
or a city facility located next to the river, but when the
city supplies water as a municipal utility to non-
riparian land, even within the city limits, it acts as an
appropriator.
Ordinarily riparian rights apply only to the natural
flow of streams and it is not essential to the riparian
right that the land in question touch the stream at all
times. The California courts recognize an important
distinction, however, between two kinds of floods.
The perennial, predictable Central Valley flood
waters, whose source is the gradual melting each year
of the Sierra Nevada snow pack, are subject to
riparian rights. Sudden, unpredictable flash floods,
however, whose source is runoff from rainstorms,
are not subject to riparian rights. The theory is that
these latter flows are too uncertain and too fleeting to
be utilized as they occur; only through storage can
they be put to beneficial use.
Storage has itself been a major area of riparian
litigation involving the question of what constitutes a
proper riparian use. In England and the United States
during less populous and less industrialized times,
water on riparian land was commonly used by the
owner and his family. Water for commercial crops
was usually a matter of rainfall. With the industrial
revolution, water was needed more and more for
business purposes, and increasing urbanization
created a demand for the recognition of the needs of
public utilities. Also, in the western United States, the
climate was such that irrigation became a necessity
for agriculture. The courts were called upon,
therefore, to interpret the doctrine of riparian rights
and decide whether some or all of these new uses
were permissible. In reaching its decisions, the court
often cited two principles underlying the riparian
doctrine: first, that the riparian owner is entitled to
64
the "natural advantages" of his situation; second, that
the respective riparian owners along a stream are
entitled to have the stream flow "as it was
accustomed to flow."
Although it was urged by some that in applying
these principles commercial use should not be
permitted, particularly where such use involved a
significant reduction in the flow of the stream,
California law ultimately recognized any reasonable
beneficial use. Thus, water for large herds of cattle, as
opposed to domestic stock, may be taken pursuant to
the riparian right, and water may also be used for the
irrigation of commercial crops. Even electric
generation is permissible. It can readily be seen that
these rulings were as important as recognition of the
riparian doctrine in the first place. Had irrigation, for
example, been held to be a prohibited use, then
California agriculture would have had to turn to
appropriation as a source of water, and the battle
between the riparian and appropriative doctrines
might have had a different result.
Two special rules were developed as a result of the
decision to permit riparian owners to take water for
any reasonable beneficial use. First, it has been
necessary in some cases to face the fact that there is
not enough water available in a particular stream for
all possible riparian uses. The California Supreme
Court has held that the rights of riparian owners as
among themselves are correlative, and when there is
a deficiency of supply to satisfy all the riparian
demands at a given time, the court may make an
equitable apportionment of the supply. The cases
which have reached this point have been few,
however, and the rules for determining what is
equitable are not specific. Second, in California at
least, the notion that certain riparian uses are more
natural than others has resulted in a rule that for
personal domestic purposes an upstream riparian
owner may take as much water as necessary, even if it
has the effect of depriving riparian owners
downstream of any share of the supply.
The principle that a riparian owner is entitled to the
natural advantages of his situation appears to have
been determinative in decisions which refuse to
recognize a right to store water pursuant to riparian
right. Storage contemplates use at a time when the
water would not naturally be present. On the other
hand, impounding water in order to create a pressure
head for irrigation is not storage and does not
constitute use at an unnatural time; it merely makes it
possible to lift and distribute the water for immediate
use, and the short lapse of time involved is incidental
to the delivery process.
One of the most frequently mentioned criticisms of
the riparian doctrine is that riparian rights are not
transferable. The right is not "appurtenant" to the
land, it is "part and parcel" of the land. Thus, it passes
automatically with any conveyance of the land, and it
may not be severed from the land and conveyed
separately. Nature does not always bestow her
blessings in the most sensible manner; the most
efficient and desirable place to use the water of a
particular stream may be on land that is not riparian.
With most economic resources, the answer is simply
to buy the resource from the owner and transport it
to the more profitable location. But in the case of a
riparian right, the very character of the owner's
property in the water makes such a transaction legally
impossible. The riparian owner does not own the
water but only the right to use it on riparian land.
A way around this restriction on transferability has
been recognized: a riparian owner may not convey his
water right, but he may agree not to exercise it. In
fact, a deed purporting to convey the right is
construed by the courts as an agreement not to
exercise the right. The purchasing appropriator,
therefore, must buy off enough riparian owners to
make sure that the uses of the remaining riparian
owners leave the amount of water he needs. Such a
purchaser does not, however, acquire the priority of
the seller, but only the elimination of that seller's
demand upon the stream. This is especially important
if there have been earlier appropriations; the new
appropriator who "purchases" a riparian right will be
junior to those earlier appropriations, even though
the riparian seller had priority over them.
Perhaps the most heated criticism of the riparian
doctrine has been directed against the rule that the
right is not lost by nonuse. One important result is
that prospective appropriators are discouraged from
making use of water which flows by idle riparian land;
they realize that at some future time the prior
riparian rights of such undeveloped land may be
exercised and that anyone appropriating water in the
meantime may be cut off. In theory this criticism
merely reargues the underlying principle of the
appropriation doctrine that first in time should be
first in right. Although efforts have been made to cut
off unused riparian rights, these attempts have been
criticized as a denial of due process. Although the
question is once again pending in the California
Supreme Court, the court has held in the past that the
1928 constitutional amendment had the effect of
protecting this perpetual feature of the riparian right
because the amendment was aimed at limiting the
riparian right to reasonable purposes and its authors
had inserted a disclaimer of any other restriction on
the right.
Even though riparian rights are, with certain
exceptions, recognized in California as "prior and
paramount" to appropriative rights, the majority of
California's waters today are utilized pursuant to
appropriation. There are two major categories of
appropriative rights. First, as against the public lands
of the United States, appropriative rights have
priority. When unreserved public land is transferred
to a private owner, that land acquires riparian rights
which are superior to later appropriations; but it is
important to remember that any appropriative rights
perfected before the transfer will continue to have
priority, even against the new riparian owner who
acquired the land from the United States. Second,
water which is "surplus" to the needs of riparian
owners may be appropriated. If the riparian owners
cannot, or do not, use the entire supply, they cannot
object when the water they do not use is taken by
others. The rules of appropriation then apply in
determining the priorities among these subordinate
users.
Each appropriative right is for a definite quantity of
water and has a definite date of priority. Although the
right is perfected by actual use for reasonable
beneficial purposes, there can be complications in
determining the priority of rights between two
prospective appropriators. At one time posting a
notice at the site of a project was required, but later
statutes called for the recording of a notice of
appropriation. The appropriator must be diligent in
bringing a project into operation; but once begun, the
project will not necessarily be limited to the amount
of water first applied to it. And so long as the
appropriator is diligent in developing the facilities, he
may continue to increase the actual appropriation
over a period of years, gradually building up to the
maximum stated in the original notice. This doctrine
helps to protect many large municipal projects, which
are planned and built to a larger capacity than is
presently required in the expectation of substantial
municipal growth in the future.
Appropriations may be made for use on any land
and for any reasonable beneficial purpose. Thus, an
appropriator is not restricted to use on land adjoining
a stream or land inside the watershed of the stream.
Nor is an appropriator prohibited from storing water
for use at a later time. However, an appropriation
must be reasonable in both use and method of use,
and, if it is not reasonable, a junior appropriator may
be able to assert a prior right. Considerable debate,
for example, has attended the question of the
The South Coast has been the
scene of the state's most complex
controversies over groundwater
in part because the area's need
for water so far exceeds the
natural supply. In this photo-
graph, the principal rivers of the
basin appear as narrow concrete
channels crossing the metro-
politan area. The Los Angeles
River curves through the middle
of the photograph emptying into
Long Beach Harbor. To its right
are the San Gabriel and Santa
Ana rivers.
65
:*$(*».
■I:* ft
*f0 <Sf
A,
#%V c - : ■"> .
•s*?_^*r--",,!^
Pf
In this photograph of the San
Antonio Reservoir, the "borrow
pits" dug in the course of the
reservoir's construction appear
at the far right as permanent
features on the landscape of the
Sunol Valley.
reasonableness of flooding as a method of irrigation,
since it may have the effect of requiring more water
than a different method.
The law regarding the use of agricultural return
flows, in fact, illustrates another important principle
of appropriation: that an appropriator may change
the place and type of use so long as the change is
reasonable and does not prejudice other rights. When
water is used for irrigation, a substantial portion of it
is not consumed by a crop and instead sinks into the
ground or returns to a nearby stream where it is
available for further appropriation. If a second
appropriator establishes a right to this return flow,
even though it is junior in priority to the first
appropriation, the first appropriator may not change
his operations in order to direct the return flow to
another location where it would not be available to
the second appropriator. This does not mean that an
appropriator may not appropriate his own return
flows as a part of his project; nor can the first
appropriator be forced to continue his diversion just
to satisfy the second appropriator. But, so long as the
first appropriator continues to divert water in the
original way and allows the return flow to pass
beyond his control, then the second appropriator's
right to that return flow must be respected.
As in the case of riparian rights, an appropriator
does not own the water itself, only the right to use it
in a certain way. Unlike a riparian right, however, an
appropriative right may be lost by nonuse. And an
appropriative right may be sold or otherwise
transferred. This constitutes a major advantage over
the riparian right, for it permits the economic
flexibility ordinarily associated with property
rights — the ability to change from one owner to
another, from one purpose to another, even from one
region to another. Nevertheless this transferability is
subject, of course, to the rule that there can be no
prejudice to other existing rights.
Substantial changes in the California law of
appropriation were made by the Water Commission
Act of 1913. Although portions of this act have been
set aside by the courts, its most important surviving
provision gave exclusive jurisdiction to a state agency
to determine whether a proposed appropriation
should be allowed. This authority is vested today in
the State Water Resources Control Board. Under this
statutory procedure, an intending appropriator must
file an application, and the time of filing establishes
the priority date if the application is approved. The
board is not bound to approve the application,
however, and it may instead approve a competing
application which has been filed later. Upon approval,
a permit is issued which authorizes the taking of
water and establishes a time limit within which the
project must be completed and the water actually put
to use. The board may also impose a wide range of
other conditions relating to the use of the water.
When water is actually used in accordance with a
permit, a formal license is issued and any subsequent
changes in use or place of use are subject to board
approval.
THE DECLINE OF PRIVATE RIGHTS
The period since World War Two has seen the rise
of water resource planning by large public agencies
and a corresponding decline in the importance of
private water rights. The seeds of this change were
planted much earlier and grew from the same social,
economic, and political changes which both developed
from and made possible the construction of the
modern water system. Rules of law and institutional
arrangements which were adequate to resolve water
disputes between small groups of farmers and miners
have come to be seen as insufficient for California's
modern urban societies. Out of this perception came
the impetus for the municipal ownership of water
resources, which laid the institutional foundation for
the construction of the Hetch Hetchy and Owens
Valley water projects. These same principles of
"public entrepreneurship" gradually extended to
support water projects involving groups of cities,
groups of states, and ultimately the federal
government itself.
In the Central Valley Project water rights were
perfected by the United States in a format of historic
appropriation. At the private or local consumer end of
the chain, however, water rights became a matter of
special contract. Federal requirements relating to
acreage limitations and water pricing control thus
characterize the nature and utility of the modern
rights encompassed in the Bureau of Reclamation's
contracts. Similarly, the rights of the Metropolitan
Water District on the Colorado River were originally
thought to be based upon appropriative doctrines.
Assignments and transfers of earlier appropriative
rights were assiduously documented and an
agreement was achieved after long negotiation
setting forth the priorities and rights on the Colorado
River between California agencies. Yet, when the
United States Supreme Court finally resolved the
lower Colorado River dispute in Arizona v. California,
classical concepts of appropriative rights were of no
avail. In effect, the court ruled that, with the adoption
of the Boulder Canyon Project Act in 1929, the
Colorado River had been converted to a delivery
facility under the direction of the Secretary of the
Interior. For all practical purposes, no rights in the
waters of the Colorado River below Hoover Dam
were acquired after 1929, except as they might be
represented through contracts with the Secretary.
California has not followed the example of those
areas of the eastern United States served by the
Tennessee Valley Authority, where the power to
adopt management programs embracing whole
watersheds has been vested in a single administrative
agency. But the practice of public entrepreneurship
has invaded the field of local water system operations
and with it has come a shift in the ownership of local
water rights from private individuals, mutual water
companies, and investor-owned utilities to public
districts and municipal corporations. This
transformation in turn has helped to bring about the
adoption of judicial techniques better suited to
enhance area-wide water resource planning.
This process is most clearly illustrated in the legal
conflicts over groundwater rights in Southern
California. Area-wide planning for water resources
obtained an early start in Los Angeles under Spanish
law. In a long succession of cases beginning in 1881,
the California Supreme Court determined that the
Spanish government intended in founding the Los
Angeles pueblo to dedicate to it the entire flow of the
Los Angeles River. As the boundaries of the city
expanded, the pueblo right expanded with them. At
the turn of the century, the court held that this right
to all the waters of the river as needed for reasonable
purposes carried with it the right to the underground
waters of the San Fernando Valley, which are the
66
principal source of the river. This same rule was made
applicable to the City of San Diego's rights on the San
Diego River in 1930.
When Los Angeles realized at the beginning of the
twentieth century that the flows of the Los Angeles
River would not be sufficient for its future needs,
water was imported from the Owens Valley, and for
many years thereafter the city no longer needed the
total local supply. During this period other cities and
private parties began to share fully in the waters of
the San Fernando Basin. But as Los Angeles' needs
continued to increase, these other parties were cut
off. Their claim that their use had ripened into a
prescriptive right against the city was rejected by the
California Supreme Court on the ground that they
were entitled to use the water only when the city did
not need it and when their taking, therefore, would
not be adverse. The pueblo water right, moreover,
was held to be a public trust and consequently a right
not subject to prescription.
The fact that supplemental water became available
through the Metropolitan Water District in 1941
seemed to promise that none of these other parties
would have to go without water. But the advent of
water from the Colorado River only complicated the
problem of groundwater rights in the South Coast.
The cost of the imported water significantly exceeded
the cost of pumping local groundwater. As a result,
Southern California's groundwater basins by the end
of World War Two were being increasingly mined of
the water in storage over and above the renewable
safe yield of the basins involved. An urgent need was
thus created for a method of effectively utilizing the
delivery system which had been funded and con-
structed by the joint efforts of the 13 cities which
constituted MWD.
Groundwater law at that time, however, provided
no demonstrable solution to the problem. Originally,
following the English common law, California
recognized a law of capture: anyone with land lying
over a groundwater basin could extract water and use
it on any other land. In 1902, however, this early
California rule was overturned on the ground that
the English law on the subject is not suited to
conditions in California. The California Supreme
Court substituted a rule of correlative rights,
analogous to riparian rights, by which an overlying
owner was held to have a right, in common with other
overlying owners, to extract and use groundwater
from the basin for reasonable beneficial purposes on
the overlying land. As with the riparian right, the
overlying owner is said to be entitled to the natural
advantages of his situation. Appropriations of
groundwater are allowed and in most respects are like
surface appropriations. One major difference is that
the statutory licensing procedure is applicable to
groundwater only in the rare instance where the
water flows through known and definite
subterranean channels.
It can be factually difficult at times, however, to
determine just what is overlying land, particularly if
there is more than one basin or subbasin involved and
if there is a suggestion of interconnection. At the
edges of a basin there may be land which is overlying
when the basin is full but not when it has been
pumped down. Legally, the definition of overlying
land is easier than in the case of riparian land in that
there is only one test: the land either lies over the
basin or it does not. The watershed or drainage area is
not considered; only land actually on the surface of
the basin qualifies. But each pumper, by developing a
cone of depression at his well, is able to change the
gradient of the water table in the basin and thereby to
cause water from any part of the basin to be drawn
toward that location. It is physically possible,
therefore, for one pumper to affect adversely the
supply of all the other users, regardless of their
relative location on the surface of the basin.
In addition, the amount of water available from a
groundwater basin can be deceptive. Some very large
basins can be pumped for many years without
harmfully lowering the groundwater level.
Overpumping which might damage or exhaust a
basin can be controlled by operating within the limits
of the basin's safe yield. This technique involves the
selection of a typical weather cycle of wet and dry
years and the determination of the average supply to
the basin from rain and runoff in that period;
depending on circumstances, such cycles may range
from three years to several decades. With certain
exceptions, this average is the safe yield. The amount
of any excess over the amount used is surplus and is
available for appropriation. As the culture of the land
overlying the basin changes, however, more water
may be used and the surplus may eventually
disappear. When the annual draft on the basin
exceeds the annual safe yield, the owners of prior
rights have a cause of action to enjoin the overdraft.
Although the early groundwater cases effectively
defined the relative rights of overlying owners and
appropriators, and resolved disputes between a
limited number of competing appropriative rights,
none addressed the problem which confronted water
planners in the South Coast in the 1940s of balancing
and integrating imported supplies and local waters.
Their problem was one of area-wide resource plan-
ning, and their objective was to control groundwater
extractions so as to bring operations in the local
basins within the limits of a safe yield. Because
deficiencies in local supplies could be made up by
imports, a plan for the equitable sharing of the higher
cost of the imported water was the key.
In the late 1940s, attempts were made to develop
plans for coordinating local and imported water
supplies in a way that would be compatible with
private and public rights in the context of establishing
principles of water law. The result was a series of
plenary water cases involving substantially all of the
parties using a groundwater basin. In the first of
these basin adjudications, City of Pasadena v. City of
Alhambra, the hydrologic condition of overdraft in the
Raymond Basin was recognized, the major water
users were all appropriators, and supplemental
imported water was available through MWD. The
central problem was to determine who would be
required to restrict their groundwater extraction and
take more imported water. Reference was made by
the court to the State Water Rights Board for a
determination of the physical facts, and it was
stipulated in open court that the use of each party was
adverse to the rights of every other party. From that
stipulation, the California Supreme Court developed
a doctrine of "mutual prescription." Simply stated,
every party's rights to use of the waters of the
Raymond Basin were dependent upon each party's
highest five years of continuous extraction. All rights
thus determined were of equal priority and these
rights were then proportionally reduced so that the
total extractions from the basin equalled its
long-term safe yield. Cities, water districts, public
utilities, and other major appropriators were thus
placed in a position of equality in their access to
groundwater supplies.
As a matter of orderly and equitable planning, all
parties were forced to take a proportional share of
their water needs from the more expensive imported
supply of MWD. This solution by resort to "mutual
prescription" sidestepped the complexities of
appropriative rights based on the principle of "first in
time, first in right." Urban development in the
Raymond Basin made unnecessary the resolution of
the interplay between major overlying rights because
such rights are exercised for agricultural purposes,
which were not significant in that basin in the 1940s.
This case and those which soon followed in other
basins are a testament to the ingenuity of lawyers and
hydrologists. They present as well, however, a study
in what might be called "dinosaurism" — a process in
which a huge and impressive entity is created whose
very size and clumsiness threatens its demise.
The second major basin adjudication was in the
West Basin of Los Angeles County where continued
extractions of groundwater were inducing seawater
intrusion along the coastal portion of the basin. The
parties to that plenary adjudication took almost 15
years, including two court references, before
reaching agreement on a form of judgment es-
sentially following the mutual prescription doctrine
of the Raymond Basin case. In the 1950s, a plenary
adjudication of rights on the Santa Margarita River
consumed over a decade to achieve a judgment that
solved nothing. In the Mojave River Basin, over ten
years of litigation ended in outright dismissal and
abandonment when agreement could not be reached.
And the City of Los Angeles litigated its pueblo right
and its rights to store imported water in the San
Fernando Basin in Los Angeles v. San Fernando for more
than 23 years, an undertaking that would have
bankrupted a lesser litigant.
The cost of these plenary adjudications was proving
monumental. The legal and engineering professions
had built an expensive prototype and the limit, in
terms of adversary litigation, had been reached. The
beast had grown so big it threatened to exhaust its
source of sustenance. It was in this context that
resourceful people in the water industry converted
the cumbersome process of court adjudication into a
Marinas like the one shown here
at Stockton are common features
of the artificial waterscape of the
twentieth century.
67
Groundwater
California pumps more water from the ground than any
other state in the Union; groundwater today provides 40
percent of all the water Californians use in an average year.
The intensity of groundwater pumping and the amount
that is known about the groundwater resource varies,
however, between areas of the state and even within
individual groundwater basins. This map delineates the
boundaries of California's principal groundwater basins.
The basins identified here as developed underlie 30 square
miles or more and experience moderate to intensive
pumping. Although the rate of pumping is less than mod-
erate in the undeveloped basins, development of the
groundwater resource may be intense in small, localized
areas within some of these basins. The undeveloped
basins shown here all have a known total storage capacity
of potentially extractable groundwater which is one million
acre-feet or more.
Although overall groundwater extraction totalled more
than 15 million acre-feet in 1972, as indicated in the chart
comparing groundwater pumpage in the state's major
hydrologic planning areas, intensive pumping in the South
Coastal Plain and the San Joaquin Valley accounted for
nearly three-fourths of this total. The map also identifies
those basins in which the groundwater resource was
intentionally recharged in water year 1972 by means other
than the percolation of excess irrigation water; the artifi-
cial recharge chart below provides further information
with regard to the number of recharge facilities and the
amount of water applied for this purpose in each of these
basins.
Groundwater Basin Characteristics
The table below provides additional information concerning the
individual groundwater basins identified by location numbers on
the map. In some groundwater basins, the storage capacity of
potentially extractable water is unknown. The quantity of minerals
in solution in the water of a particular basin, expressed here as
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in milligrams per liter, can impose a
significant constraint upon the potential use of the groundwater
resource. In some basins, however, the presence of trace
minerals such as boron can severely impair the use of the
resource even though the overall concentration of TDS is low.
Where information is available concerning the conditions of a
particular groundwater basin which may impair its use, these
problems have been indicated. In the case of many basins, how-
ever, this information is incomplete and the data available on the
individual basins has therefore been rated in accordance with the
following schedule:
General information on all relevant parameters of the basin and
detailed information on some parameters.
B General information on most relevent parameters and detailed
information available for some localized areas.
General information on some relevant parameters but very
little detailed information available.
Very little information available.
*A&
Developed
1
Smith R V
.10
33-175
B
danger of SW, Fe
2
Klamath R V
UNK
82-833
D
Na, N03, WQ
3
Butte V
UNK
109-1,890
B
temporary summer OD,
Na.As
4
Shasta V
UNK
160-4,870
B
Na, CI, B
5
MadR V
.06
70-570
B
N03, S04
6
Eureka Plain
UNK
98-634
B
SW, Fe
7
EelRV
.14
161-3,900
B
SW, Fe
8
Alturas Basin
8.30
112-909
c
Na, N03, Fe, B
9
BigV
3.70
145-1,380
c
low yielding sediments,
thermal water, WQ, Fe,
N03. NaS04. B. F. Mn
10
Surprise V
4.00
166-2,000
c
WO
11
Redding Basin
3.50
121-27,000
C
saline water, Na, B
12
Honey Lake V
16.00
170-1,350
c
thermal water, B, F, S04,
Na, As, Fe, N04
13
Sierra V
7.50
118-1,390
c
thermal water, F, B
14
Kelseyville V
.12
165-617
D
B
15
Sacramento V
113.65
99-2,790
B
WQ, OD, subsidence, B
16
Martis V
1.00
63-140
B
none known
17
Ukiah V
.40
100-1,030
c
B
18
Alexander V
.50
220-1,320
c
hard water
19
Santa Rosa V
8.32
93-427
B
hard water, TDS
20
Petaluma V
2.10
225-4,300
B
hard water, SW, CI, TDS
21
Napa-Sonoma V
2.90
118-11,700
B
hard water, connate water
SW, Fe, CI, B, TDS
22
Suisun-Fairfield V
.23
155-5,600
B
hard water, SW, B
23
Pittsburg Plain
UNK
480-2,060
c
SW
24
Clayton V
.18
212-692
c
SW
25
Ygnacio V
.20
715-2,333
c
SW
26
Santa Clara V
12.20
20-3,220
A
potential SW, former
subsidence
27
Livermore V
.54
304-4,810
A
hard water, TDS, CI, B
28
Pajaro V
UNK
255-759
B
hard water. TDS,
N03, SW
Table continued on following page
Undeveloped Basins
Developed Basins
<1 maf
1 - 10 maf
> 10 maf
Unknown
Known total storage capacity
in millions of acre-feet (maf)
Artificial Recharge in 1972 ZZtT 01
30
32
Basin Name
North Coastal
3 Butte Valley
San Francisco Bay
26 Santa Clara Valley
27 Livermore
Sub Total
Central Coastal
29 Gilroy-Hollister Valley
Salinas Valley
Santa Maria Valley
Sub Total
San Joaquin
36 San Joaquin Valley
South Coastal
47 Santa Clara River Valley
San Fernando Valley
Los Angeles Coastal Plain
San Gabriel Valley
Orange County Coastal Plain
54/55 Upper Santa Ana Valley
56 San Jacinto Basin
Sub Total
Grand Total
of Facilities
41
2
12
1
1
Amount
UNK
136
8
13
215
21
Pumpage in 1972 thousandsof
50
51
52
53
3
19
8
11
8
111
37
29
5
35
65
200
2
128
405
441
1,012
Hydrologic Basin
North Coastal
San Fransico Bay
Central Coastal
South Coastal
Sacramento
San Joaquin
North Lahontan
Colorado Desert
Total
29
Gilroy/Hollister V
.93
276-2,560
B
OD, TDS, B
30
Salinas V
10.30
251-3010
B
hard water, SW, TDS
31
Arroyo Grande V
1.70
117-2,900
B
possible SW, TDS
CI, S04
32
Santa Maria R V
2.00
200-3,200
A
possible SW
33
Cuyama V
2.10
206-5,000
B
WQ
34
San Antonio Creek V
2.10
129-38,600
C
TDS
35
Santa Ynez R V
2.70
179-24,034
B
possible SW, TDS
36
San Joaquin V
570.00
64-10,700
B
OD, subsidence, saline
connate waters, Na, CI,
S04, B, N04
37
Tehachapl V
.35
364-1,037
C
none known
38
Owens V
38.00
90-470
B
hard water, F, B, Na, As
39
Indian Wells V
5.12
141-232,000
B
CI, B, TDS
40
Searles V
2.14
11,900-420,000
C
WQ
41
Fremont V
4.80
349-100,000
B
WQ
42
Harper V
6.98
316-14,700
C
WQ
43
Antelope V
70.00
123-7,700
B
OD
44
Lower Mojave R V
5.10
190-2,340
B
OD, WQ
45
Middle Mojave R V
8.05
145-3,900
B
OD, WQ
46
Upper Mojave R V
26.53
16-2,760
B
OD, WQ
47
Santa Clara R V
30.00
278-33,500
A
OD, SW, Mg, S04, CI,
N03, B, TDS
48
Pleasant V
1.89
134-92,270
B
OD, Mg, S04, CI,
N03, TDS
49
Los Posas V
4.25
130-4,927
B
CI, B, TDS
50
San Fernando V
3.40
222-2,120
A
WQ
51
Coastal Plain of L.A.
31.73
144-34,800
A
OD, SW, CI, S04, TDS
Fe, Mn
52
San Gabriel V
10.44
107-1,000
A
OD, N03, TDS
53
Coastal Pin/Orange Co
.40.00
138-36,500
A
TDS, SW, OD
54
Upper Santa Ana V
.75
180-796
A
N03, TDS
55
Upper Santa Ana V
16.00
60-1,900
A
OD, N03, TDS
56
San Jacinto Basin
6.11
278-3,910
D
N03, CI, TDS, B, Na
57
Temecula V
1.20
250-700
B
S04, CI, Mg, N03, TDS
58
San Luis Rey V
.24
83-14,300
C
SW, connate water, Mg,
S04, CI, N03, Fe, TDS
59
Lucerne V
4.74
97-10,140
C
TDS, N03, CI, S04, F, B,
OD
OD, F, S04, TDS, B
60
Coachella V
39.00
147-3,180
B
61
Borrego V
1.30
300-2,150
C
Mg, N03, F, S04, CI,
TDS, Na
62
Needles V
1.10
831-1,500
C
S04, CI, F, TDS, Na, OD
63
Palo Verde V
4.96
856-11,000
C
F, CI, TDS, S04
64
Yuma V
4.60
935-14,700
D
Mg, S04, CI, Mn, TDS, Na
Undeveloped
65
Madeline Plains
2.00
86-2,330
C
Fe, B, CI, S04, N03
66
Goose Lake V
1.00
66-577
C
F, B, Na
67
Mono V
3.40
60-2,060
D
TDS, B, Na
68
Eureka V
2.07
?-554
D
none known
69
Saline V
2.43
790-3,760
D
F, CI, S04, TDS, B, Na
70
Panamint V
3.40
282-272,000
WQ
71
Death V
11.00
300-300,000
C
F, B, CI, TDS, Na
72
Middle Amargosa V
6.80
490-2,300
D
F, B, S04, Na
73
Lower Kingston V
3.39
5,380-8,540
D
WQ
74
Upper Kingston V
2.13
344-1,080
D
F, B, CI, TDS, S04, Na
75
Riggs V
1.19
344-8,540
D
none known
76
Bicycle V
,1.70
608-?
D
none known
77
Ivanpah V
3.09
231-2,230
D
WQ
78
Kelso V
5.34
272-570
D
WQ
79
Broadwell V
1.22
470-1,260
D
WQ
80
Soda Lake V
9.30
242-3,350
C
Na, F, TDS
81
Coyote Lake V
7.53
312-2,480
C
F, TDS
82
Caves Canyon V
4.15
198-1,270
D
WQ
83
Troy V
2.17
278-3,310
C
WQ
84
Superior V
1.75
284-2,260
C
WQ
85
Cuddeback V
1.38
395-4,730
C
WQ
86
Pilot Knob V
2.46
389-1,510
D
WQ
87
El Mirage V
1.76
320-14,100
C
WQ
88
Johnson V
1.30
342-3,134
C
S04
89
Lavic V
2.70
7-1,680
D
F, CI
90
Ames V
1.20
75-1,408
C
TDS, F, CI
91
Deadman V
1.27
172-982
C
none known
92
29 Palms V
1.42
86-1,180
C
F
93
Dale V
2.00
1,070-304,000
c
WQ
94
Bristol V
7.00
289-298,000
D
WQ, F
95
Fenner V
5.60
287-872
D
none known
96
Lanfair V
3.00
230-2,000
C
S04, TDS
97
Piute V
2.40
UNK
D
S04, F, Na
98
Chemehuevi V
4.70
351-1,090
D
S04, CL, F, TDS, Na
99
Ward V
8.70
394-21,600
D
saline water, TDS, S04,
F, CI
100
Cadiz V
4.30
615-2,000
D
WQ
101
Chuckwalla V
9.10
274-12,300
C
S04, CI, F, TDS, B, Na
102
RiceV
2.28
661-2,690
D
CI, TDS, F, S04, B
103
Vidal V
1.60
450-1,060
D
S04, CI, F, TDS, Na
104
Catzona V
1.50
450-1,060
D
S04, CI, F, TDS
105
Orocopia V
1.50
460-1,500
D
F, TDS
106
Palo Verde Mesa
6.84
856-11,000
C
AS,Sn,F,CI,S04, TDS, B
107
Vallecito/Carrizo V
2.50
220-1,378
D
Mg, S04, CI, TDS, Na F
108
Ocotillo V
5.80
498-3,161
D
CI, F, S04, TDS, Na
109
Coyote Wells V
1.70
442-8,660
D
WQ
110
Imperial V
14.70
694-3,560
D
deposits of low
permability, WQ
111
Amos V
2.90
370-1,600
D
WQ
112
Arroyo Seco V
7.00
330-1,690
D
Mn, CI, TDS, Na
113
Ogilby V
2.90
370-1,600
D
WQ
Key to Abbreviations in '
Table
As - Arsenic
N03 - Nitrate
B
- Boron
OD - Overdraft
CI - Chloride
R - River
F
- Fluoride
Sn - Selenium
Fe - Iron
S04 - Sulfate
M
- Magnesium
SW - Seawater Intrusion
Mn - Manganese
UNK - Unknown
Na - Sodium
V - Valley
NaS04 - Sodium Sulfate
WQ - Water Quality
tool for implementing already agreed upon
management plans. In three subsequent ad-
judications, an answer to the size and cost of the
Raymond Basin and West Basin prototypes was found
in negotiation and agreement by the parties outside of
the courtroom. Although the settlements were
ultimately confirmed by a judgment of a court and
placed under watermaster control, no real adversary
trial was thereafter resorted to.
Such litigation by mutual agreement was not easily
accomplished. In San Gabriel Basin, the case involved
over 100 parties; in Central Basin, about 600; and in
Chino Basin, over 1,300 defendants. Substantive
water law and ordinary legal procedures did not
simplify solution; to the contrary, the determination
of all rights in the strict sense of California's water
rights law would have meant total failure. The system
of rights which emerged from these settlements
consequently does not conform to historic categories
of California's water rights. Rather, they emphasize
equities and social and economic acceptability. Thus
resource planning began to overshadow the intricate
and heretofore inviolable field of water rights. In
some instances, the resort to court was entirely
avoided. By legislative action, water districts were
given the power to tax all extractions from the
groundwater basin for the purpose of obtaining funds
to buy imported water to recharge the local supply.
This results in individual access to the groundwater
supply solely by reason of a political management
decision without regard to individual "water rights."
The California Supreme Court's decision in Los
Angeles v. San Fernando in 1975 further enhanced the
standing of public agencies in the context of
traditional rights. As a result of the Raymond Basin
case, all pumpers within a groundwater basin were
encouraged to increase the volume of their
appropriations in order to establish their rights under
the doctrine of mutual prescription. In the San
Fernando case, however, the court removed the prize
from this so-called "race to the pumphouse" by ruling
that no private pumper can obtain prescriptive rights
within a groundwater basin as against any public
entity. This unanimous decision had the effect of
placing the private pumper at a distinct disadvantage
in any basin where public entities are also involved.
More importantly, it would appear as a result that the
doctrine of mutual prescription will be limited in its
future application only to those instances where all of
the pumpers in an overdrafted basin are private
appropriators or where all appropriators consent to
its enforcement as a basis for mutual agreement.
If the era of water resource planning appears to
have achieved the elimination or reduction in
importance of historic disputes over private water
rights, resource planning from a statewide per-
spective has given birth to other major problems.
Rather than individual disputes, the problems now
relate to regional or intergovernmental struggles
over the allocation and transfer of water supplies
between areas of surplus and deficiency within the
state.
The aqueduct systems which transfer large
quantities of water from one watershed area to
another, for example, generally operate on the
assumption that their appropriations extend only to
surplus waters. Such appropriations may be
protected by congressional authorization where the
waters arise on public lands, as in the case of the
Hetch Hetchy project of the City of San Francisco, or
through the purchase and acquisition of substantially
all private lands, as in the case of Los Angeles' rights
in the Owens Valley. But the areas in which these
exported waters originate have been historically
concerned with the specter that a major aqueduct
system once constructed tends to preempt the supply
that it exports and to preclude future local
development. That concern led to the adoption of
"area-of-origin" statutes which qualify and limit the
operations of the Central Valley Project, the State
Water Project, and other recent transfer projects. The
implications of area-of-origin legislation have not
been fully tested in the courts, but as the demands for
water increase, the pressure will continue to build to
restrain historic exports and preclude future exports
of water regardless of economic feasibility or social
necessity.
Environmental statutes in recent years have
imposed further restraints upon the operation of the
water industry in California. Water resource
planners who at one time looked to the state's total
"water crop" and contemplated transfers from the
abundance of the North Coast to the arid areas of
Southern California have seen California's Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act erected as a wall sealing off their
access to approximately one-fourth of the state's total
average annual runoff. At the same time, there is
increasing pressure for the protection of in-stream
THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT
Landmark legislation is often the result not only of com-
promise but also of a unique combination of personalities
and events. Such was the case with the adoption of Cali-
fornia's Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the brainchild of Peter
H. Behr, Republican State Senator from Tiburon.
An attorney and former Marin County supervisor, Behr
was elected to the State Senate at the end of 1970 following
his successful leadership of a statewide petition drive to
convince President Richard Nixon to complete the purchase
of Point Reyes National Seashore. Although freshman state
legislators do not customarily carry major legislative pro-
posals, one of Behr's first acts upon taking office was to
introduce his bill to reverse a century of attitudes toward
water development in California and preserve the last free-
flowing rivers of the North Coast in their natural condition.
Still more audacious from the point of view of legislative
etiquette, none of the rivers affected by the bill were actual-
ly located in Behr's senatorial district as it was then consti-
tuted. Instead, the rivers ran through the district of Senator
Randolph E. Collier, the most senior member of the Senate
and chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee,
whose long state service had earned him sobriquets as
"Father of the California Freeway System" and "Silver Fox
of the Siskiyous."
Behr succeeded that first year in bringing his bill through
the finance committee but lost it on the Senate floor. Popu-
lar support for environmental programs was high, how-
ever, and Governor Ronald Reagan's earlier decision to
abandon the Corps of Engineers' proposed project at Dos
Rios seemed to signal that attitudes at the state level toward
water development were changing. When Behr introduced
his bill again at the beginning of the 1972 legislative ses-
sion, Collier responded with a bill of his own which dupli-
cated Behr's in most respects with the significant exception
that Collier's proposed legislation did not extend protected
status to the Eel River.
The two bills moved in tandem through both houses of
the Legislature and reached the governor's desk simul-
taneously. In the end, however, Governor Reagan gave his
approval to the somewhat stronger protections afforded by
the Behr bill.
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act generally prohibits the
construction of dams or diversion structures on the entire
Smith River and specified stretches of the Klamath, Trinity,
Van Duzen, Scott, Eel, Salmon, and American rivers. Al-
though a state statute cannot prohibit a federal agency from
developing projects of its own on these rivers, the act does
forbid any state agency to lend specific assistance to such an
effort. The Department of Water Resources, however, is
required to report to the Legislature in 1985 with respect to
any needs that may exist for water supply or flood control
projects on the Eel River. In addition, the act permits the
construction of diversion facilities on these rivers if the
state's Secretary for Resources determines that these facili-
ties will serve only local, domestic water needs and that they
will not adversely affect the free-flowing condition of the
river.
State Senator Peter H. Behr
69
Conveyance Facilities
1 Tule Lake Tunnel
2 Eastside Canal
3 Westside Canal
4 McArthur Diversion Canal
5 Bella Vista Conduit
6 Spring Creek Tunnel
7 Clear Creek Tunnel
8 Whiskeytown Conduit
9 South Canal
10 Corning Canal
11 Tehama-Colusa Canal
12 Glenn-Colusa Canal
13 Colusa Basin Drain
14 Western Canal
15 Cherokee Canal
16 Main Drainage Canal
17 Eastside Canal
18 Cross Canal
19 North Drainage Canal
20 East Drainage Canal
21 West Drainage Canal
22 Tule Canal
23 Willow Slough Bypass
24 Winters Canal
25 East Park Feed Canal
26 Potter Valley Tunnel
27 Putah South Canal
28 North Bay Aqueduct
29 Cache Slough Conduit
30 Santa Rosa-Sonoma Aqueduct
31 Petaluma Aqueduct
32 North Marin Aqueduct
33 Ygnacio Canal
34 Clayton Canal
35 Contra Costa Canal
36 Delta Cross Channel
37 Mokelumne Aqueduct
38 Folsom South Canal
39 Camino Conduit
40 Swager Ditch
41 Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct
42 Grant Line Canal
43 South Bay Aqueduct
44 California Aqueduct
45 Delta Mendota Canal
46 Modesto Main Canal
47 Turlock I.D. Lat.2
48 Ceres Canal
49 Turlock I.D. Lat.5
50 Turlock Canal
51 Highline Canal
52 Turlock Main Canal
53 Merced Main Canal
54 Le Grand Canal
55 San Luis Drain
56 Outside Canal
57 Main Canal
58 Chowchilla Canal
59 Madera Canal
60 Dry Creek Canal
61 Fresno Canal
62 Fowler Switch Canal
63 Centerville-Kingsbury Canal
64 Liberty Millrace Canal
65 James Canal
66 Crescent Ditch
67 San Luis Canal
68 Coalinga Canal
69 Lemoore Canal
70 Last Chance Ditch
71 Lone Oak Canal
72 Lakeside Ditch
73 Helm-Lewis Ditch
74 Tulare Lake Canal
75 Gates-Jones Canal
76 Wilbur Ditch
77 Blakeley Canal
78 Liberty Farms South Canal
79 Liberty Farms East Canal
80 Lakeland Canal
81 Homeland Canal
82 Pozo Canal
83 Alpaugh Irrig-Dist. Canal
84 Goose Lake Canal
85 Friant-Kern Canal
86 Westside Canal
87 Eastside Canal
88 Calloway Canal
89 Lerdo Canal
90 Pioneer Canal
91 Cross Valley Canal
92 Alejandro Canal
93 Buena Vista Canal
94 Stine Canal
95 Kern Island Canal
96 New Rim Ditch
97 Kern River Intertie
98 Eastside Canal
99 Tehachapi Cummings Pipeline
100a First L.A. Aqueduct
100b Second L.A. Aqueduct
101 Coastal Branch
102 Whale Rock Conduit
103 San Luis Conduit
104 Solvang-Santa Ynez Conduit
105 Tecolate Tunnel
106 Mission Tunnel
107 South Coast Conduit
108 Doulton Tunnel
109 Robles-Casitas Canal
110 Casitas Gravity Canal
111 Rubicon Main
112 California Aqueduct West Branch
113 California Aqueduct East Branch
114 Gage Canal
115 Fallbrook Oceanside Branchline
116 2nd San Diego Aqueduct
117 San Diego Aqueduct
118 La Mesa-Sweetwater Extension
119 Colorado. River Aqueduct
120 Coachella Canal
121 Vail Canal
122 East Highline Canal
123 Moss Lateral
124 Occidental Lateral
125 Plum Canal
126 Rose Outlet Drain Canal
12.7 Acacia Canal
128 Central Main Canal
129 Westside Main Canal
130 All-American Canal
131 Yuma Main
132 Cocopah Canal
133 Reservation Main Drain
134 Eastside Drain
135 Palo Verde Canal
California Waterscape
Cities and Towns
-» more than 200,000 population
under 200,000 population
Selected Conveyance Facilities
state developed
locally developed
federally developed
dashed lines refer to uncompleted sections
Wetlands
Includes freshwater marsh, brackish marsh,
and high water table native pasture.
Coastal Salt Marsh
A wetland subject to tidal inundation and
characterized by pickleweed and cordgrass.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Protected from instream development or
diversion pursuant to the California Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act of 1972.
Intermittent Lakes and Reservoirs
i Lakes and reservoirs which contain some
water on a nearly continuous basis.
Lakes and reservoirs that are commonly
dry except during years of heavy runoff.
San Diego
Bay
*' Anacapa Island
Santa Catalina Island
Point Conception
San Clemente Island
Santa Rosa Islan
San Miguel Island
San Nicolas Island
'<*> s
50 kilometers
Comparison of Peak Streamflow Records
This is a summary of the peak flow histories for the fifteen
rivers. Each block symbol represents one recorded year,
and is colored in the flow class shadings used on the main
graphic. The outlined squares denote flows of 10,000 c.f.s.
or less. There is no chronological order to the arrangement
of the blocks. They are grouped strictly by flow class to
relate only the actual number of years within each class
that has been recorded on the river since 1905.
S Klamath River
at Klamath
III
■■■
■■■
Eel River
at Scotia
■■■■■■
■ ft ■ ■ ■ ft
■ ft- ft ■ ft ft ft
Pit River
at Big Bend
Feather River
at Oroville
mmmmmmms
American River
at Fair Oaks
Putah Creek
near Winters
Cosumnes River
at Michigan Bar
an Joaquin River
below Friant
Coyote Creek
near Madrone
Arroyo Seco
near Soledad
Kern River
near Bakersfield
Los Angeles River
at Long Beach
Santa Ana River
near Mentone
Mojave River
at Lower Narrows
near Victorville
East Fork Carson River
near Gardnerville, Nev.
uses, which have the effect of interposing fish and
wildlife as parties to traditional disputes over the
division of water for human needs.
The environmentalist today looks to the 1928
constitutional amendment as a mandate compelling
water users to restrict and conserve their use — a
concept yet to be fully developed in California's water
law. At the same time, water districts and agencies
committed to water resource development see the
constitutional amendment of 1928 as compelling the
application of the state's water supplies to the
maximum beneficial use of its people. In either case,
water rights and property in the use of the state's
water are seen as subservient to the social and
political requirements of society.
The era of water resource planning has opened the
way toward the use of the water resources of the
state in a way that exceeds the imagination of earlier
generations. For the first time, State Water Project
planners have begun to look to the enormous
quantity of unused groundwater storage capacity
throughout California as a reservoir, or series of
reservoirs, in which the surplus waters of the state
from wet years can be stored to meet the demands of
drought years. This conjunctive use of groundwater
basins represents a major step forward in water
resource planning. The way for its implementation
was cleared by the California Supreme Court decision
in Los Angeles v. San Fernando. But the implementation of
that mandate will, in all probability, be accomplished
by political action and agreement, not by water rights
litigation in an adversary sense.
NATURAL CONSTRAINTS: FLOODS AND
DROUGHT
Most Californians are primarily concerned with the
ability of the modern water system to protect them
from the vicissitudes of nature. Floods and drought
are potentially disastrous natural events that
frustrate our attempts to regulate the hydrologic
cycle. Despite contemporary technology and an
elaborate system of water management facilities,
man has been unable totally to alleviate the effects of
these two extreme natural phenomena.
Rainfall-induced floods are a relatively common
characteristic of most rivers and streams in
California. Even arroyos in the driest parts of the
state experience floods periodically. Precipitation is
the principal climatic cause of flooding because it
dictates the spatial and temporal characteristics of the
moisture available within a given drainage basin. A
large amount of rainfall received over several days
may produce a flood discharge similar to that
resulting from a smaller amount of rainfall received
very intensely during a few hours. Once precipitation
has reached the earth's surface, however,
evapotranspiration and antecedent soil moisture
become additional factors in determining the
proportion of rainfall from a particular storm that will
be delivered to the stream channel. The magnitude of
precipitation collected at the surface is a function,
moreover, of the physical features of the
watershed — the basin's area, shape, elevation, soils,
and slope. The area of the watershed is commonly
recognized as the single most important
physiographic factor in determining the magnitude of
a flood. In general, as the area of the watershed
increases, the surface for collecting precipitation
increases and the greater magnitude of intercepted
precipitation produces a higher flood flow.
The relationship between watershed area and peak
flow is illustrated by the graphic comparison of peak
streamflows in this section. The annual peak flows
for the Feather River are consistently greater than
those for the American River, whose drainage area is
only half as large as the Feather River watershed. In
Southern California, the peak flows for the Los
Angeles River are greater than those for the Santa
Ana River which drains a smaller area. There are
exceptions to most generalizations, however, and one
exception to the relationship between area and flow is
evident in the case of the Klamath River. The
drainage area of the Klamath is approximately four
times larger than that of the Eel River, but the record
peak flow of the Eel exceeds that of the Klamath by
1.35 times. Also, the annual peak flow of the Eel has
exceeded the annual peak flow of the Klamath in
numerous years. This deviation from the general rule
illustrates the mutual interdependence of the climatic
and physiographic factors that control flood peaks. In
these basins, intense rainfall seldom occurs uniformly
over all parts of a large basin, but intense rainfall may
cover most of a watershed of moderate size.
Consequently, the Eel River watershed commonly
receives more precipitation from a given storm and
produces a higher flood flow even though its area is
smaller than that of the Klamath River Basin.
A flood may occur somewhere in California in
every month of the year, but some general seasonal
characteristics of flooding are identifiable.
Rainfall-induced floods resulting from prolonged
general storms may occur anywhere in the state from
November through March, and the area of flooding
may be statewide or localized. The majority of
California's most serious floods have resulted from
the passage of such general storms. From late spring
through fall thunderstorms or other locally intense
storms may produce flooding in the Sierra and in
Southern California. Thunderstorm floods tend to be
of short duration and they are often very localized in
their effects. In September and October, tropical
storms may produce flooding in Southern California
and the Colorado Desert. These storms move
eastward out of Mexico north of their usual track and
they produce intense rainfall and flooding along their
paths.
It is in the period from March through June,
however, that snowmelt floods may be expected in
streams draining the Sierra. A snowmelt flood differs
from a rainfall-induced flood in that the peak flow is
usually lower although the flood flow is sustained
longer. These conditions occur because the melting of
snow moves upslope as thawing progresses from the
lowest elevations along the stream channel toward
the drainage divide. As the snow retreats upslope, less
of the area contributes melted water and the result is
a flood flow sustained by the more rapid melting of a
decreasing snowpack. However, a cool spring
followed by rapid warming will find nearly the entire
snowpack still in the mountains and melt rates under
these conditions can produce damaging floods. Rivers
in the Tulare Basin are particularly noted for
snowmelt floods resulting from a combination of
unseasonably warm spring temperatures and a heavy
snowpack.
When the annual peak flows for the rivers on the
peak streamflows plate are compared, it is evident
that there is a need for differentiating the peak flows
in order to relate them to identifiable flood events and
to compare the peak flows for different rivers. The
common convention is to identify flows associated
with specified flood recurrence intervals or the
average span of time within which a flood flow of a
given magnitude will be expected to be equaled or
exceeded. The recurrence interval identifies a specific
flood flow for a particular river, but it does not imply
that a ten-year flood represents the same flow on all
rivers. For example, a ten-year flood on the
Cosumnes River is represented by a flow of 30,000
The intensive logging of forests
in the Klamath River watershed
visible in the photograph below
add to the load of sediment that
the river naturally carries. A
plume of sediment at the river's
mouth appears here as a lighter
color sweeping southward along
the coast. Mount Shasta is in
the background near the center
of the photograph.
73
The principal features of the Eel
River floodplain receive promi-
nent display in the photograph
on this page. The oxbow lakes
and cursive scars that mark the
surface of the land to the right of
the river's present course of flow
define the extent of lateral move-
ment that has occurred in the
streambed of the Eel. Loleta is
at the left and Highway 101
crosses at the top.
The photograph on the facing
page also shows a segment of the
Eel River today. Inclusion of the
Eel in the state's Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act met with opposition
from many residents of the
North Coast who recalled "killer
floods" on the Eel and therefore
felt it unwise to prohibit the
construction of flood control
facilities on the river. As a result
of this controversy, a compro-
mise was struck and the act
requires a review to be made in
1985 of the continuation of the
Eel's protected status under the
law.
cubic feet per second while a ten-year flood on the
American River is a flow of 108,000 cubic feet per
second.
Recurrence interval flood flows are computed by
assuming that annual peak discharges for a river may
be treated statistically as a series of random events. A
flood discharge having a recurrence interval of five
years, for example, can be expected to occur once in
five years or it has a 20 percent chance of occurring in
any year. A 50-year flood can be expected to occur
once in 50 years or it has a two percent chance of
occurring in any year. Recurrence frequency is an
important design and planning tool, but it does not
mean that the designated flood discharge occurs at a
regular span of five years or 50 years. Five-year floods
may occur in successive years and then not recur for
ten years or more and 50-year floods may occur in
successive years and then not recur for 150 years or
more.
On the peak streamflow plate, only the Eel and Pit
rivers have experienced 100-year floods during the
period of record shown. Fifty-year floods are more
common, but seven of the rivers have not experienced
such flood flows since 1905. The Los Angeles River,
however, had two 50-year floods during the 32 years
between 1938 and 1969. Ten of the rivers have
experienced 25-year floods. Arroyo Seco is
noteworthy in that it experienced 25-year flood flows
in 1956, 1958, and again in 1967. The Klamath River
had four ten-year floods during the 62 years shown,
but three of these occurred in successive years from
1970 through 1973. In fact, the 62-year record for the
Klamath River contains one 50-year flood and one
25-year flood, and both of these floods occurred
during the last 12 years of record. These data provide
a striking example that floods are capricious even
though they tend to conform with expected
probabilities over a long period.
Floods due to high tides, tsunamis, and dam failures
occur infrequently in California, although such floods
are extremely destructive because they often produce
a flood flow which overtops flood protection facilities
designed to contain rain or snowmelt floods. High
tides and wind may produce or contribute to flooding
along the lower reaches of rivers whose discharge is
at or near flood stage. Tsunamis are a flood hazard
along the entire California coastline, but the north
coast is the most frequently affected region. The
greatest tsunami damage along the California coast in
the last 100 years resulted from the wave generated
by the Alaskan earthquake in March 1964. Since that
time, seven tsunamis have been recorded at Crescent
City, but none have approached the magnitude of the
1964 flood wave.
California has been fortunate that with over 1,200
dams in the state, extensive damage due to the failure
of major dams has been limited to only a few cases in
the state's recent history. Flooding subsequent to the
1928 failure of the St. Francis Dam in the San
Francisquito Valley north of Los Angeles cost as
many lives as the San Francisco Earthquake. The
partial collapse of the Baldwin Hills Dam near Culver
City in December 1963 was preceded by an
evacuation warning which limited the number of
fatalities although flooding caused an estimated $50
million in property damage in the residential area
below the dam. And in December 1964, Hell Hole
Dam on the Rubicon River was breached by flood
water impounded behind the partially completed
structure. Fortunately, the flood flow resulting from
the failure of Hell Hole Dam was contained
downstream by Folsom Dam on the American River.
Earthquakes represent a particularly serious
concern for dam safety in most areas of California.
The nature of the threat that earthquakes pose to
dam safety and flooding was demonstrated by the
moderate earthquake which struck the San Fernando
Valley in February 1971. The intense ground shaking
accompanying the earthquake caused the near failure
of the Lower San Fernando Valley Dam and seriously
damaged the Upper San Fernando Valley Dam.
Approximately 80,000 people living in the area below
these hydraulic fill dams would have been affected by
flooding if the lower dam had failed.
An earthquake near Oroville Dam in August 1975
called attention to another concern related to
earthquakes and dam failures. Evidence is mounting
that the construction of dams and reservoirs may
trigger seismic activity near a dam. The increased
surface load created by the weight of the water in the
reservoir and the seepage of water from the reservoir
into the underlying strata have been proposed as
Nv«
-fir W*
■%
~V 3
k V
r^
■dm
«>-
v. v •
W
f
^
4>S
J^W
I
4. .*r #*" V* t 4£ '• •P'^'i^iJ
*i
74
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
In California, the urban flood problem reaches its most
serious level within the metropolitan region of Los Angeles.
This area is probably subject to a greater potential flood
hazard than any other area of similar size and population
density in the United States. Furthermore, the flood hazard
due to the flow of large volumes of water is compounded by
damage due to debris carried from the steep mountain
slopes by the flood waters. It has been estimated that the
mountain watersheds surrounding Los Angeles when de-
nuded by fire produce as much as 130,000 cubic yards of
debris per square mile of watershed during a major storm.
The Los Angeles County Flood Control District was the
first flood control district in California to be created by a
special act of the Legislature in 1915. Today there are 31
such districts. Because flood control problems seldom coin-
cide with the boundaries of local governments, creation of a
flood control district permits county governments to en-
gage in county-wide flood control and water conservation
activities which are formulated on the basis of natural
watershed boundaries rather than political boundaries.
In addition, formation of a flood control district permits the
financial burden for flood protection to be distributed equit-
ably among the property owners who benefit from the
activities of the district.
The Los Angeles district today is one of the largest special
governments in the United States in terms of bonded debt,
area of jurisdiction, population, assessed valuation, and the
number of its employees. The district is governed by the Los
Angeles County Board of Supervisors, and it is charged
with responsibility for flood control and water conservation
in the southern three-fifths of Los Angeles County. The
effectiveness of its flood control facilities was demonstrated
during a severe storm in January 1969 when most Southern
California counties were declared national disaster areas
while the areas within the district's jurisdiction escaped
inundation.
In addition to providing flood protection, the district is
responsible for conserving flood and reclaimed waters for
beneficial use. Impounded flood water is conserved by con-
trolled releases and by enhanced opportunities for percola-
tion of flood water into groundwater reservoirs, either in
natural channels or in spreading grounds which have been
constructed adjacent to river channels. The conservation of
flood water by the district is supplemented by spreading
reclaimed water and water imported from the Colorado
River and from Northern California. To protect the quality
of the water held in groundwater storage, the district oper-
ates three barrier projects designed to prevent seawater
intrusion into groundwater reservoirs. Injection wells are
employed to maintain pressure ridges along the coastline at
selected locations, and the pressure ridges prevent seawater
from migrating into the inland water-bearing formations.
These water conservation activities are essential for main-
taining groundwater supplies which provide approximately
40 percent of the water used in Los Angeles County. And
the benefits derived from groundwater replenishment and
the seawater barriers are especially significant when
groundwater pumpage increases during a drought.
potential causes for seismic activity. Conclusive
evidence linking reservoir construction and
earthquakes is still lacking, but the threat of
earthquakes to dam safety and the potential flooding
resulting from an earthquake-induced dam failure are
major concerns which have delayed construction of
the Auburn Dam on the American River.
Most of California's urban and agricultural
development has occurred on land subject to periodic
inundation under natural conditions. Extensive flood
control projects have been constructed to protect
much of this land, but complete flood protection or
the elimination of floods is an unrealistic goal. In
general, current minimum standards attempt to
provide protection from a ten-year flood for
agricultural areas and from a 100-year flood for urban
areas. Flood control is particularly necessary in urban
areas because the concentration of population and
their dependence on urban services magnifies the
problems which accompany flooding.
□
Woodland
Folsom
Dam
nundation area
Rio Vista
This map presents a greatly simplified version of the maps
prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation detailing the areas that
would be inundated in the event of the failure of the Auburn Dam
and the times at which the flood wave could be expected to arrive.
State law currently requires the preparation of such maps by all
agencies with dams subject to state jurisdiction whose failure
might endanger populated areas. The Office of Emergency
Services keeps a file of approximately 95 percent of the inundation
area maps prepared for California.
Flood control programs in California employ a mix
of structural and nonstructural measures to prevent
or reduce flooding, to prevent loss of life, and to
reduce flood damage. The most common structural
measures are flood control reservoirs, bypass
structures, debris basins, levees, and improved
channels. Nonstructural flood control measures
include flood forecasting, flood proofing, floodplain
zoning and management, and watershed land
treatment. Although some type of structural flood
control facility has been constructed in each of the
eleven hydrologic areas in California, there are
significant differences among the regions with regard
to the level of development. During the critical period
of the flood season, about six million acre-feet of flood
control storage is provided by reservoirs whose
designated functions include flood control. Large,
multi-purpose reservoirs account for more than 95
percent of the total flood control capacity, and 65
percent of the capacity is provided by reservoirs in the
Sacramento and Tulare basins. In addition, incidental
but often significant flood control benefits are
provided by reservoirs which do not have flood
control as a designated function.
Over 6,000 miles of levees and improved channels
provide varying degrees of flood protection
throughout the state. Levee construction has been
most actively pursued in the Delta-Central Sierra
region and in the Sacramento Basin. These two areas
account for 44 percent and 26 percent, respectively, of
the total mileage of levees in California. Channel
improvements in and around urban areas account for
the majority of the mileage in this category. The
south coastal region alone contains 76 percent of the
total mileage of improved channels in the state.
While flood control structures provide moderate
protection from flooding, they do not eliminate the
risk or necessarily reduce the threat of flood damage.
New developments in unprotected areas, urban and
agricultural encroachments into lower elevations
along a floodplain, and the inevitable flood which
exceeds the design limits of structures are dangers
that must be recognized. These are situations in
which nonstructural measures may be used
effectively. Watershed land treatment measures in
both rural and urban areas can be initiated to retard
and to reduce runoff so that flood peaks are
decreased. Evidence suggests that land-use practices
can be especially effective in small watersheds for
reducing small flood flows. Floodplain development
can be regulated by zoning and management policies
and flood forecasting and flood proofing can be
employed to reduce losses from floods which exceed
the design limits of flood control structures.
Our inability to moderate the extreme conditions
of flood and drought may be the single common trait
these two events share. Floods have a relatively rapid
onset, a short duration, and may recur more than
once in a specified period. In contrast, it is often
difficult to determine when a drought begins and
when it ends. Drought tends to be a long-duration
condition when compared to the suddenness of other
natural calamities, and drought recurs capriciously.
But, whereas floods often produce dramatic changes
in the landscape, extensive property damage, and loss
of life, drought rarely causes structural damage or
loss of human life in California.
THE DROUGHT OF 1976-1977
Drought is a multi-faceted natural phenomenon
which means different things to different people.
Acceptance of a universally applicable notion of
drought is impeded by the fact that drought is a
relative rather than an absolute condition, and the
beginning and ending of drought are difficult to
specify objectively. For general purposes, subnormal
rainfall is commonly recognized as the single most
important factor in the occurrence of a drought,
although the magnitude of natural moisture needs is
an integral part of the drought concept as well. The
inclusion of subnormal rainfall as a component of
drought has particular significance in California
because it permits drought to be distinguished from
the seasonally low rainfall which is characteristic of
the summer months throughout the state.
The severity of a drought is measured
conventionally by the duration and areal extent of
moisture deficiency. In California, the severity of a
drought is seldom uniform throughout the state.
Although an absence of rainfall is commonly the first
hint of a drought, other clues are apparent to the alert
observer. The flow of rivers and streams, especially
small streams, begins to decline in response to the
cessation of runoff which is sustained by rainfall.
Evaporation dries the soil surface and transpiration
by plants removes moisture from the root zone of the
soil. These drying processes are accelerated during
rainless periods and temperatures during a drought
are often higher than average. The depletion of soil
moisture during rainless periods causes plants to wilt
and eventually die. Groundwater is the last form of
natural storage to display the effects of drought, but
groundwater is also slower to respond to the
cessation of drought. Groundwater discharge
sustains streamflow during rainless periods, but as
the duration of the drought extends, the magnitude
of water in underground storage decreases and
streamflow is reduced. The eventual desiccation of
streams during a drought results from the absence of
surface runoff and the depletion of groundwater.
For the state as a whole, water year 1976 was the
fourth driest year of record and water year 1977 was
the driest. These two years in succession produced
the most severe drought of this century in California.
During the 25 months from November 1975 through
November 1977, many locations received little more
rainfall than would be expected during an average 12
months. The precipitation map for water year 1977 in
75
Lake Oroville
Sacramento
<T 6
Folsom Lake
r a
Nicasid)Res
San Francisco 9
Snowpack in Percent of Average
April 1, 1976 and April 1, 1977
'ine Flat Res./
18
Bakersfield
Percent of Average
Precipitation and Snowpack
Oct 1, 1975 -Sep 30, 1976
Precipitation in Percent of Average
150%
100%
50%
Shasta Lake ■v'— so-«
fX
Sacramento
jgJ-akeT)roville
V 6
Folsqjri Lak-
Percent of Average
Precipitation and Snowpack
Oct 1, 1976 -Sep 30, 1977
Precipitation in Percent of Average
150%
100%
50%
Nicasio Res
San Francisco to
** 1C f/.afce.Croi
Pine Flames. ,
Fresno
•50
Lake
Havasu
■<f>"
,Bakersfield
00
Los Angeles
San Diego
The two maps show deviations from
average precipitation and snowpack,
illustrating the pattern of drought.
Lake
Havasu
Monthly differences between the natural moisture supply
and demand are portrayed by the Climatic Water Balances.
Reservoir Storage
Nicasio
Storage during the drought years is compared to the average monthly storage of these reservoirs during the
preceding decade, 1966-1975. The table below each graph gives the actual reservoir level in thousands of acre-feet.
Shasta
Oroville
Folsom
1976-77
1976-77
1976-77
1975-76
1975-76
1975-76
S O N D J F M /
Potential Evapotranspiration
— Actual Evapotranspiration *
— Precipitation
111!! Soil Moisture Recharge
XV Soil Moisture Utilization
I | Water Deficit
1975-76
Oct 75 70.7 Apr
7.7 Jan '77
Oct 75
3470
Apr
3000
Oct
Apr
May
Nov
3330
3040
May
2570
Nov
1560
Jun
2130
Dec
1600
Jan '76
2930
■
Jul
1650
Jar; 77
1530
Jul
Auq
1310
Feb
Auq
Sep
Mar
3170
Sep
1300
Mar
1460
630
Oct 75
2810
2730
May
2750
2630
Oct
Nov
1740
1690
Apr
1400
Dec
Jarl '76
2580
2680
Jun
Jul
2420
2110
Dec
Jan 77
1630
1600
Jun
Jul
AUQ
Sep
1200
Feb
Mar
2750
2030
Auq
Sep
1930
1830
Feb
Mar
1570
1560
890
920
Pel 75 700 Apr
Nov 630_ May
Dec 570 Jun
Jan 76 540 "Jut
580 Auq
520 Jan 77
630 Sep
Pine Flat
Lake
Crowley
Cachuma
Lake
Havasu
1975-76
1975-76
1976-77
1975-76
1975-76
Apj
Mayl
Oct
230
Apr
340
Nov
250
May
3S0
Dec
250
Jun
340
j?.r; '77
270
Jul
130
Feb
280
Auq
70
Mar
290
Sep
70
Jan 76 140 Jul
Feb 130 Auq
Ma r 130 Sep
. 40 , Jun
55 Aug
Jan 76 170 Jul ,
_J60_ Jan 77
Oct 75
550
:i5G
540
550
Apr
590
Oct
570
Apr
Nov
May
670
Nov
540
Dec
Jun
600
Dec
570
Jan 76
Jul
570
Jan 77
540
Feb
540
570
Auq
560
Feb
550
Sep
580
Mar
570
Sep
570
this section shows that precipitation over most of
northern and central California was less than
one-third of normal. Statewide precipitation for 1977
averaged only 35 percent of normal. Snow
accumulation on April 1, 1977, was the lowest in 47
years in all basins except those of the Trinity and
Feather rivers, and the water content for this record
low snowpack was only 25 percent of normal.
Reduced surface runoff and groundwater
discharge during the drought lowered the flow of
rivers and streams to record levels. Runoff for the
year was only 24 percent of average, and many
smaller streams, especially those at lower elevations,
ceased to flow. Even rivers regulated by reservoirs
eventually carried significantly reduced flows. In
October 1977, the Cosumnes River dwindled to a
series of stagnant pools of water. The flow of the
American River below Folsom Dam was reduced on
October 1 to 250 cubic feet per second, while
pre-drought releases maintained the river at a low
flow of 1,500 cubic feet per second. In September
1977, the level of Lake Tahoe fell below the natural
lake rim and the Truckee River, for several miles
downstream, was reduced to a flow sustained by
sewage effluent and discharge from springs along the
river.
Meager runoff during the drought was inadequate
for maintaining storage reservoirs at their usual
levels, and many reservoirs were drained to their
lowest levels since initial filling of the facilities was
completed. The changes in reservoir storage during
the drought are illustrated by the reservoir graphics
on the drought plate in this section. The eight
reservoirs shown here were selected as
representative examples of statewide reservoir
conditions. Declining storage levels are evident for all
reservoirs except Lake Havasu, which was sustained
by the Colorado River whose flow was little affected
by the drought in California. Large reservoirs on
rivers whose headwaters are in California, such as
Shasta Lake, were severely depleted but maintained
carryover storage. Smaller reservoirs, represented by
Nicasio, were almost totally depleted. By August 1,
1977, the total storage in 143 reservoirs representing
the bulk of California's surface water storage was
only 39 percent of the average for that date.
During the drought, many cities and communities
were forced to implement emergency measures to
meet their essential water needs. The most
widespread practices included mandatory con-
servation, the temporary importation of water from
other areas, the drilling of new wells, increased water
rates, and water rationing. Ultimately, almost every
community in the state placed restrictions on the
outdoor uses of water and more than 100 cities
adopted some form of mandatory water conservation
or rationing. The effectiveness of water conservation
programs in selected cities is illustrated by the table of
municipal water use. Differences in the reduced
consumption of water reflect, among other things,
local perceptions of drought severity. The smallest
percentage reductions were achieved in Southern
California where the availability of Colorado River
water eased the drought threat. The largest
percentage reductions were achieved by the Marin
Municipal Water District and by communities on the
Monterey Peninsula. The reduced consumption
achieved in Marin was the result of one of the most
austere water conservation programs in the state,
which limited water to a maximum of 45 gallons per
day per resident for all uses and doubled the unit price
for water. Not all water price increases during the
drought were intended to encourage water
conservation however; several water agencies in the
San Francisco Bay Area raised water rates to
compensate for a substantial decline in revenues
resulting from reduced water use by their customers.
Although water agencies in Southern California
were less aggressive than those in other parts of the
state in striving for reduced water use, four agencies
responded to the water needs of Northern California
in another way. The Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California, San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District, Coachella Valley County
Water Agency, and Desert Water Agency agreed to
exchange some or all of their 1977 State Water
Project allotments with customers in Northern
California. MWD freed 400,000 acre-feet for use in
Northern California by increasing its water
withdrawal from the Colorado River, and
approximately 120,000 acre-feet of this water was
delivered to the San Francisco Bay Area. San
Bernardino relinquished 39 percent of its entitlement
Shasta Lake during the Drought of 1976-1977
Urban Response to Drought
Municipal Water Use (millions of gallons)
Jan. 1, 1976-
Jan. 1, 1977-
Difference
City
June 30, 1976
June30, 1977
Difference
in Percentage
Eureka
694
546
-148
-21
Redding
938
816
-122
-13
Alturas
153
140
-13
-8
Chico
2,471
1,969
-502
-20
Subtotal
4,256
3,471
-785
-18
Sacramento
13,156
10,760
-2,396
-18
San Francisco
18,859
13,564
-5,295
-28
San Jose
20,808
15,495
-5,313
-26
East Bay MUD
39,553
25,161
-14,392
-36
Alameda Co. WD
4,912
3,458
-1,454
-30
Stockton
4,828
3,565
-1,263
-26
Contra Costa Co. WD
18,414
14,633
-3,781
-21
Santa Clara
3,789
2,921
-868
-23
San Mateo
2,302
1,492
-810
-35
Daly City
1,440
1,025
-415
-29
Hayward
2,737
1,756
-981
-36
Sunnyvale
3,963
2,859
-1,104
-28
Marin MWD
3,934
1,848
-2,086
-53
North Marin Co. WD
1,160
717
-443
-38
Santa Rosa
2,263
1,424
-839
-37
Subtotal
142,118
100,678
-41 ,440
-29
Fresno
10,297
7,658
-2,639
-26
Bakersfield
7,539
6,087
-1,452
-19
Modesto
5,016
3,887
-1,129
-23
Merced
2,043
1,385
-658
-32
Monterey Bay
2,652
1,414
-1,238
-47
So n o ra- J a m esto w n
267
200
-67
-25
Subtotal
27,814
20,631
-7,183
-26
Los Angeles
94,983
82,335
-12,648
-13
Long Beach
10,873
9,148
-1,725
-16
San Diego
25,344
23,584
-1,760
-7
Anaheim
8,479
7,530
-949
-11
Riverside
6,755
5,919
-836
-12
Santa Barbara
2,376
1,926
-450
-19
Oxnard
2,802
2,649
-153
-5
Ventura
3,463
2,799
-664
-19
San Luis Obispo
1,041
924
-117
-11
Santa Maria
1,297
1,068
-229
-18
Subtotal
157,413
137,882
-19,531
-12
Total Reported
331,601
262,662
-68,939
-21
77
for 1977, and the Coachella Valley and Desert water
agencies gave up their entire State Water Project
allotments. These actions provided another 30,000
acre-feet of water for use in Northern California.
Although agricultural losses due to the drought
have been estimated at $510 million for 1976 and
$800 million for 1977, most agricultural areas of
California had more options available for responding
to the drought than water users in most urban areas.
In the early months of the drought, agricultural
activities most affected by the meager rainfall were
dry farming operations, including grain, hay and
range crops, ranchers and dairymen. Over 90 percent
of the drought losses in 1976 were experienced by
nonirrigated agriculture while the needs of irrigated
agriculture were generally satisfied in 1976. The
State Water Project delivered over two million
acre-feet of water in 1976, including 626,000
acre-feet of projected surplus water, the largest
single-year delivery of water in the history of the
project. The Bureau of Reclamation delivered about
six million acre-feet to Central Valley Project
customers in 1976 and fulfilled all its contractual
commitments. The 1976 deliveries, however, left
storage reservoirs seriously depleted, and deliveries
to agricultural users in 1977 were reduced by as much
as 60 percent for State Water Project customers and
by as much as 75 percent for customers of the Central
Valley Project.
Agriculture responded to reduced water deliveries
during 1977 in several ways. More attention was
given to water-efficient irrigation practices, and
double cropping was eliminated in many areas, even
though these forms of response in some instances had
the effect of increasing the costs of agricultural
production or decreasing the income from sales. In
many areas, the acreage of less water-intensive crops,
such as cotton and wheat, was increased, and the
acreage of heavy water-using crops, such as rice and
sugar beets, was decreased. In the case of processing
tomatoes, however, which require more water than
most vegetable crops, the acreage was increased in
response to favorable market prices. And, as the table
of acreage and production shows, on a statewide
basis, the acreage of fruit and nut bearing crops,
vegetables, and melons actually increased in 1977
while that of field crops decreased. California's
overall agricultural production during the drought
was in fact only 7.6 percent lower in 1977 than the
1975 record high of 51.7 million tons.
Agriculture survived the drought so well in part
because groundwater was used extensively for
irrigation to replace deficient surface water supplies.
An estimated 10,000 new wells were drilled and by
the end of 1977 groundwater pumpage was providing
an estimated 53 percent of all the water used by
agriculture. As groundwater pumping lowered water
tables and created greater pumping lifts, however,
the cost of using groundwater increased significantly.
And a shortage of hydroelectric energy required the
use of more expensive fossil fuels for energy
production, which in turn increased the cost of
electricity to operate groundwater pumps.
HISTORIC FLOODS AND DROUGHTS
Prior to the drought of 1976-77, the drought which lasted
from September 1923 to September 1924 ranks as the most
severe period of statewide water deficiency in this century.
In all but the interior desert regions, precipitation in 1923-
24 was only 40 to 50 percent of average and runoff in the
San Joaquin and Tulare Lake basins fell to 25 percent of
normal. Drought conditions in this period were complicated
by persistant desiccating winds which created dust storms
and aided in the spread of forest fires. To make matters still
worse, severe frost destroyed much of the state's citrus
crop while an unseasonal spate of rain ruined the lettuce
crop in the Imperial Valley.
In general, drought conditions tend to be most severe
only in limited regions of the state. The drought of 1863-64,
for example, had a greater impact on Southern California
than the other parts of the state, and the drought of 1929-
34 struck the Sacramento River basin with special severity.
Similarly, the droughts of 1945-51 and 1958-61 had their
principal effects in the Santa Ynez and San Joaquin basins
respectively.
Simultaneous statewide flooding is even more rare. The
legendary Noachian flood of 1861-62 came closest to affect-
ing the state as a whole, but the records of this event are too
incomplete for a certain assessment of the full extent of
flooding. The rains began November 10, 1861, and con-
tinued almost without ceasing for the next two months. On
January 8, 1862, a tropical storm brought warmer tempera-
tures which accelerated melting of the snowpack. As a
result, an inland lake 60 miles across formed in the Sacra-
mento Valley and much of what is now the Los Angeles
metropolitan area was inundated. Although the rains were
less severe in the South Coast, the damage was in some re-
spects much worse than that suffered in other parts of the
state, because many of the houses there were built of adobe,
which collapsed, and because hundreds of acres of vine-
yards and farmlands were washed away by rain-engorged
streams and rivers cutting new channels to the ocean.
A storm in December 1955 brought extreme flood condi-
tions to the area from the Oregon border to the Tehachapis.
Although the recently completed Folsom Dam on the
Amerian River protected Sacramento, severe flooding on
the Feather and Yuba rivers forced the evacuation of more
than 20,000 people from Marysville and Yuba City. More
recent storms have produced even higher flood flows than
1955 on many rivers, but the extent of flooding has been
more limited. Intense storms in December 1964 and Janu-
ary 1965 were extremely destructive on the North Coast.
And the storms of January and February 1969 produced
flooding from the Delta southward that rivaled or exceeded
the flood stages associated with the rains of 1955.
Agriculture also benefited from water exchanges
during the drought. The San Joaquin Valley received
about 70 percent of the water freed as a result of
MWD's decision to use Colorado River water in place
of deliveries from the State Water Project.
Agricultural contractors in the San Joaquin Valley
consequently received the equivalent of 91 percent of
their 1977 State Water Project entitlement rather
than the 40 percent they would have received without
the exchange. Agricultural users in Northern
California received about 30,000 acre-feet of the
water relinquished by San Bernardino Valley,
Coachella Valley, and Desert water agencies. And in
still another case, several rice growers in the southern
Sacramento Valley agreed to sell about 10,000
acre-feet of water to farmers in the Friant-Kern
service area rather than use the water themselves.
California's response to the drought of 1976-77
required considerable flexibility among the
institutions which govern and administer the modern
water system. The fact, however, that the drought in
Southern California was replaced by destructive
flooding in February and March of 1978, which
caused 38 deaths and $180 million in damages,
emphasizes that total alleviation of nature's extreme
events continues to be an elusive goal in California.
This table displays the harvested acreage and production of
the principal crop groups in California during the drought
of 1976-77 as compared with the two previous years. These
figures include both irrigated and dry farm acreage and
production. As indicated, acreage and production actually
increased in the drought year 1977 for fruit and nut bearing
crops, vegetables, and melons.
Year
1974
1975
1976
1977
1974
1975
1976
1977
Field
Crops
6,520,300
6,602,000
6,590,000
6,359,000
24,986,000
28,566,000
28,965,000
25,009,000
Agricultural Response to Drought
Acreage
Fruit and Nut
Bearing Crops
1,508,010
1,571,440
1,634,540
1,673,890
Production (tons)
8,702,700
9,794,800
9,626,600
9,673,700
Vegetables
and Melons
861 ,320
921 ,660
829,466
914,652
1 1 ,820,750
13,312,050
11,051,650
13,037,750
Total
8,889,630
9,095,100
9,054,006
8,947,542
45,509,450
51,672,850
49,643,250
47,720,450
78
CHAPTER 8
The Economics of Water
The study of the economics of water involves the
science of efficiency. Because our collective desire for
water exceeds the available supply, the fundamental
economic question for the allocation of water is how
best to use the resources we have. Economic
efficiency, which means getting the greatest "net
benefit" (benefits minus costs) out of the use of the
resource, is accomplished through the operation of a
market mechanism wherein buyers and sellers
hypothetically come together to register their
preferences for the use of the resource. The result of
this process is a set of water prices which assures
that water will be allocated to those uses for which
need is most intense. In this regard, the market is
simply an elaborate communication system enabling
the myriad of individual preferences to be recorded,
summarized, and balanced against one another. In
such a theoretical system the allocation of water is
treated no differently from any other commodity,
and there is no place for the argument that water
needs to be treated specially because of its importance
to life and the production of goods and services.
Although the market for water shares basic
similarities with other markets, it also possesses
several distinctive features which distort the normal
interaction of supply and demand and alter significantly
the ability of the market to achieve purely economic
efficiencies. In the first place, the principal commodity in
the market, the water itself, has been treated, for the
last half century at least, as a free good, a grant from
nature which belongs to all the people of California.
This public interest in the allocation of water
resources assures that social values have had an equal
and sometimes predominating play in the market in
relation to simply monetary values. As a result,
through legislation, water is not assigned just to
those who will pay the highest price for it; instead, we
have allocated our water resources to accomplish
such societal objectives as the support of agriculture
or the preservation of some streams in their natural
state as wild and scenic rivers.
A further ramification of the way in which we treat
water as a free good is that no scarcity value is
assigned to water in California. Diamonds, in
contrast, achieve a high scarcity value and the
diamond market works to limit the supply at any
given time so that prices will remain high. But when
water supplies decline in California, as in a drought,
prices do not automatically go up. Instead, when
water supplies become scarce or overdrawn, more
incentive is given to developing new supplies of water
rather than letting the market mechanism raise the
price to allocate the water to the highest value use.
An elaborate set of subsidies encourages this
behavior. Federal water projects, for example, obtain
subsidies through extraordinarily inexpensive
financing arrangements and long-term repayment
terms which may extend over 30 or 40 years. Where
water projects generate hyrdoelectric power, the
revenues from energy sales are often applied to
subsidize the cost of water delivery. And in many local
projects, property tax revenues are used to pay off
portions of the development costs of a water system
and thereby mask the true cost of water to the
consumer.
Water law, by protecting pre-existing rights to
water use, also works to preserve current use
patterns regardless of scarcity or other changing
conditions and thereby prevents the easy reallocation
of water to higher value uses. If water is itself
I
"In some areas the disappearance
of a pre-existing water source
can create economic benefits, as
in the case of the mining opera-
tion shown here which is ex-
tracting commercially valuable
salts and chemicals from the dry
bed of Searles Lake.
■»Hr
jr&fr
.'«"{"
~r
>
79
Urban Water Use
and Price
Price
(in dollars/acre-foot of water)
&> ,& <r ^x?
^ N o <t>
1
:" ;
The height of the column represents that city's total water use per capita per day in
gallons. The key above places a city in one of four Use classifications and compares this
with one of four Price categories. This creates a color matrix, giving each Use-Price com-
bination a distinct color for its column on the state map. Price figures are in dollars per
acre-foot of water. Those cities which charge either a flat rate for unlimited water use,
have the option of a flat rate fee available to its users, or charge no fee for water use, are
specially noted.
Total water use in gallons
per capita per day
treated as a valueless commodity, the right to its use
is accorded a very high value indeed in California. In
some areas — the Owens Valley, for example, in the
1950s — efforts have been made to tax such rights as
though they were property. Rights can be preserved,
however, only so long as they are exercised. By
protecting water rights, therefore, water law
operates not only to prevent the reassignment of
water to its highest economic uses but also to keep
water in some lower value uses even when the
possessor of the right to such use is applying the
water only for the purpose of preserving his right.
While this is not an argument for overturning all
water rights in California, this aspect of the system
of rights is significant both for its impact on the
water market and for its effects in interfering with
the achievement of other societal objectives for
water, such as conservation, economic efficiency, or
the assignment of water to its highest beneficial
uses.
The physical nature of the water delivery systems
we have constructed in California constitutes a
further restraint upon the transferability of water to
its most efficient or desirable uses. These delivery
systems represent massive investments and water
cannot simply be redirected to a user, no matter how
much he is willing to pay, if the user is not located
next to an existing water supply or delivery system.
Similarly, once a user is hooked up to a water
delivery system, he cannot easily take his business
elsewhere if he is displeased with the service. In rare
instances, however, rights have been transferred
within an existing delivery system. This occurred,
for example, during the drought year 1977 when
legal restrictions were relaxed to allow transfers of
water within Kern County. In these circumstances,
the water obtained a scarcity value of approximately
$75 an acre-foot.
The final element of the water market which
distinguishes it from other markets is the monopo-
listic nature of water supply within individual
geographic areas and the consequent need for regu-
lation these conditions create. The capital costs
associated with building big delivery and distribution
systems like the Central Valley Project, the State
Water Project, or the Colorado River Aqueduct assure
high barriers to entry into the market, and therefore,
basically monopolistic conditions. In some areas
where substantial underground pumping can occur
with much lower capital investments, competition
among pumpers is more likely. But, if the competitors
are pumping from the same basin, the results may be
preverse and may deplete the groundwater basin
more rapidly than is socially desirable.
Regulation in either case is necessary. In the
underground pumping case, regulation is necessary
to force the level of extraction of the water to be that
which is in the long-run interest of society and not to
permit windfall profits to accrue to the pumpers. An
alternative to regulation of pumpers would be to
force monopolistic ownership so that the long-run
view is taken using the self-interest motive. But
again, regulation would be required to substitute for
the competitive market by developing rules and
procedures which make a monopoly operate in a way
similar to that which would occur in a competitive
market.
SUPPLY AND DEMAND
The supply of water available within the market is
determined by the underlying costs of production. If
these costs cannot be covered, there will be no
supply on the market for very long. These basic costs
are determined in turn by the production technology
involved, the cost of the water or right to its use, the
amounts of water involved, the prices of related
goods, price expectations about the future, the
number of sellers in the market, and any other
relevant cost factors, such as the presence of taxes or
subsidies. The major determinants of demand
include tastes for the product, the number of buyers
competing in the market, their income, the prices of
related goods (both substitutes and complements)
and, finally, expectations about future prices which
bear on decisions of whether to buy now or not.
In the figure below, supply is shown as a schedule
which depicts the various amounts of a resource the
producer is willing and able to produce and make
available for sale in the market at each possible price
during a specific time period.
Quantity of Water
Figure 1
Supply and Demand for Water (Hypothetical)
In reality, however, the lines of price and quantity
would be more jagged than smooth as shown in the
figure below. Supply is jagged because the lowest
cost sources of water (the cheapest dams and
distribution systems from a productivity standpoint)
are developed first before successively more expen-
sive sources are brought on in the future. Demand is
somewhat jagged also, although constant within
ranges, suggesting that users will take definite
blocks of quantities of water at given prices. Buyers
would ideally like to buy a large amount of a resource
at a very low price. Unfortunately, this is not
possible if the producers are unwilling to produce
that amount of the resource at such low prices. In
fact, there is only one price at which both demanders
and suppliers in aggregate are mutually happy; that
is the equilibrium price designated by P 1 when
quantity Q 1 is sold.
Supply of Water
a>
0)
o
\
\o
\$.
Y^
\v
\o-
\ <£
\Q.
\>
Q 1
Quantity of Water
Figure 2
Because water is a public resource in California
which has been developed in large part by public
agencies, the interaction of buyers and sellers differs
somewhat from the private market. When deciding
whether or not to build a delivery system like the
State Water Project, we the people are both buyer
and seller. The effect in terms of the interaction of
price and quantity, however, is essentially the same;
for, in such a situation, regulation, legal constraints,
regional differences, contending environmental and
economic interest groups, and our willingness and
ability to pay the costs of development, all act in
place of the normal operation of supply and demand
to fix a unique point at which P a and Q 1 will
intersect.
The demand for water in California is divided
between two principal markets: agriculture, which
accounts for approximately 85 percent of all the
water used each year; and the urban areas of the
state. Agricultural demand varies in accordance with
soil characteristics and their effect upon irrigation
efficiency, the quality of the irrigation water itself
(which determines how much water needs to be used
to leach out salts), topography, climate, technology,
and the way in which water is used to produce a crop
(rice, for example, can be grown by flooding the land
to control weeds, which uses a lot of water; less
water would be required if weeds were controlled by
other means).
The considerable variation in intensity of agricultural
water use among adjoining crops is illustrated by the
two-page map in this chapter of a section of the San
Joaquin Valley. In some areas, crops requiring large
applications of irrigation water are grown in the
midst of other crops which use far less water;
delivery systems must be built, however, with a
capacity to serve the heaviest use. The reader may
also examine the map to determine comparative
efficiencies of water use between the large, corporate
land holdings on one side of the valley and small,
family farms on the other side. In addition, the map
depicts the impact on agricultural land use within the
areas of urban development around the City of
Fresno.
The demand for water in urban areas is composed
of residential, commercial, industrial, and govern-
mental uses. In California, residential demand
accounts for about 68 percent of the total urban
water usage; industrial, 18 percent; commercial, 10
percent; and governmental, 4 percent. Different
water consumption rates among urban areas result
from several variables, including the type of climate,
the presence of water-intensive industries, the
extent of irrigated landscaping, population density,
use of water meters, and water prices.
Residential demand for water is composed of
interior and exterior uses. Interior water uses
include sanitation, bathing, laundry, and cooking;
these uses are primarily a function of the size and
Trends in Urban Water Use
AVERAGE ANNUAL USE
(gallons per capita per day)
AVERAGE
(gallons
MONTHLY USE 1966-70
per capita per day)
1941-50
1951-60
1961-70
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
Eureka
80
104
131
120
123
124
127
134
163
174
162
138
117
111
108
Sacramento
249*
253
264
151
147
174
237
332
385
449
444
380
261
175
158
San Francisco
101
115
135
126
127
129
141
153
157
160
158
157
144
132
125
Fresno
341
333
326
124
129
179
267
435
526
610
574
433
262
162
131
Santa Barbara
125
153
172
108
126
142
168
204
212
238
231
208
174
140
115
Los Angeles
(city & harbor)
125
157
160
137
136
143
156
172
180
196
199
182
169
149
137
Los Angeles
(San Fernando)
201
205
194
130
131
147
174
213
233
278
279
233
197
154
129
San Bernardino
213
217
226
140
148
163
198
258
298
369
359
295
231
179
139
San Diego
120
123
142
114
117
126
147
171
176
196
200
181
162
134
114
'includes only 1949-50
In addition to the differences between cities in average per
capita water use displayed on the map of urban water use
and price, municipal per capita water use varies according to
the month of the year.
The location of a city is an important factor in determining
water use, particularly outdoor uses for such things as
garden irrigation. Cities in the coastal zone experience a
lower evaporative demand than warmer inland locations.
Related to this is the size of the yard and the type of plants
which are grown. Suburban areas have larger lot sizes and
therefore more plants to water. In addition, exotic plants
need more water than native species which are already
adapted to California's rainless summers. Urbanized areas
with smaller lots, higher population densities, and more
cement surfaces will generally have a lower rate of use.
Another important factor is the relative wealth of the
members of the community. These differences are reflected
in the figures for the selected cities shown in this table. In
addition, it can be seen that water use on an average annual
basis is increasing, in part as a by-product of the increasing
affluence of society as a whole. One study showed that of
every thousand dollars added to annual income, a consumer
will spend about one dollar more for water a year. This does
not seem significant, but in Los Angeles this dollar would
buy about 15,000 gallons of water. Consequently a family in
Los Angeles earning $30,000 annually may theoretically
consume some 300,000 gallons of water more than a family
making $10,000.
81
mm®
[2] Crop Types/Land Use
[2] Applied Water
[4] Crop Types/Land Use
[4] Applied Water
Crop Patterns and Applied Water
Crop Types and Land Use
Applied Water (depth)
Transect Location
Subtropical Fruits
Deciduous Fruits and Nuts
Rice
Grain and Hay
Grapes
Tomatoes
Miscellaneous Truck
Cotton
Safflower
Miscellaneous Field
Key to Transect Alignment
Alfalfa
Pasture
Fallow and Idle
Semiagricultural
Urban
Native Vegetation
■ — w
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
Scale
0.0- 1.0 feet
1.1 -2.0 feet
2.1 -3.0 feet
3.1 -4.0 feet
4.1 -5.0 feet
5.1 -6.0 feet
6.1 -7.0 feet
Not Irrigated
! J ij-
3 kilometers
i
This series delineates the wide variations in average applied water use
among adjoining crops and land uses within the San Joaquin Valley. Land
and water uses are shown separately for each of the five segments of this
transect, which traces a two-mile-wide swath across 70 miles of Fresno
County. Data are from DWR surveys made in 1969 and 1972.
2 miles
income of the family. Exterior water uses are for
swimming pools, lawns, and gardens; these uses are
influenced by precipitation and temperature as well
as family income.
Industrial water demand consists of a wide range
of uses, including product and equipment cooling,
processing, steam generation, sanitation, and air
conditioning. Industrial water demand is a function
of several variables, including the type and size of
the plant, the technology employed by the plant, the
cost of water and waste treatment, and environmental
guidelines concerning waste disposal. Industrial
plants that use large amounts of water include
petroleum refineries, smelters, chemical plants, pulp
mills, and canneries.
Commercial water demand consists of those uses
which are incidental to the operation of the business
(such as drinking, sanitation, landscape watering)
and those uses which are employed in producing
saleable services (such as laundries, car washes, and
restaurants). Commercial water demand is dependent
upon the income of the area and the extent to which
the area provides commercial services to the
residents. Precipitation and temperature are minor
influences upon commercial demand, except in cases
of landscape watering.
Governmental water demand also includes sanitation
and landscaping as well as fire control. The extent of
such uses is primarily a function of the amount of
urban area devoted to public parks and recreation,
temperature, and precipitation.
Water price is a variable that can affect all types of
water demand. In general, the demand for water
should decrease when the price of water increases.
The effect of price upon actual water use will vary,
however, depending upon rate structure, the use of
metering, and the proportion of the total costs of
water delivery which are borne directly by the water
consumer.
THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF PRICING
If the water market is to satisfy demand in the
most cost-effective way, water needs to be properly
priced. One method would entail a two-part tariff
such that the capital or fixed costs of a water project
are distributed over time among all users in
proportion with the amount of project water they
actually consume. The variable or marginal costs,
such as operations, energy, administration, chemicals,
maintenance, and some depreciation should be
charged to each user on a per-acre-foot basis in
accordance with individual demand. If there are any
particular peaking costs or capacity costs incurred by
the system for the sake of any group of users, those
particular beneficiaries should bear the charges for
this additional capacity through a third tier to the
tariff system.
Such a pricing system, called short run marginal
cost pricing, assures an economically efficient use of
the current plant and system, provides a basis for
peak load pricing, and delivers the same price signals
to the consumer as are received by the utility.
Incentives to use water are correct and in line with
costs incurred in providing the water. The dis-
advantages of this approach, however, are several.
First, the revenue requirements of the utility may
not be satisified. Secondly, such a system may not
provide accurate signals to the consumer of the long-
run marginal costs that can be predicted. This is
important if consumers are making durable good
purchases such as swimming pools or residences
with large irrigation requirements, or if farmers are
investing in an irrigation system based on current
water prices when these current prices will not be in
effect over the long term. Also, under short run
marginal cost pricing, utilities may not necessarily
move toward the best plant mix and technology for
the long run. A final disadvantage is that short run
marginal cost pricing is efficient only if the prices of
labor, energy, and all the other costs of water
delivery as well as the prices of all the products and
services that result from water delivery are themselves
efficiently priced.
Actual pricing policies differ from agency to
agency and among the various regions of the state.
Urban water delivery systems generally attempt to
recoup the cost of transporting, storing, and
distributing the water; operating and maintenance
costs; and the expense of water treatment. The value
of the water itself is usually not included and the
methods of calculating depreciation vary widely.
Sometimes urban water agencies charge a price
which exceeds the cost of service so that excess
revenues can be contributed to the local agency's
general fund. In other cases, agencies undercollect
and are in turn subsidized by local agencies. In
general, urban pricing policies have historically
attempted to recover as large a part of capital costs as
possible through the use of property taxes while
charging a service rate which will cover operating
costs and the remainder of capital charges. With
popular resistance to the property tax on the rise,
however, these practices are declining. The use of a
basic "meter" fee plus a service rate which fluctuates
with actual usage is becoming more common.
The map of urban water use and price displays the
considerable range of prices paid for water in 200
urban locations throughout California. Geography
and climate play a part in accounting for some of
these differences. Some regions, for example, enjoy
access to groundwater near the surface, which can
be pumped more cheaply than buying imported
water. In addition, the water agencies on the South
Coast which overlie groundwater basins can purchase
imported water for groundwater replenishment at a
rate lower than that charged for other urban uses
because such deliveries are made on an interruptible
basis. The resulting savings are passed on to urban
consumers.
Access to groundwater and other local water
supplies also has a significant effect upon the
differences in agricultural water prices. For very arid
regions which have to import water over long
distances, the water becomes increasingly expensive,
thus making agriculture more costly, other things
being equal. When the price of water goes up to
farmers, incentive develops at the margin either to
rotate crops and plant those which are less water-
intensive; to change farming methods so that other
resources, such as capital, are substituted for water;
or to alter irrigation systems which may require
large capital investments in changing over from
sprinkling, for example, to drip methods of irrigation.
To determine what combination of these events
actually occurs, not only is the price of water
important, but so too are the prices of the agricultural
products themselves. In Orange County, for example,
Comparative Values in Agricultural Production
CROP
IRRIGATED
ACREAGE
(Acres)
Percent
APPLIED
WATER
(acre-feet)
Percent
TOTAL VALUE
TO PRODUCER
(Dollars)
Percent
Alfalfa (hay and grain)
1,341,175
47
6,732,100
54
251,580,000
27
Cotton (lint and seed)
961,700
34
3,874,700
31
305,937,000
33
Grapes (all types)
544,805
19
1,903,350
15
368,106,000
40
2,847,680
100
12,510,150
100
925,623,000
100
Alfalfa, cotton, and grapes were the top three crops in
California in 1972 in terms of irrigated acreage, water
consumed, and total value yielded to the producer. Together,
these three crops accounted for nearly one-third of the
irrigated acreage and applied irrigation water used by the
200 commercial crops California produces. As the table
illustrates, however, the crops which occupy the greatest
acreage and consume the largest volumes of water are not
necessarily those which yield the highest value to the
producer.
fiEXT OBIHKING WATER
128 MILES
HEXT RADIATOR WATER
42 MILES
STATE DEPARTMENT
OF
HEALTH
The pricing systems used in California today assign no scarcity
value to water. This was not always the case in the nineteenth
century, when water was treated as a private commodity. At the
Lyons Well above, for example, desert travelers could purchase 100
gallons for 25 cents or water a two-horse team for a dime.
which imports water and also efficiently manages its
water basins through pump taxes, agricultural water
is comparatively expensive; agriculture survives in
part by producing very high value crops, such as
asparagus which is exported to restaurants in Japan
and France. If the costs of water increase as well as
the costs of labor, fertilizer, equipment, seeds, and
other essentials, there comes a time, however, when
the land simply becomes more valuable in other uses.
To protect agricultural development, federal water
policies have sought to keep the price of some
agricultural water low through subsidies which are
ultimately paid by all taxpayers. Agricultural
interests argue that the urban user gets the subsidy
back in lower food prices. But most of the subsidy is
capitalized in the value of the land and not passed
forward to the consumer in terms of lower food
prices. Moreover, to the extent that the subsidy does
lower food prices, that subsidy is not recaptured
solely in California by local water consumers; the
benefits of the subsidy are instead exported to all
agribusiness consumers in other parts of the United
States and throughout the world. Rice grown in
California, for example, uses huge amounts of water
per acre, but is primarily exported abroad.
Furthermore, keeping the costs of irrigation water
artifically low gives the wrong incentives all the way
around. When water is so cheap that it can be used as
a substitute for capital and labor, wasteful irrigation
technology and highly consumptive crop mixtures
may be chosen. Agricultural interests, of course,
point out that subsidized agricultural water deliveries
permit more rapid growth which confers secondary
and intangible benefits to the area. For example,
people come to service the agricultural commun-
ity, jobs are created, and land values go up. While
subsidies do cause an economic multiplier effect to
increase the growth rate in an agricultural area, the
process may benefit some people at the expense of
I
others. Even though land owners may achieve
economic benefits individually, society as a whole
pays by having its resources cheapened and a less
than optimally efficient system of agricultural
production results. These historically given water
subsidies could, however, be given in other ways so
that the benefits could be wider spread while
affording an even higher multiplier effect.
WASTE, EQUITY, AND THE FUTURE
Many people think it equitable that the price of
water should be kept very low because water is
essential to life. Many problems would arise,
however, from such a policy. First, the amount of
water actually used for life-sustaining purposes is
very small compared to the total uses to which water
is put. If society's interest is in achieving an efficient
allocation of a limited resource, then water should be
priced no lower than its true marginal cost to society.
If society believes that beneficial uses exist for the
water at prices lower than marginal costs, and that
some users should be supplied more water than they
could otherwise afford, then the solution is not to
make the water inexpensive for everyone because
this would result in prices which give incentives to
all users to waste water.
Under the economist's definition, waste of a
resource occurs when additional consumption
results in more cost to the producer than the value
provided to the customer. By this definition, water is
often wasted when it is offered at prices below the
true cost to society of producing the resource and
when the consumer buys it for low value uses. An
economist would not define certain uses of water
such as hosing down sidewalks or filling swimming
pools as wasteful if the value to the consumer of the
water used for these purposes is at least as high as
the price charged for the water when that price truly
reflects the real cost to society for producing this
water.
The map of urban water use and price reveals the
startling differences in the rates of per capita water
use which occur under the various prices charged by
urban water agencies in California. In part these
differences in use are due to climatic conditions
which vary, for example, according to whether a
particular community is located along the coast, in
the interior valleys, or on the desert. The spec-
tacularly high rates of use among the communities
of the Owens Valley and the succession of tall,
yellow columns which can be seen marching down
the spine of the Central Valley Project, however,
suggest a correlation between high use and low-cost
or free water. But this relationship, as the map
shows, is neither direct nor wholly consistent. With-
in the Owens Valley, for example, per capita use is
higher in Independence and Big Pine, where a flat fee
is charged, than in Bishop, where water is free. And
water use in Mammoth is much lower than that in
Bishop even though both communities charge
nothing for water deliveries. The map instead
reveals a much more consistent relationship between
high water use and high wealth, as in the cases of
Beverly Hills, Montecito, Hillsborough, and Palm
Springs.
Nevertheless, the price of water does have a direct
effect upon the desire for new water supplies and the
readiness of society to pay for their delivery or
development. Prices are almost certain to increase
dramatically in the heavily populated south coastal
plain, for example. Both the State Water Project and
the Colorado River Aqueduct, the principal sources
of supply for the Metropolitan Water District,
require large quantities of energy to effect their
deliveries. Given the rapid rise in energy costs which
has occurred since these projects were begun, the
Metropolitan Water District is already predicting a
doubling of its water prices by 1987.
With prices rising, it would be expected that all
users of water would have more incentive to
conserve. The fixed cost component of water
delivery is predetermined and is not affected by the
actual quantity of water users demand. But the
variable portion of costs, such as the charges for
pumping and maintenance, can be reduced through
conservation. Conservation, however, is beneficial
to society only up to a point. The time may come
when society values the benefit of new water
supplies more highly than the costs of developing it.
The high cost of fresh water, coupled with governmental
requirements for wastewater treatment to effect
pollution control, may mean, for example, that
reclaimed water will become economic for some
types of use, including greenbelts, irrigation, and
groundwater replenishment to prevent salt water
intrusion. To the extent that this becomes possible,
there will be reduced pressure to construct new
energy-intensive delivery systems unless demand
grows very quickly as a result of population
pressures or increased development of water-
intensive enterprises such as agriculture and certain
types of industry.
Theory suggests that under low price conditions,
demand is higher than it would be otherwise. An
appearance is thus created that we need more water
supplies. Since Western water law and practice have
historically permitted contractual obligations to be
made to provide water at prices lower than the full
cost of supply, from a practical standpoint California
may very well determine that it requires new
supplies. The economist's retort, however, is that no
more water projects can be proved to be needed until
every user pays through his water rate the full cost
of supplying the water. Only then will the state and
affected agencies have adequate information about
the real demand for water.
The high cost of developing new
water supplies and changes in
the traditional concepts of what
constitutes reasonable use may
ultimately pose a challenge to
the continued application of great
quantities of water to grow rice
on these fields north of Sacramento.
85
CHAPTER 9
Commercial and
Recreational Water Use
INDUSTRIAL WATER USE
Gold mining constituted the first significant water-
using industry in California. The early miners used
pans and small sluice boxes to separate the free gold
from stream sediments. As hydraulic mining developed,
high pressure water hoses were used to wash gold-
bearing hillsides into large-capacity sluice boxes. The
lumber industry grew apace to meet the demand for
lumber for the sluice boxes, flumes, and dams associ-
ated with the gold mining activities and to provide
housing for the state's burgeoning population. Com-
mercial food processing too had an early start in
California. The Civil War's demand for preserved food
reduced the quantity available for import into the state
and the completion of the transcontinental railroad in
1869 further stimulated the continued growth of the
industry as mining declined. By the late 1800s, the
petroleum industry began to emerge as a significant
industrial enterprise requiring large quantities of water.
Standard Oil Refinery on Point Richmond
With the advent of the automobile and the tremendous
growth in population and supporting industrial devel-
opment during the twentieth century, petroleum
refining has continued to increase production to meet
demand.
In California today, industrial use accounts for
approximately 20 percent of the five million acre-feet of
fresh water applied annually to urban-related purposes.
By far the largest quantities of water among industrial
groups is used for food processing in the state which
today produces nearly one-third of the nation's canned
food. Paper and pulp mills, petroleum refineries,
chemical plants, and lumber mills are the next largest
industrial water users. Lesser but still significant
quantities of water are used by transportation equip-
ment producers and metal fabricators, principally to
provide air conditioning and sanitation facilities for the
large numbers of their employees.
The availability of adequate water supplies has
consequently become as important a factor in the
location of industries as the availability of raw materials
and a sufficient labor supply. The relative importance of
these three factors, however, varies according to the
kind of industry. Lumber, pulp, and paper mills, for
example, are principally found in or near the forest
areas of Northern California. Most of the food process-
ing plants are located in the Central Valley, where about
75 percent of the state's cropland is located, although
these plants can be found wherever significant amounts
of agricultural production occur. In some instances,
such as in the San Francisco Bay Area, food processing
plants have remained in operation in locations where
the surrounding croplands which originally supported
them have long since been converted to urban settle-
ment.
In the case of petroleum refineries, proximity to
transportation facilities and a supply of crude oil are the
principal considerations in locating plants. Most refiner-
ies are located in the oil-producing areas of Los Angeles
County and the southern San Joaquin Valley and in
those places where crude oil can be discharged from
ocean-going vessels to onshore facilities along the
Southern California coast and the shores of San
Francisco Bay. Transportation manufacturing and
metal fabricating industries, on the other hand, tend to
locate in any major metropolitan area where labor is
readily available.
Because the uses of water in industry are so different,
the quality of water required can vary accordingly. The
food processing industry, for example, requires large
volumes of clean water which meets potable standards
because raw foods must be clean and wholesome for
human consumption and food processing plants must
be sanitary at all times. Fruits and vegetables are
blanched with steam or hot water, and sometimes are
peeled by use of steam or high-pressure jets. Cereals are
steam-exploded to produce the many forms of break-
fast food or are wet-milled and separated into fractions
in water suspension, as in the production of cornstarch.
Some meats are injected with, or pickled in, water
solutions of salts. Beverages are malted, boiled, cooled,
and fermented by means of water and steam. Sugar is
decolorized in, and crystallized from, water solution.
Hot water or steam is applied to sterilize food stuffs and
flume systems are often used to transport produce
through the various plant operations. Where possible,
water used for one process is often reused for another
purpose for which water quality requirements are less
demanding.
Paper and pulp mills also reuse significant quantities
of water in order to prevent waste of chemicals and
pulp. California now has more than 40 pulp and paper
plants producing kraft paper and board, corrugating
medium, box board, newsprint, fine paper, tissues,
molded pulp, roofing felts, and many specialty products.
Wood is fed to digesters where water, steam, and
chemicals act to separate the individual wood fibers.
The fibers are blown into pits where they are washed
and then flushed onto screens where knots and larger
pieces of wood are removed. Next, the material is
bleached in a solution of hypoclorite, chlorine dioxide,
or peroxide, washed, and passed to beaters where more
water is added. From here it is blended, treated in mills
to further separate the individual fibers, and, with the
addition of water to obtain the desired consistency,
passed to the paper machine. The pulp is distributed
uniformly onto a continuous wire screen through
which the water drains. Steam is then employed to raise
the temperatures of reacting mixtures and to dry the
final product.
86
Transportation Equipment
ft-
&
\
Food & Kindred Products
"t?
Q
5V
,<b
Water Use
by Industry
<o-
-%-
&
&
°>
^'
Electronic Equipment
^
<v
r>
Vf
Machinery, except Electronic
^ .n o-
Fabricated Metal
<0
Stone, Clay, & Glass Products
Chemicals & Allied Products
^
.«3
£'
^
<n
^
-SX
♦'
<b
^*-
<b
Primary Metal
K <5-
^
o
^
&
a-
Petroleum & Coal
gross water used (gwu)
All values are in
billions of gallons
Water Intake
consumption (c)
fresh water (f)
HE
n Water Discharge
■
treated (t)
brackish water (b)
salt water (s)
untreated (u)
The diagrams at left illustrate water intake, use, and discharge by Cali-
fornia's major industries in 1972. Water is taken in at the left of each
diagram and discharged \o the right. Consumption is the difference
between water intake and water discharge, regardless of its eventual
disposition. Gross water used is the amount necessary for the industry:
because most industries recirculate some water internally, this figure
is usually greater than intake and only some of it will be consumed.
When the volume of water in a given category is too small to be shown
by its designated color, the abbreviation for that category follows the
number. The industrial groups have been ranked according to the
number of their employees.
Data deleted to protect the anonymity of specific companies.
#
#
J2_
^
^
<b
N^
O)
Rubber & Misc. Plastic Products n <> v .^V 9
-CF
aO'
.<b
♦'
Instruments & Related Products
Lumber & Wood Products
^?-
V
Paper & Allied Products
#•
.^
&
~*5
Su
.<o
<o
<r
o>
&
<\
&
Textile Mill Products
^
Miscellaneous Manufacturing
^
uL
A
*v
^
Leather & Leather Products
N
^
The cubes compare the kinds and quantities of cooling
water used by steam plants for electrical power gener-
ation in 1977. Coastal power plants use sea water only
once before discharging it back into the ocean. Inland
power plants continuously recirculate their more lim-
ited water supplies, replacing only the amounts lost
through evaporation.
The Sacramento Municipal Util-
ity District maintains its own
reservoir to replace the water
that is evaporated from the cool-
ing towers of the Rancho Seco
nuclear power plant.
The ever-increasing demand for petroleum products
has made petroleum refining the third largest industrial
water user in California. Petroleum refining is a
distillation process. The crude oil is heated to boiling and
each product is separated in accordance to its boiling
temperature in a fractionating tower where vapor is
condensed and cooled by water. Many of these petro-
leum fractions must be specially treated by cracking or
reforming molecules, then redistilled to make products
which will meet the required specifications. All of this
takes considerable heat, followed by quick cooling with
water. Fresh water is needed for steam generation, to
replace evaporation and blow-down from cooling
towers, and for washing the gases and liquids in the
process streams. Steam is used for a number of pur-
poses in a refinery, in the generation of electrical power
for operation of the plant, in chemical reactions, and in
providing heat in certain chemical processes. A recent
survey by the Department of Water Resources shows a
substantial increase in the rate of recirculation and
reuse of the initial intake supply by refineries before the
deterioration of water quality requires its discharge.
Without this high rate of reuse, the water requirements
of the petroleum industry would surpass that of any
other industry in California.
The separation and purification of substances with
the use of water are also fundamental operations in the
chemical industry. Large volumes of water are often
required to extract heat from products or to use the
water as a reactant which is chemically or physically
combined with other substances. For example, water
reacts with calcium carbide to form acetylene, the basic
material for a large organic chemicals industry. Another
type of reaction is the hydrolysis of animal fats to
produce glycerine and fatty acids for soap manufacture.
Miscellaneous uses of water include the disintegration
or milling of clays, the quenching of molten products
such as caustic soda, and the emergency drowning of
reactions out of control, such as might occur in the
manufacture of trinitrotoluene (TNT). These are but a
few of an endless list of water use functions in chemical
or chemical-related industries.
Cooling and process water also play prominent roles
in the steel industry. The reduction of iron from its ore,
the compounding of this iron into pig iron, wrought
iron, carbon steel, and alloy steels, and, finally, the
forging of these products into usable shapes, are all
done at very high temperatures. Water is used for
cooling parts of the furnaces, the rollers, and skid rails.
Hot billets are descaled by means of high-pressure
water jets which provide a combination of thermal
shock and mechanical action. Steel is pickled in a strong
acid solution to remove mill scale and then rinsed with
water. When the metal is to be tinned, galvanized, or
chemically coated for corrosion protection, it is passed
through successive tanks containing alkaline detergent
solutions and rinsed in water.
As impressive as the many uses of water in industrial
processes may be, however, on a statewide basis, the
greatest use of water by industry is for cooling, not
processing. Industrial use of water for cooling in 1970
was larger by one-third than the use for all other
industrial purposes combined. And, the use of cooling
water for electrical energy production that same year
was more than four times greater than the total use for
industrial cooling.
POWER GENERATION
Electrical energy production requires the use of large
quantities of water for two very different kinds of
generating plants. Hydroelectric plants use falling
water to turn turbines which generate electrical energy.
Because hydroelectric plants can begin generating
power almost as soon as water is diverted to them, they
are used today to respond quickly to fluctuations in peak
power demand. In this way, they operate in partnership
with steam plants, fired by fossil or nuclear fuels, which
handle the base load of daily power supply. Although
both types of plants depend upon the availability of
water, electrical energy production is not itself a major
consumptive use of water. Once through the turbines,
the water used by a hydroelectric plant usually flows
downstream for subsequent use in cities and irrigated
agriculture. The water in the boilers of steam plants, on
the other hand, is condensed and reused repeatedly.
While steam plants also employ large amounts of water
for cooling, that water too is either continuously
recirculated by inland plants or used in the form of salt
water passed through the power generating systems of
plants on the coast. Part of the cooling water used by
inland plants, however, is evaporated in cooling towers
and must be replaced.
The use of water for energy grew apace with the
astonishingly rapid expansion of electrical services in
America. The first electrical street lighting system in
the United States was erected in Cleveland in 1877; San
Francisco and New York installed their own systems
only three years later. By 1892, when the San Antonio
Light and Power Company put the first commercially
successful hydroelectric plant in California into opera-
tion, there were 235 municipally owned electric systems
in America. On September 7, 1893, the Redlands
Electric Light and Power Company (since acquired by
the Southern California Edison Company) was the first
to use polyphase transmission now in universal use. In
1895, the same year Niagara Falls began generating
electrical power, a 10,000-volt transmission line was
installed at Folsom for service to Sacramento. And by
the end of 1899, when the Colgate Plant on the Yuba
River began long distance transmission to Oakland 142
miles away, it is estimated that California's hydroelec-
tric resources had reached 21,500 kilowatts.
Early hydropower developments in California were
almost exclusively constructed by investor-owned
utilities to meet the expanding demand for a cheaper
energy supply. These developments usually operated
for the single purpose of power generation, and any
downstream flow improvements in late summer from
reservoir operations were regarded as incidental.
Similarly, nineteenth century developers of water
supplies for urban and agricultural use treated the
hydroelectric generating potential of their projects as
only a happy but definitely subsidiary byproduct of their
efforts. It was not until 1906, for example, that Con-
gress in the Town Sites and Power Act specifically
provided for the lease of surplus power from a reclama-
tion project and even then the lease was forbidden to
interfere in any way with the efficiency of irrigation.
The Los Angeles and San Francisco water projects of
the early twentieth century, however, made energy
production and sales a central feature of both the design
and financing of their systems. Soon, water planners in
Theodore Roosevelt's administration at the federal level
recognized that hydroelectric power sales could provide
the means of financing multi-purpose public water
projects throughout the nation. "It seems clear,"
President Roosevelt wrote in 1902, "that justice to the
taxpayers of the country demands that when the
Government is or may be called upon to improve a
stream, the improvement should be made to pay for
itself, so far as practicable."
The establishment of this linkage between public
water projects and power sales touched off a con-
troversy which eventually emerged as one of the
principal obstacles to water development in California.
Private power companies did not object to water
development per se but they fought mightily to prevent
public agencies from entering the business of distribu-
ting power from these public projects. Private compa-
nies successfully resisted municipalization of the local
power system in San Francisco but lost in Los Angeles.
When the Boulder Canyon Project was proposed,
private power companies throughout the Southwest
rallied in opposition out of a general concern that
increased power supplies from the project would lower
prices and out of a more specific fear that, by increasing
the supply to Los Angeles' municipally owned electric
system, the project would aid the cause of what the
power companies called "socialism." The battle over
public versus private power, however, reached its peak
in the controversy surrounding construction of the
Central Valley Project, a process described in an earlier
section of this volume.
Private utilities today produce and distribute approx-
imately 72 percent of the electrical energy consumed in
California each year. Residential use constituted 30
percent of consumption in 1975, commercial use 29
percent, and industrial use 28 percent. Although
agriculture only consumes approximately two percent
of all the electrical energy used each year, its depend-
ence upon electrical supplies for groundwater pumping
illustrates an important aspect of the relationship
between water and power in California today. In
contrast to the early days of water development— when
electrical power generation was regarded as a profitable
byproduct of a water delivery system— modern water
planners in an era of dwindling energy reserves have
had to take increasing cognizance of the considerable
quantities of energy that are consumed simply in
moving water around the state. Electrically powered
88
_
Fall Creek
Fall Creek (Pacific Pwr & Light) 2
Butt Creek (PG&E)
Lake Almanor (PG&E)
North Fork Feather River (PG&E)
Caribou No.1 & 2 185
Hydroelectric Power Generation
Facilities, Installed Capacities, and Load Factors
1972
Installed Capacity
(x 1000 kilowatts)
25-
South Fork American River Chili Bar 7
SMUD & PG&E) White Rock 190 ■
Camino 142
*Mokelumne River (PG&E) Electra 89"
> Pardee (EBMUD) 15'
'Angels Creek (PG&E) Murphys 4
Angels Camp 1
Stanislaus River Melones 24
(South San Joaquin & Oakdale ID) Tulloch 17
Sullivan Creek (PG&E) Phoenix 2
New Don Pedro 138
letch Hetchy Aqueduct (SFWD) Moccasin 9(J
Tuolumne River La Grange 4
Buck's Creek 55
Poe 124
Forbestown 29 South Fork Feather River
Woodleaf 52 (Oroville-Wyandotte ID)
Dutch Flat No.'l 22 Bear River (PG&E & Nevada ID)
Dutch Flat No. 2 23
Drum No. 2 411 [Spaulding No. 2 4
Drum No.1 49| Spaulding No. 3 6
r- Yuba River (PG&E & Nevada ID) -L Spaulding No.1 7
Farad 3 Truckee River (Sierra Pacific Pwr Co.)
Alta 2
L. J. Stevenson 110 (Placer Co. WA) Middle Fork American River
: rench Meadow 15 (Placer Co. WA) Rubicon River
Loon 74 Gerle Creek (SMUD & PG&E)
Union Valley 33 Silver Creek (SMUD & PG&E)
Robbs Peak 24 Tells Creek (SMUD & PG&E)
El Doradr>20
Jaybird 133 \
Salt Springs No/I & 2 39 North Fork Mokelumne River (PG&E)
^ West Point 14
Tiger Creek 51
Donnells 54 Middle Fork Stanislaus River (PG&E)
Beardsley 10
Spring Gap 6
Stanislaus 82
Holm 135 Cherry Creek (Turlock & Modesto ID)
Kirkwood 68 Tuolumne River (SFDW)
Lundy 3 Mill Creek (SCE)
Poole 10 Lee Vining Creek (SCE)
\
, Rush 8 Rush Creek (SCE)
— 100
— 50
Load Factor (percent)
average generation
installed capacity
The cube symbol on the map represents the installed capacity of the
generating facility. The lower, dark colored, portion of the cube represents
the average power generated annually by the plant over the history of its
operation. This fraction of the total capacity of the powerplant is known as
the load factor. The lighter tint above the load factor represents reserve
capacity which is available to take advantage of water in excess of normal
supply or to meet peak demands.
All powerplants which discharge into the same stream are colored the
same. Each cube is identified by facility name, ownership, installed capa-
city, and stream name. With few exceptions, powerplant ownership is the
same for all facilities on one stream. For that reason, where map space is
critical, ownership codes are attached to stream names.
The largest plant on this map has a capacity 3,500 times greater than the
smallest. The volumes of the three-dimensional cubes have been drawn in
proportion to the cube roots of their actual installed capacities.
Mammoth Pool (SCE)
ncheria
Merced Falls
(PG&E)
|McSwain
New |
Creek
reek
Crane Valley
San Joaquin No. 3
|Exchequer 80 Wishon
Merced River (Merced ID)
San Joaquin No. 2 3
San Joaquin No.1A 0.3
Willow Creek (PG&E)
Kerckhoff (PG&E) 34
Big Creek No. 4 (SCE) 84 "
San Joaquin River Big Creek No. 3 (SCE) 106
Haas 135
Kings River (PG&E)
Balch 128
Kings River 44 <^a ,. ;, .. «
Ar Kawean No 1 2
Kaweah River (SCE) ^0 Kaweah No.2 2
Kaweah No.3 3
Middle Fork Tule River
Tule River (PG&E) 5
Lower Tule (SCE) 2
Ownership Abbreviation Key
DWR
Department of Water Resources
EBMUD
East Bay Municipal Utility District
-- ID
- - Irrigation District
LADWP
Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power
PG&E
Pacific Gas & Electric
SCE
Southern California Edison
SFWD
San Francisco Water Department
SMUD
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
USBR
US Bureau of Reclamation
USNPS
US National Park Service
-- WA
- - Water Agency
Upper Gorge 38
Middle Gorge 38
Control Gorge" 38
Measant Valley 3.
Owens River
(LADWP)
\
shop Creek No. 6 2
shop Creek No. 5 4
Bishop Creek (SCE)
tig Pine 3 Big Pine Creek (LADWP)
vision Creek 1 Division Creek (LADWP)
shop Creek No.4 7
ishop Creek No.3 7
Bishop Creek No.2 7
Big Creek No.1 67
| Cottonwood No.3 2
Los Angeles Aqueduct (LADWP)
Kern River
wmm
\\ver No.3 (SCE) 32
Borel (PG&E) 9
Kern River No.1 (SCE) 16
Kern Canyon (SCE) 8
Los Angeles Aqueduct (LADWP)
San Francisquito No.1 58
San Antonio Creek (SCE)
Ontario No.2 0.3
Sierra Pumphouse 0.5
Ontario No.1 0.6
San Gabriel River
Azusa (City of Pasadena) 3 l^*
O^
Franklin Canyon (
Franklin Canyon (LADWP) 2
Lytle Creek (SCE)
Lytle Creek 0.4
Fontana 1.9
California Aqueduct (East Branch)
Devils Canyon (DWR) 120
Santa Ana River (SCE)
Santa Ana No.3 1.2
r Santa Ana No.2 0.8
Santa Ana No.1 3.2
<2| San Gorgonio No.1 1.5
$*^ San Gorgonio No.2 0.8
Mill Creek No.1 0.8
Mill Creek No.2 0.2
Mill Creek No.3 1.8 Mill Creek (SCE)
Whitewater River (SCE)
XSWMl
All American Canal (Imperial ID)
Pilot Knob 33~|
Drop No.2 10
Drop No.3 9.8
Drop No.4 19.6
Yuma Canal
(USBR)
Siphon Drop 1.6
The streets of Los Angeles were
illuminated by electricity for the
first time on Hew Year's Eve,
1882. The arc light in the upper
photograph at right was one of
seven installed on 150-foot poles
at Main Street near Commercial
and at First and Hill Streets.
California today is experiment-
ing with a new source of power
from water through the develop-
ment of geothermal power plants
like the one shown below.
pumps, for example, lift an average of 15 million acre-
feet of water a year from underground reservoirs to
provide approximately 40 percent of the irrigation
water used by California agriculture. Both the Colorado
River Aqueduct and the State Water Project use more
energy than they generate. Under ultimate project
water deliveries, in fact, hydroelectric power plants on
the State Water Project will generate only 40 percent of
the estimated 12 billion kilowatt-hours per year the
State Water Project will require by the year 2000; the
rest will have to be obtained from other sources.
These considerations, together with other factors in
the rapidly changing energy picture for California, have
caused some experts to predict a renewed interest in
hydroelectric power plant construction. In the first
decade of the twentieth century, hydroelectric plants
replaced many steam plants because hydroelectric
plants offered lower operating costs at a time when
fuels were expensive. Even until the early 1950s,
hydroelectric plants generated more than half of the
electrical energy produced in California. As the most
economical hydroelectric sites were developed, how-
ever, and steam plant technology improved, nuclear and
fossil fuel steam plants assumed a larger part of the
burden of supplying California's demand. By 1975, 174
hydroelectric plants with a combined capacity of 8,440
megawatts generated only 30 percent of the total
energy produced in California, while 63 steam plants
with a combined capacity of 25,735 megawatts pro-
duced almost all the rest.
If fossil fuel costs continue to escalate, however, and
resistance to nuclear power development does not
diminish, hydroelectric power generation may become
increasingly attractive as a power source which depends
upon a non-consumptive use of a renewable resource.
Although few new dams are being constructed in
California, plans are underway for construction of
power plants below several existing dams that were
built without power plants due to unfavorable econom-
ic conditions at the time. These tentative plans include
the addition of power plants at such sites as the
Thermalito Diversion and Warm Springs dams. Further
development of hydroelectric power in California,
however, will be restricted by the limited number of
suitable sites that have not already been developed.
INLAND NAVIGATION
California's rivers were the original routes of
commerce. John Sutter operated the first large vessel on
the Sacramento River between 1840 and 1848. As
hordes of new immigrants began to arrive in San
Francisco following the discovery of gold in 1849,
dozens of steamboat companies sprang up to work the
trade routes to the gold fields along the Sacramento,
Feather, Yuba, and American rivers. Many of these
companies consolidated in 1854 to form the California
Steam Navigation Company. On the Sacramento,
steamboats navigated regularly as far upstream as
Colusa and Chico Landing. On the San Joaquin River,
there was a twice-weekly service available between
Stockton and Fresno. And on the Feather, waterfronts
developed at Marysville and Oroville. The onslaught of
debris from hydraulic mining, however, put an end to
navigation above Sacramento and the railroads bought
out the California Steam Navigation Company in 1869
as part of their increasing domination of California's
transportation network. By the 1890s, when other
states began to press for the expansion of their inland
harbors and waterways, inland navigation in California
seemed to have entered upon an irreversible decline as
demands increased for other uses of the state's limited
water resources for irrigation, urban development, and
electrical power generation.
California's first state engineer, William Hammond
Hall, envisioned in the nineteenth century a system of
canals in the San Joaquin Valley which would operate
not only for drainage and water supply but also for
transport using long chains of electrically powered
barges carrying freight and produce throughout the
valley. When the Central Valley Project and State
Water Project were finally built, however, navigation
was no longer a central feature of their design. The
principal responsibility for the development of naviga-
tion within California consequently passed to the Army
Corps of Engineers. Authorized by Congress in 1852 to
assist in the development of civilian works, the Corps
played a major role in the development of ports at San
Diego, San Francisco, and Oakland. Inland, it worked to
improve river navigation through dredging and the
removal of obstructions along the San Joaquin and
Sacramento rivers.
The Corps' devotion to its principal mission of
enhancing navigation often set it at odds with water
planners at the state and federal levels near the turn of
the century. As the concept of multi-purpose water
development gained currency with the advent of
Theodore Roosevelt's administration, for example, the
Corps strenuously resisted new programs for water
conservation, reclamation, and a coordinated, basin-
wide approach to the development of water resources.
The need, according to Corps officials, was "to differen-
tiate instead of coordinate" and navigation should
always be made the primary feature of river develop-
ment with all other uses secondary to that. The Corps'
major role in the development of the Sacramento Flood
Control system, for example, was played out under a
formal guise of improving navigation because the Corps
at that time was reluctant to involve itself directly in
flood control.
Although navigation is still a major part of its
program, the Corps' range of activities has expanded
today to include flood control, wastewater manage-
ment, and beach erosion protection. California's two
major inland ports, Stockton and Sacramento, operate
on commercial navigation channels created by the
Corps of Engineers. The deep-water port at Stockton
opened in 1933 and today handles bulk and processed
agricultural products primarily for export. Since its
opening in 1963, the Port of Sacramento has expanded
an export trade tied to the bulk handling and processing
of rice, lumber, and wood chips, as well as farm products
from the Sacramento Valley and many other mid-
America products shipped to the Port through an
extensive rail and highway system. Together the ports
of Sacramento and Stockton account for about five
percent of the total deep-draft shipping in California. In
1977, the Port of Sacramento handled 1.8 million tons
of shipping on 121 ships while the Port of Stockton
handled 2.5 million tons on 101 ships. Both ports have
regularly scheduled barge service to San Francisco Bay
and the Pacific and this shallow-draft traffic accounts
for approximately one-fourth of the total tonnage
handled by the ports.
Many experts foresee a gradual increase in inland
commercial navigation although estimates of the
anticipated growth rate vary widely. In California the
growth of commercial navigation has been and will
continue to be closely related to the expansion of
agriculture and the continued development of the
state's transportation system. Overall development of
commercial navigation, however, depends not only
upon the expansion of physical facilities such as docks,
terminals, and warehouses but also upon commodity
manipulations, foreign exchange rates, and technology
advancement in the export markets. The most immedi-
ate planned improvements that could influence the
growth of the ports of Sacramento and Stockton, given
suitable world market conditions, include studies by the
Corps of Engineers to deepen the San Francisco Bay
approaches to inland waters at Collinsville to 45 feet and
then deepen to 35-45 feet the Sacramento and Stockton
ship channels. The completion of these improvements
would permit larger-tonnage carriers and deeper-draft
l8xi~
■:£;*;«£
W*\s
m
In the State Water Project, where recreation and the
enhancement of fish and wildlife have been made a part
of planning and development, a number of project
features are included that would not have been possible
had recreation been added as an afterthought. For
instance, at all State Water Project reservoirs, recrea-
tional lands have been acquired along with lands needed
for other project purposes. More than 45,000 acre-feet
of the project's annual capacity was built to deliver
water for specific recreation needs — drinking water,
water to irrigate landscaping, water to maintain live
streams, and water for recreational pools.
Recreational activity and resources generally do not
consume significant quantities of water. Usually, the
development of recreational facilities takes place on a
lake, reservoir, or stream that would have existed in any
event. When a water surface is maintained solely for
recreational use, however, evaporation losses from the
surface and transpiration losses from vegetation at its
edges do constitute consumptive uses that must be
charged to recreation. Water released to streams for
recreational use, as occurs on the American River, is
usually recaptured downstream and used again for
other purposes. Consumptive uses do occur, however,
when the flow cannot be recovered, as in the case of a
release to a coastal stream that reaches the ocean. The
use of water for drinking and sanitation, and for
irrigation of landscaped areas, is also a factor at every
recreation site. Although such uses are usually moder-
ate, a recreational facility which attracts great concen-
trations of people at the same time, such as a ski resort,
can create problems by, for example, overloading the
capacity of a local wastewater treatment facility during
those periods of peak usage.
Ham Hall's original plan for a
water project in the Central Val-
ley included a water-borne trans-
portation system to serve the
needs of agricultural commerce.
But when the state and federal
governments built their modern
systems, inland navigation was
no longer a part of their plans.
The painting at left shows a
steamboat calling at a stock farm
near Courtland.
shipping to enter the Delta directly instead of transfer-
ring their cargo to barges to lighten the loads. Contrary
plans, however, call for the use of small-unit cargo
carriers between inland ports which would then be
loaded directly onto very large container ships at
centralized container terminals in San Francisco Bay.
Therefore, while commercial waterborne traffic is
expected to grow,the extent and location of this growth
is difficult to predict.
The most rapidly expanding aspect of navigation in
terms of vessel numbers and movements is occurring in
recreation. The California recreational fleet has in-
creased from 288,000 to 540,000 craft since 1962.
Waters suitable for boating exist throughout the state,
although in some areas, particularly the central and
south coastal regions, inland lakes and reservoirs are
limited in number and size with the result that a heavier
burden is placed on the ocean and coastal bays. In terms
of size and boat accommodations, the Pacific Ocean is
virtually unlimited while the channels of the Sacra-
mento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco and Suisun
bays provide thousands of miles of boating waterways.
The Delta waterways, by virtue of their 40,000 surface
acres, offer in fact some of the most diverse recreational
opportunities for boating in the United States.
RECREATIONAL BENEFITS
A major national survey of recreation conducted in
the 1960s reported that 44 percent of the American
people prefer water-based recreational activities over all
others. Calif ornians are especially attracted to water-
based recreation. A California recreation plan also
prepared in the 1960s estimated that nearly 60 percent
of the state's total recreational activity occurs near
streams, reservoirs, lakes, or the ocean. Typical recrea-
tion scenes, such as a Chamber of Commerce would use
to illustrate a poster, might show:
- Swimming, surfing, and sailboating on the South-
ern California coast;
- Steelhead fishing in streams of the North Coast;
- Trout fishing or snow skiing in the Sierra Nevada;
-Water-skiing on the foothill reservoirs of the
Central Valley or Southern California; and,
- Boating on the waterways of the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta.
Even those activities not directly dependent on
water — camping, hiking, picnicking, and bird watch-
ing — are enhanced by the presence of a serene lake or
quiet stream. Only in interior Southern California
might it be expected that a typical recreation scene
would be other than water-associated. Perhaps a desert
recreation scene would be most likely, but even in such a
scene there would be a good chance of a swimming pool
being shown.
Most water-related recreation in California — like
most other outdoor recreation — is provided by govern-
mental agencies. Approximately half of the state is
owned by the federal government, and most of the
agencies managing these federal lands recognize
recreational enhancement as one of their responsibili-
ties. The National Park Service and the United States
Forest Service manage some of the most magnificent
resources in California — many of them of a water
resources character. The two large federal water
agencies — the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army
Corps of Engineers — have developed numerous water
projects offering major water recreation benefits. The
Bureau of Land Management also controls vast
amounts of land and is currently expanding its role of
offering recreation opportunities. State agencies with
significant water-related recreation programs include
the departments of Parks and Recreation, Fish and
Game, Water Resources, and Navigation and Ocean
Development. And, local agencies — cities, counties, and
many types of districts — provide recreation services and
programs of all sorts.
The dramatic increase in the recreational use of water
projects began shortly after World War Two. Califor-
nia's rapidly growing population found itself with more
leisure time, greater disposable income, and greater
mobility. As a result, many people increased their
participation in outdoor recreation. As the natural lakes
and streams became heavily developed and crowded,
recreationists began flocking to newly completed
reservoirs. Water planning and development agencies,
which had formerly added recreational facilities and
operations only as an afterthought to existing projects,
now began to include them in their planning. In fact,
water agencies were the first to recommend that
recreation should be treated as a water project purpose
and included with irrigation, hydroelectric power, flood
control, and other traditional purposes in the planning
and financing of multi-purpose projects.
In 1961 the California Legislature enacted the Davis-
Dolwig Act, setting forth a policy which declared for the
first time that recreation and the enhancement of fish
and wildlife resources are among the purposes of water
projects constructed by the state. Comparable legisla-
tion affecting federal programs was enacted in 1965 as
the Federal Project Recreation Act. Legislation has also
been enacted to encourage the integration of recreation
as a project purpose in water projects undertaken by
local agencies. The Davis-Grunsky Act, for example,
which provides financial assistance to local water
projects in several ways, furnishes grants to projects
that include recreation and fish and wildlife enhance-
ment among their purposes. Since the program began
in 1958, a total of $62,500,000 in grants has been
approved for 33 water projects that include recreational
programs as part of their operations.
These photographs illustrate only
a few of the many ways water is
used in recreation for swimming,
skiing, white-water kayaking as
well as for quiet comtemplation.
The hotel at Redondo Beach in
the photograph above was one of
the most popular resorts in Cali-
fornia at the turn of the century,
and it was here some say that the
Hawaiian sport of surfing was
first introduced to the mainland.
91
Region/County
Planning District 1
Del Norte; Humboldt;
Lake; Mendocino
Planning District 2
Butte; Colusa; Glenn;
Lassen; Modoc; Plumas;
Shasta; Siskiyou; Tehama;
Trinity
Planning District 3
El Dorado; Nevada; Placer;
Sacramento; Sierra;
Sutter; Yolo; Yuba
Planning District 4
Alameda; Contra Costa;
Marin; Napa; San Francisco;
San Mateo; Santa Clara;
Solano; Sonoma
Planning District 5
Alpine; Amador; Calaveras;
Merced; San Joaquin;
Stanislaus; Tuolumne
Planning District 6
Fresno; Kern; Kings;
Madera; Mariposa; Tulare
Planning District 7
Monterey; San Benito;
San Luis Obispo; Santa
Barbara; Santa Cruz
Planning District 8
Imperial; Los Angeles;
Orange; Riverside; San
Bernardino; Ventura
Planning District 9
San Diego
Planning District 10
Inyo; Mono
State Total
1,133,900 5,476,730
4,955,100 4,746,080
732,500 6,158,140
1,183,700 15,396,170 4,383,791
891,100
7,188,320
10,700,900 24,788,690 5,785,915
1,672,300
25,000
2,739,560
8,448,590
21,891,000 101,563,500 33,040,986
Public Water Recreation Facilities
Acreage of
Publicly
Operated Land Surface Area Surface Area Vessel Boat Boat Boat
Population Total Area and Water of Lakes of Reservoirs Registrations Berthings Moorings Ramp Lanes
July 1, 1977 (acres) for Recreation (acres) (acres) 1977 1977 1977 1977
212,200 6,041,410 1,466,642
384,300 20,579,810 9,711,861
48,905
338,504
9,740
204,046
13,349
27,239
3,811
4,202
2,202
1,378
205
269
1,661,910
416,502
128,530
460
58,103
45,379
53,164
131,722
4,508
20,088
1,269
1,247
196
274
1,559,313
1 ,486,939
5,859
16,210
1,218
225,457
859,616
5,708,497
60,304
825,456
73,985
85,307
22,514
70,660
17,815
15,731
603,280
32,288
29,761
23,004
197,482
32,562
1,232
542,665
4,610
2,101
4,262
30,669
7,678
347
82,276
484
1,302
903
3,127
150
206
12,268
137
155
74
400
92
41
1,843
This table provides several indexes of the extent of water addition, these figures do not include the extensive recreational
recreation facilities available in California. Not all publicly owned use made of the state's streams and rivers. Counties have been
lands are open to the public and only those which are available for grouped according to the planning districts of the state Depart-
recreational use have been included in the totals shown here. In ment of Parks and Recreation.
As a consequence of being included as a full project
purpose, recreation has also been made to assume some
of the burdens of water project development. In a multi-
purpose project, the costs of joint project facilities are
allocated among the various uses for which the project
has been built. In the State Water Project, for example,
recreation has already paid more than $51 million in
joint costs allocated to it and, when all joint costs are
allocated, the Department of Water Resources esti-
mates that recreation's share will reach $100 to $200
million. Funds for many of these specific recreation and
fish and wildlife costs have come from bond issues
approved by the people of the state. Proposition 20 in
the General Election of 1970 provided $60 million for
State Water Project recreation and fish and wildlife
facilities. Proposition 2 of the 1976 General Election
included an additional $26 million for this purpose.
With the expansion of recreational facilities has come
an increasing sensitivity to the changes in recreational
opportunities which are a necessary consequence of
water development. The regulation of streamflows, for
example, shifts the recreational use of a particular water
resource from stream to lake fishing, from kayaking to
motorboating, and from bird watching to more inten-
sive camping. From the years following World War Two
through the 1960s, most water projects which included
recreational development were welcomed. Such proj-
ects were looked upon as providing large water surfaces
for recreation at a time when the demand for water-
related recreation greatly exceeded the supply. Opposi-
tion to these projects from those who might prefer to
keep a river environment in its natural state was not
often heard.
Beginning in the late 1960s, however, as the result of
a popular surge of environmentalconcern, greater
value came to be placed on natural environments than
on artificial ones, and voices preferring natural and
free-flowing streams to impounded water were heard
with increasing effect. The impact of this movement on
water-associated recreation has brought a great in-
crease in interest and participation in very active
instream recreational sports such as whitewater
boating, kayaking, and rafting on flowing streams. One
major effect of this new interest was the enactment by
the California Legislature of the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act of 1972. This new law protects five river systems
from development or use that would impair their free-
flowing character and prohibits state agencies from
providing any assistance to federal projects which might
have these effects.
In any range of activities as broad and diverse as
California's water-based recreation, there will probably
never be uniform agreement on resource use priorities.
Fishermen will probably always resent intrusions by
water-skiers, and whitewater boaters will have differ-
ent development priorities than those who enjoy the
large open expanses of reservoirs. As the state's
population continues to grow, the job of allocating
resources among the different recreational interest
groups will become more difficult. Now that recreation
interests have been included in planning for resource
use, however, it is essential to provide a means of
expression for those with differing viewpoints in order
that the great variety of water-associated recreational
opportunities that exist now in California will continue
to exist in the future.
CHAPTER 10
Water Quality
Although the long history of human involvement
with the water environment has been focused upon
efforts to rearrange the natural distribution of water
supplies within California so as to enhance a wide
range of human activities, the last three decades
have brought an increasing appreciation of the fact
that water quality can act as just as important a con-
straint upon use as water quantity. The term water
quality should not suggest a value judgment con-
cerning the innate good of a particular water
source; for, the very constituents in a water sample
which would make it unacceptable for one type of
use may enhance its suitability for another use.
Modern programs for the protection and enchance-
ment of water quality therefore emphasize control
rather than the eradication of all the elements in
water which can affect its quality. Pure, distilled
water is seldom found in nature, and, if our water
supplies were this pure, most life systems in the
natural environment could not survive. The goal of
water quality control consequently involves the
maintenance of a balance between the competing
needs of all aspects of our environment for water
possessing very different qualities and constituents.
NATURAL WATER QUALITY
Because the world's water supply is fixed and
virtually no part of that supply has been added or
lost since the formation of the planet, the water we
rely upon today is the result of continuous recycling
and cleaning by natural processes. Evaporation and
transpiration by plants are the principal natural
methods of water purification, and both of these
natural processes are powered by solar energy. Once
water molecules condense into water vapor in the
atmosphere, however, they begin picking up addi-
tional properties almost immediately. Water vapor
collects around minute particles of salt and dust and
liquid water in the atmosphere tends to become
saturated with gases. Carbon dioxide, although it
makes up only a small part of the total volume of the
atmosphere, most frequently combines with atmos-
pheric moisture because it is very soluble. Atmos-
pheric water can also contain other gases which are
the result of volcanic eruptions; natural, bilogical, or
chemical processes; or human air pollution.
The impact of a broad range of
human activities that affect water
quality can be seen in the sedi-
ment plumes discoloring the wa-
ters of San Pablo Bay. Moving
clockwise from the Richmond-
San Rafael Bridge at bottom, the
bay is ringed by reclaimed agri-
cultural lands, the Mare Island
Naval Shipyard at Vallejo, and
the complex of oil refineries and
sewage treatment facilities near
Richmond.
The great quantities of sediment
carried by the Eel River appear
here as a vivid blue extending
into the ocean beyond the river's
mouth. Eureka, Areata, and the
wood processing plants on Hum-
boldt Bay are at left.
When gases combine with atmospheric water, weak
acids are formed that aid in the breakdown of rock
when the moisture falls to earth as precipitation. Rain
and melting snow and ice thus work to dissolve
minerals that are then washed into streams and
percolate into groundwater reservoirs. The minerals
dissolved in water reflect the geology of the water-
shed. The streams draining the granitic watersheds of
the Sierra Nevada, for example, are low in dissolved
solids and suspended sediment, while the streams of
the North Coast have higher dissolved solids and
carry large amounts of suspended sediment.
Vegetation also helps to determine water quality
within individual watersheds. Bicarbonate waters are
usually found in areas of lush plant growth and some
metals which are stored by plants may enter the
water system when the plants decay. Accordingly,
temperature, rainfall, geology, vegetation, and the
seasonality of runoff all work to produce variations in
natural water quality which can change with the sea-
son, month, or day.
Human activities have had a profound influence
upon these natural processes. Rainfall has been
chemically altered by concentrated air pollutants in
some areas, producing acid rains which destroy vege-
tation, accelerate the weathering of rocks, and harm
fish. Dams modify the natural transport of sediment
and organic material in streams and rivers. Municipal
sewage plants, irrigation, and industrial growth have
introduced a wide range of nutrients, chemicals, and
pollutants to natural water bodies. The construction
of highways and housing, logging, and some agricul-
tural activities have enhanced surface runoff and
erosion. And water temperature has been changed by
the discharge of cooling water used in certain indus-
trial processes and in the generation of electrical
energy. The growing recognition of the detrimental
effects of these human influences upon the water
environment prompted the development over the last
three decades of an increasingly sophisticated range
of water quality control programs. With the develop-
ment of these programs has come, in turn, a greater
understanding of the specific constraints which the
various elements of water quality impose upon water
use.
QUALITY AS A CONSTRAINT UPON USE
In general, the elements of water quality which are
most directly related to human use have been divided
into three broad categories of impurities, pollutants,
and contaminants. Impurities are physical, chemical,
or biological substances found in water and include:
dissolved gases such as carbon dioxide; dissolved
solids such as decomposing plant and animal matter-
dissolved minerals such as calcium, magnesium,
chlorides, sulfates, and bicarbonates; and suspended
and settleable solids such as the colloidal material that
causes coloring and turbidity. Pollutants are sub-
stances in water that impair the usefulness of water
or make it offensive to the senses. Sediments, and
floating matter such as grease, oil, or organic matter
are all pollutants. Pathogenic organisms or toxic sub-
stances that make water unfit for human or animal
consumption or domestic use are called contaminants
and include bacteria, viruses, protozoa, flukes
(worms), heavy metals, toxic organic compounds, and
radioactive substances.
The study of the full range of chemical, physical,
biological, and bacteriological properties of water
involves measurements of minute quantities of
material. Quantities of dissolved chemicals in water
are often expressed in nearly equivalent terms as
parts per million or milligrams per liter. The range of
concentration levels which are acceptable for certain
uses can be similarly small. A concentration of 13
parts per million of dissolved oxygen, for example, is
considered quite high, while a concentration of four
parts per million is low. Boron, a minor constituent of
most water, is an essential element for plant growth
but is fatal in excess for most vegetation. Sugar beets,
lettuce, and asparagus, for example, can tolerate
boron concentrations as high as four milligrams per
liter, but trees in citrus orchards may be damaged if
their water supply contains more than one milligram
per liter.
The concentration of dissolved oxygen is one of the
most widely used indicators of the biochemical con-
dition of water because it indicates how much "free"
oxygen (that not chemically bound with other
elements) is available for respiration by plants and
aquatic organisms and for organic and inorganic
chemical reactions. Unlike most other parameters of
water quality, a high level of dissolved oxygen con-
centration is considered desirable. Because oxygen is
needed by bacteria to break down plant and animal
wastes, a low level of dissolved oxygen would suggest
the presence of large concentrations of these wastes.
Water bodies display fluctuations in the level of
dissolved oxygen both in the long and short run.
Temperature affects the amount of dissolved oxygen
water can hold; the higher the temperature the less
oxygen water can dissolve. Organic material, the
magnitude of flow, and the gradient of the stream
also affect dissolved oxygen levels. All other things
being equal, dissolved oxygen levels would be higher
in a steep mountain stream than in a slowly moving
river on a flood plain.
The amount of waste in a stream can also be
measured in terms of the amount of oxygen required
for chemical reactions. These relationships are
expressed as biochemical oxygen demand or chemical
oxygen demand. If there is not enough oxygen to
meet the demand for these reactions then anaerobic
reactions can begin, producing noxious and some-
times explosive gases.
California has several areas where low levels of dis-
solved oxygen have been a problem, most notably in
the San Francisco Bay. In the 1960s, for example, the
inflow of municipal and industrial wastes created low
levels of dissolved oxygen in the South Bay and in
many of the streams tributary to the northern
portions of the Bay. Improved sewage treatment
techniques in recent years, however, have achieved
some progress in correcting these problems.
High levels of suspended sediments in a stream may
be due to natural conditions within a drainage basin,
or they may be caused by road building, logging, over-
grazing of pasture lands, fire, agriculture, or urban
development. Erosion rates can be increased four to
nine times by some types and methods of agricultural
development and by as much as ten times by
construction activities. The presence of dams on a
stream can substantially alter the natural concentra-
tions of sediment. The high dams on the Colorado
River, for example, have reduced the large quantities
of sediment this river once carried and these sedi-
ments have accumulated in the reservoirs behind the
dams. On the Trinity River below Clair Engle Reser-
voir, however, controlled releases of water have so
reduced the natural flow of the river that the main-
stream cannot dispose of the silt delivered by its
tributaries. As a result, the stream bed is suffering
from siltation.
If a stream or river does not flow at a rate sufficient
to carry its sediment load, numerous problems can
result. Deposited material can blanket fish spawning
gravels, smother aquatic organisms that dwell on the
bottom of stream beds, and interfere with the respira-
tion of fish eggs. Turbid waters, by reducing light
penetration, can also reduce the population of photo-
synthesizing microorganisms which are a primary
food source in the aquatic food chain. In addition, high
loads of sediment increase the costs of water treat-
ment and can interfere with irrigation by leaving a
hard layer of sediment on the topsoil which seedlings
may have difficulty breaking through.
The total dissolved solids in water indicates the
concentration of inorganic salts and other dissolved
materials. Although the concentration of total dis-
solved solids can be measured in parts per million, this
determination requires the filtration and drying of a
water sample. A more practical method measures the
specific conductivity of water. Two electrodes are
placed in the water and the resistance of the water to
the flow of an electrical current is measured. The
higher the conductance, the higher the concentration
of dissolved solids. The advantage of this method is
that it is quick and can be done in the field. The result
is commonly expressed in micromhos.
Excess dissolved solids are objectionable in drinking
water because they affect the taste of the water,
induce possible physiological effects, and usually
What appear to be waves in this aerial view of Clear Lake in
Northern California are in fact non-point source pollutants which
the wind has whipped to froth.
EXAMPLES OF WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS
Modern water quality control programs must deal with a
wide range of problems which originate in different ways
and require correspondingly diverse responses. The prob-
lems of water quality on the Santa Ana and Trinity rivers
and at Lake Tahoe suggest the breadth of this diversity.
The demands placed upon the Santa Ana River for in-
dustry, recreation, and urban development greatly ex-
ceeded the capacity of this small Southern California
stream. Flows at some times declined to only one or two
cubic feet per second, resulting in excessive concentrations
of nutrients, salts, bacteria, and virus. Beginning in 1971, a
plan was formulated to augment the flows of the river with
wastewater effluents from a series of three new regional
treatment plants which would replace the eight plants al-
ready located on the river. Industrial discharges high in
boron and salts were limited within the basin, and some
saline effluents are now piped to Orange County for dis-
charge into the ocean.
Completion of the Trinity Dam in 1962 drastically altered
the regimen of the lower Trinity River. The Trinity water-
shed has a naturally high sediment yield which has been in-
creased by logging and construction activities within the
basin. With the diversion of a million acre-feet of water to
the Central Valley Project, streamflows on the lower
stretches of the river declined to the point that the spawn-
ing beds of anadromous fish silted in and willows and other
vegetation began to encroach upon the stream bed, thereby
further slowing the river's flow and complicating the prob-
lems of sedimentation. A task force composed of federal,
state, and local representatives is now at work developing a
20-year program for the rehabilitation of the river through
the removal of barriers, the construction of sediment catch-
ments and riffles, and the stocking of anadromous fish.
At Lake Tahoe, the problem of protecting the clarity of
this largest of North American alpine lakes involves the
control of non-point sources of sediment and nutrientw.
Sewage at Lake Tahoe is pumped out of the basin and con-
struction practices have been controlled for the last 15
years. The rate of new development along the shoreline,
however, and the effects of airborne pollutants have re-
sulted in siltation and the growth of algae near the shore
and especially in the areas around the mouths of tributary
streams. The 208 plan for Lake Tahoe was rejected by Cali-
fornia's Water Resources Control Board and is currently
being revised. Meanwhile, negotiations between California
and Nevada are proceeding over the means of developing an
effective program for regulating the rate of new growth
and development within the basin.
create a need to use large amounts of detergent for
washing. Many industries set specific limits on the
concentration of dissolved solids acceptable for their
use. If the quantity of dissolved solids in irrigation
water is high enough, agriculture can also be affected
because the salts will accumulate in the root zone,
thereby reducing the crop yield and creating a need
for larger volumes of irrigation water to flush the
salts from the soil.
High concentrations of calcium, magnesium, and
certain metals decrease the effectiveness of soap. This
quality, called hardness, causes scale on radiators,
boilers, water heaters, pipes, and other water fix-
tures; toughens cooked vegetables; and increases
wear on clothes. Limestone deposits are a natural
source of hardness, although inorganic chemical
processing plants and some mining activities can also
contribute to hardness.
Heavy metals in water, such as cadmium, iron, lead,
mercury, and arsenic, usually occur in trace amounts
which require extremely sensitive equipment to be
measured. These substances, however, do not break
down organically and hence they become concen-
trated in plant and animal tissues along the food
chain. Runoff from urban areas and drainage from
operating and abandoned mines in the Sierra and
Klamath mining areas are common sources of heavy
metals in California waters. Water degradation from
mine drainage can be controlled by regrading or seal-
ing the mine, diverting its drainage, or by the use of
chemical and biological inhibitors to reduce acid for-
mation. Arsenic pollution can result from residual
concentrations of certain types of pesticides which
are no longer in use today.
Many pesticides are extremely poisonous. Only a
few parts per billion, or even parts per trillion in the
case of some compounds, can be extremely toxic to
fish and other aquatic life. In 1976 an estimated 252 to
290 million pounds of pesticides were used in
California to control weeds and insects. Next to air,
water is the most common method for the transpor-
tation of pesticides within the environment. These
toxic organic chemicals enter the water supply
directly through some industrial processes, agricul-
tural discharge, spillage, and illegal dumping. They
can also enter water systems indirectly, however, by
drifting away from areas where pesticides are being
sprayed, through surface runoff from treated fields,
and by leaching or return flows from irrigation. Like
heavy metals, pesticides concentrate in plant and
animal tissues and many of these compounds are con-
sidered to be carcinogenic to humans. Although many
pesticides are designed to deteriorate rapidly when
exposed to sunlight and air, they may persist for
months or even years in water.
Agricultural activities can also cause excessive con-
centrations of nitrogen, which is an important con-
stituent of many fertilizers. Nitrogen in its various
forms is an important nutrient for plants. But when it
occurs in sufficient concentration in drinking water,
it can be hazardous to infant children. Excessive con-
centrations of nitrogen also accelerate the natural
process of eutrophication in lakes and reservoirs by
which the water becomes so rich in nutrients that
algal blooms form and the resulting abundance of
aquatic organisms eventually depletes the oxygen
content of the water. Small amounts of nitrogen are
found in rocks and much higher concentrations are
found in most soils and organic matter. Some nitro-
gen, generally in the form of nitrates, is found in rain-
water. When used by plants, nitrogen usually returns
to the soil upon the death of the plants, where some of
it is carried away by subsurface percolation and
surface runoff. Other sources of nitrogen pollution
include municipal and industrial effluent, feed lots,
and septic tanks.
The acidity or alkalinity of water is measured by the
pH factor. The pH scale ranges from 1 to 14, with 1 to
7 being acid, 7 to 14 being alkaline, and 7 being
neutral. A change of one point on this scale repre-
sents a ten-fold increase in acidity or alkalinity. The
pH of water is measured for public water supplies to
determine what treatment process to employ. Acidic
waters may be corrosive to pipes and treatment
facilities. In addition, certain water treatment and
sewage treatment processes work most effectively
within certain pH ranges. Water acidity is also an
important consideration in the management of
fisheries. Ranges of 6.5 to 9.0 are considered harmless
to fish. Outside this range, however, fish begin suf-
fering physiologically. The pH range itself is not a
problem for fish and aquatic animals and plants, but
certain chemical reactions become lethal for fish at pH
levels outside this range. For example, ammonia,
which is a major component of sewage discharges, can
be completely safe at pH 7.0 and extremely toxic to
fish at pH 8.5 for the same total ammonia concentra-
tion.
Although the various elements described so far are
important in determining water quality, tempera-
ture is a factor which can affect nearly all of the
chemical, physical, and biological properties of water.
Temperature is an important agent in any chemical
reaction and heat can consequently affect the sanitary
and aesthetic condition of any water body. Higher
temperatures accelerate the biodegradation of
organic material. This accelerated "cleaning," how-
ever, also means that more dissolved oxygen will be
demanded, even though the ability of water to hold
dissolved oxygen decreases as temperature increases.
Temperature also determines the kinds of plants and
animals that will flourish within water bodies.
Different species live and, more importantly, repro-
duce at different temperatures. Anadromous fish
migrate in response to temperature changes and their
eggs require water that is around 50 degrees
Fahrenheit. Temperature also directly affects human
uses of water. Industrial uses for processing and cool-
ing require water of a certain temperature and
temperature also influences the effectiveness of
water and sewage treatment processes. Coliform
bacteria for example, tend to die more quickly in
warmer waters. Warmer water is also desired for
certain agricultural products such as rice because
warmth accelerates growth.
WATER QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAMS
Although water quality control has become a
central part of all water planning in the United States
only in the years since World War Two, people have
probably been concerned about water quality
management since the earliest days of water develop-
ment. The ancient Romans, for example, learned to
their regret that dumping refuse indiscriminately on
land overlying and abutting their local water sources
would foul them beyond use, and it was this discovery
which drove the Romans to construct aqueducts to
distant supplies beyond the influence of their pollu-
tion. In California, the resistance to the introduction
of systematic irrigation in the nineteenth century was
fueled in part by fears that so much standing water
would enhance the spread of disease. Opponents of
Los Angeles' aqueduct to the Owens Valley charged,
incorrectly, that the city's new source of supply was
polluted by alkali and cow droppings from
agricultural operations around Bishop. And one of
the many things that agitated the early settlers of the
Imperial and Coachella valleys to campaign so vigor-
ously for construction of the All-American Canal was
the fact that corpses from revolutionary Mexico
sometimes floated into their irrigation systems.
Although domestic water supplies have existed in
the United States since the Water Works Company of
Boston began service to Conduit Street in 1632, the
formation of water quality control agencies was
delayed until 1869, when the Massachusetts State
Board of Health was formed in response to findings
by European bacteriologists that epidemic diseases
were passed through drinking water contaminated by
untreated wastes. For the most part, dangers to public
health in domestic water supplies arise from the
presence of contaminants in the water. Pathogenic
organisms are those that cause disease or death in
people and animals. Viruses are organisms that attach
to the cell walls of the host, inject their own structure
into the cell, and cause the cell to acquire the charac-
teristics of the virus. Although viruses are very
difficult to detect and remove from public drinking
water supplies, they are responsible for such diseases
as aseptic meningitis, infectious hepatitis, and polio.
Probably no other creature has
played so central a role in man-
kind's rearrangement of the nat-
ural waterscape as the mosquito,
seen below in its larval stage.
Many of the most densely popu-
lated areas of California today
were once uninhabitable malarial
bogs, and it was the fear of the
diseases mosquitoes spread which
lent support for the reclamation
programs of the nineteenth cen-
tury. The opposition to the intro-
duction of systematic irrigation
at the turn of the century was
founded in part upon the same
fear that large fields of standing
water would provide a breeding
ground for mosquitoes. As a
result, the spread of irrigation
districts was attended by the rise
of another kind of special district
for mosquito abatement. Recent
studies suggest that the area of
California's mosquito populations
has extended to correspond al-
most exactly with the acreage of
irrigated agriculture. Those spe-
cies which carry encephalitis and
malaria are found near rice fields
and other areas that stay wet for
long periods. The most common
pes* species of mosquito {Aedes
nigromaculis) thrives where crops
are periodically flooded, as in ir-
rigated pastures.
95
8.8
64
12.5
120
9.9
72
.01
10.5
82
.02
9.0
97
13.7
226
8.5
13.3
184
8.5
146
13.0
433
/
7.9
109
.07
12.3
139
Sacramento River
System
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
9.4
70
10.7
165
12.2
12.2
106
\
8.9
212
.18
10.6
707
9.4
107
.09
11.6
142
J
10.4
79
12.1
146
Red Bluff
D
9.1
243
10.5
498
9.8
87
.02
12.2
201
9.5
72
.03
13.5
207
8.4
96
.05
12.5
463
.07
7.7
187
10.7
420
9.6
105
11.9
153
June LaKe
9.3
63
.01
12.2
218
r^
8.0
198
.00
12.6
750
.35
10.8
9.0
112
149
North
10.2
-
7.1
367
.14
584
.42
11.4
368
■
.04
.87
10.5
.07
.43
A
10.3
361
.02
724
1.20
8.1
128
.08
11.4
240
.30
O
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
8.6
63
.00
11.9
99
.22
10.5
245
.07
495
.20
8.3
99
.01
11.5
152
.30
"
461
8.6
46
.02
11.6
68
.15
r Folsor,
J Lake
Foisom
7.6
100
.08
11.0
202
.29
8.0
117 .10
198 .31
;1
132 ioTj
■ H
8.2
100
.09
10.8
160
.34
8.3
41
.00
12.2
69
.10
8.2
43
11.2
61
^S
8.6
36
11.7
55
7.9
35
.01
11.6
148
.14
8.2
40
12.3
98
~--,
-.
— ■
10.9
69
125
9.1
41
11.9
48
7.3
S3
.07
9.6
182
.27
30 km
Colorado River
fi
Franconia
□
N
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
^
■%.
\. ) \
v'V
x
^ash_
;
□ Parker
V
y
v
\
.93
V
\
r
Blythe D
g
.13
.32
Ripley
D
g
.08
.59
\
f"
g
.85
r
/
S
.01
.07
\
v
V
y.
/
■T
J
.J"
\ s
m_
s
barker v_
Dam
y
Klamath
%
Korth
/
r
20 mi
-1 I
D
Antioch
/
Klamath River System
9.1
114
.15
12.4
244
.40
8.7
111
.07
11.5
224
Lake Shastina
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
North
30 km
Surface Water
Quality Water Year 1975
These maps compare the concentration of three principal constituents of water quality in
four stream systems during water year 1975. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) and Nitrates (NO3) are
represented in milligrams per liter (mg/L) and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) is shown in
terms of the electrical conductivity of the water measured in micromhos (mmhos). General-
ly, higher levels of TDS and NO3 indicate degradation of water quality, while higher levels of
DO are beneficial to most uses of water.
Minimum and maximum observed concentrations of the three constituents are shown at
specific locations. Seven stations have been selected for a more detailed presentation of
month to month variations in concentration. The concentrations of these constituents vary
from year to year as well, depending upon flow levels and other changing conditions within
individual watersheds.
The tables below present the minimum and maximum concentrations of these constitu-
ents which are commonly regarded as acceptable for various uses.
DO EC NO3
mg/L micromhos mg/L
Minimum/Maximum
Concentrations (Water Year)
13.1 and 100 and
above below
.50 and
below
.51-1.00
11.1-13.0
9.1-11.0
7.1-9.0
101-250
251-500
501-1000
1.01-1.50
1.51-2.00
5.1-7.0 1001-1500
2.01-2.50
3.1-5.0
3.0 and
below
1501-2000
2.51 and
above
2001-2500
2501 and
above
DO
EC
NO3
7.3
83
.07
9.6
132
.27
Minimum
Maximum
Monthly Concentrations*
N
1
N
t*
N
r
s
A colorless square represents no data.
DO
EC
NO3
' The graphs represent monthly
concentrations from October 1974
through September 1975.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): A measure of salts in
solution. TDS can be measured either in milligrams
per liter or specific conductance (EC). An EC mea-
surement of 1500 micromhos is approximately equal
to 1000 mg/L TDS.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO): High levels of dissolved
oxygen indicate that excessive quantities of oxygen
demanding wastes probably are not present.
Recommended limits
micromhos
Domestic water supply
750
Irrigation water-salinity
Nitrate (NO3): A major nutrient for vegetation and a
measure of the amount of inorganic nitrogen in
water. Sources of nitrate include municipal and in-
dustrial wastes, irrigation return flows from fertilized
soils, and septic tank outfalls.
No detrimental effects
Detrimental to sensitive crops
Can have detrimental effects
on many crops
Water for tolerant crops
permeable soils
750
750-1500
1500-3000
3000-5000
Livestock and Poultry
excellent for all
7500
Industrial Uses
Canning
Fine Paper
Petroleum refining
825
300
5250
Electrical utility
45000
Propagation of fish
3000
Good mixed fish population
(fish can grow accustomed to very
high levels of dissolved solids)
600
Domestic water supply
not
significant
Industrial water supply
not significant
Irrigation
not significant
Livestock and Poultry
not significant
The following are recommended minimum
levels
Fish embryos and larvae
Sal monoid spawning
Salmonoid migration
Warm water fish
Highest number and variety of fish
exist when DO is greater than
To prevent generation of sulfide
5 mg/L
9 mg/L
7 mg/L
5 mg/L
9 mg/L
2 mg/L
The following are recommended maximum
levels
Low pressure boiler feed water
(industrial)
Electrical utilites
Optimum range for minumum
damage to pipes
2.5 mg/L
.007 mg/L
1-4 mg/L
industrial
Petroleum refining
8 mg/L
Food canning industry
45 mg/L
Canned, dried, frozen fruits
10 mg/L
Agricultural
Livestock and Poultry
recommended limit
tolerance
Irrigation water for sugar beets,
grapes, apricots, citrus, avocado,
and tomatoes
no problem-less than
increasing problem
severe problem-greater than
100 mg/L
300 mg/L
5 mg/L
5-30 mg/L
30 mg/L
An algae bloom requires greater than
(plus greater than .01 mg/L phosphorus)
Warm water fish
.30 mg/L
90 mg/L
Chinook salmon-96 hour tolerance
1310 mg/L
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
I
■n
82
20
.00
9.9
31
.02
°
N
J
F
M
A
M
Jl j| A
I I
!
127
.14
203
.40
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
San Joaquin River System
9.4
30
.01
11.2
41
.02
8.6
34
.01
9.9
46
.04
10.4
37
11.6
96
Hetch Hetchy Res
79
10
.03
9.5
30
.06
8.6
33
.00
9.9
68
.02
8.1
15
.01
11.0
49
.02
9.6
10
.02
10.6
11
.08
11.3
34
.03
8.0
132
.09
11.3
233
.36
7.2
268
.50
10.4
430
.80
8.0
134
.09
11.0
357
.40
8.3
143
.04
11.3
350
.46
Although early water quality con-
trol programs emphasized the
installation of sophisticated cen-
tral sewage treatment systems,
resistance to the construction of
such expensive facilities is grow-
ing in remote areas like the
Bolinas Lagoon, where simpler
alternative technologies may be
more appropriate. The conflict,
however, has created serious haz-
ards for the public health in the
communities of Bolinas and Stin-
son Beach, which can be seen at
the left and right sides respec-
tively of this photograph.
Bacteria are single-cell organisms found both in
nature and in human wastes. Of major interest to
sanitary engineers is the coliform group of bacteria,
whose presence in very small amounts is a reliable
indication of the extent of bacteriological treatment
of waste water. Other bacteria are responsible for a
variety of ailments, such as cholera, typhoid, para-
typhoid, and dysentery. Protozoa are single-cell
organisms ranging from 10 to 100 microns in dia-
meter. The only known pathogen is the Endamoeba
histolytica, which causes amoebic dysentery in
tropical climates. Flukes that live in the bloodstream
may, however, be passed into the water by contact
with human feces and thus spread shistosomiasis, a
disease afflicting the intestine, liver, and spleen.
The earliest emphasis in American water quality
control programs was placed upon the protection of
public health through the treatment of domestic
water supplies. Congress created the Public Health
Service in 1901 to protect the public from waterborne
diseases, and in 1912 the authority of this new
agency was extended to include the control of pollu-
tion in navigable streams. Enforcement of water
quality standards, however, from 1912 to 1948, was
left largely to the individual states. California
responded in 1915 by creating its own Bureau of Sani-
tary Engineering and requiring all suppliers of
domestic drinking water to obtain permits from the
bureau. The Legislature failed, however, to grant this
new agency any enforcement power. Although the
State Department of Fish and Game did establish a
regulatory program to prohibit discharges that might
be harmful to fish, the principal responsibility for the
protection of water quality was left in large part to
local initiative.
As a result, California's major metropolitan areas
pursued their own independent courses with respect
to the development of sewage treatment facilities.
Although sewer systems were common, communities
such as San Diego and San Francisco continued to dis-
charge untreated or minimally treated wastes into
local bays and the ocean as late as the 1940s. Inland,
the situation was even more chaotic. Upstream
communities which shared a common stream had
little incentive to undertake the costs of constructing
sophisticated water treatment facilities because the
effects of pollution were seldom experienced locally
but instead troubled only the users downstream. The
communities downstream in turn objected strenu-
ously to having to build treatment systems to control
the wastes of their neighbors.
As California's urban population swelled in the
1940s, a series of incidents dramatically demon-
strated the consequences of this haphazard approach
to water quality control. Shellfishing in San Francisco
Bay was quarantined because of contamination of
the fishery by municipal and industrial sewage.
Fourteen miles of the beach near El Segundo were
also closed as a result of grease building up along the
shore. And in Montebello, the illegal dumping of
industrial chemicals polluted the wells of three water
companies and contaminated the principal ground-
water recharge area for the region of Los Angeles.
These and similar incidents prompted the Legisla-
ture to establish the modern system of regional water
quality control boards. The Dickey Act of 1949
created nine regional boards with the authority to
establish and enforce water quality standards within
entire watersheds under the direction of a central
state board. The Porter-Cologne Act of 1969
expanded the supervisory and appelate powers of
these boards and required the formulation of specific
water quality objectives and plans for their achieve-
ment for each of the regions they serve.
From the 1950s forward, the basic framework for a
coordinated approach to the state's water quality
problems began to be set in place. The state govern-
ment began offering grants to local agencies to sub-
sidize the construction of new and improved sewage
treatment facilities. A quarantine which the state
Health Department imposed on San Diego Bay
brought about a major renovation of that city's
sewage treatment system. In Orange County, a
county-wide sanitation district was formed in 1947 to
bring an end to the dumping of raw municipal sewage
into the ocean by numerous small towns and cities. In
the San Francisco Bay Area, San Leandro, Oakland,
Hayward, Ora Loma, and Castro Valley all installed
primary treatment facilities by 1950. San Francisco
stopped discharging all of its raw sewage into the Bay
with the construction of the Sunset-Richmond
primary treatment plant, although the fact that San
Francisco's sewage and storm runoff systems are
linked results in the continued discharge of untreated
municipal sewage whenever heavy rains occur.
Although California's approach to water quality
control has in many respects provided models for
similar efforts in other parts of the country, the prin-
cipal authority over water quality programs has been
increasingly assumed by the federal government. The
Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 authorized
federal assistance to states in the development of
comprehensive programs to reduce pollution, and
subsequent amendments to that act have greatly
enhanced the availability of federal technical assist-
ance, funding, and research. The creation of the
federal Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 and
the adoption of a national water quality program in
1972 established a systematic program for the control
and reduction of water pollution backed up by
unprecedented amounts of financing for the con-
struction of pollution control works. And the Safe
Drinking Water Act of 1974 gave the EPA the
authority to establish and enforce guidelines for the
achievement of minimum national water quality
standards for every public water supply system serv-
ing 25 people or more.
METHODS OF CONTROL
Most municipal water supplies are treated to
provide safe, pleasant-tasting drinking water. The
level of treatment required by federal standards,
however, may not be sufficient to meet the criteria for
certain industrial and other uses. Process water and
water to be used in boilers, for example, often require
further treatment of municipal supplies by industrial
users.
An important factor in water treatment processes
is the source of water. Different sources have varying
water quality characteristics which require different
treatment operations. These characteristics can
change seasonally or even daily. Well water, for
example, may be hard because it has a higher concen-
tration of dissolved minerals than surface supplies.
River water may have many constituents that require
treatment or removal, depending on the characteris-
tics of the drainage basin and the amount of pollution
added upstream by municipalities, industries, and
agriculture. Although the quality of streamflow fluc-
tuates according to the quantity of runoff available at
any given point in the water year, lake and reservoir
sources are also subject to seasonal quality changes
due to temperature stratification. Usually the highest
quality water comes from the middle depths of such
a storage facility. Efforts to control the quality of
water in a storage reservoir by adding chemicals to
inhibit algal growth can, however, interfere with later
treatment processes and harm the aquatic resources
of the reservoir itself.
The initial purpose of water treatment is to remove
suspended material and kill possibly pathogenic
organisms. The water is filtered either through sand
THE 208 NON-POINT SOURCE
CONTROL PROGRAM
Under the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, the federal government has provided extensive sub-
sidies for the construction of sewage treatment facilities to
combat the effects of point source pollution. Section 208 of
the Act also included a systematic program for dealing with
non-point source degradation of water quality. Non-point
sources of water pollution include drainage and runoff from
some agricultural activities, erosion from logging practices,
mine drainage, saltwater intrusion, the effects of hydro-
logic modifications such as reduced streamflow due to dams
and diversion facilities, and the effects of water runoff from
urban centers which include constituents resulting from
the fertilization of home gardens, landfills, and the grease,
oil, and asbestos which accumulate on streets and high-
ways.
Section 208 requires each state to develop a plan to con-
trol non-point source pollution in order to achieve man-
dated clean water levels by 1983. Each state plan will identi-
fy the so-called Best Management Practices for various
types of land use which will cause the least degradation to
water quality. Regulatory and planning agencies at the
federal, state, and local levels are responsible for developing
and implementing these plans, and once the plans have been
approved by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, the regulatory agencies will in turn be responsible
for their enforcement.
The success of the 208 non-source point program de-
pends upon cooperation among the many public and private
interests that would be involved in the adoption and imple-
mentation of the plans. Data on the full extent of the cause
and effect of non-point source pollution, however, have
been lacking, and some advocates of 208 planning complain
that the federal government has failed to provide sufficient
guidance or funding for the development and implementa-
tion of the plans required by the Act. Nevertheless, increas-
ing recognition of the importance of non-point source pol-
lution seems to assure that similar cooperative approaches
to the problems of enforcement will become an important
part of water quality control programs in the future.
98
Sewage Treatment Facilities
Capacities,Treatment Standards & Volumes, 1975
Disposal of Liquid Effluents
Numbers refer to outfall code
on
Facilities List.
1
Outfall to surface waters
2
Ocean outfall
3
Holding pond
4
Deep well
5
Ground water recharge
6
Other land disposal
7
Recycling and reuse
8
Septic tank field
9
Other
Numbers at left of column refer to map,
and increase from north to south.
outfall code
location
9
Grass Valley WWTF
Grass Valley
13
10
N Tahoe Joint WWTF
Tahoe Vista
69
11
Ukiah STP
Ukiah
13
12
NW Clearlake WWTF
Lake County
61
13a
Marysville STP
Marysville
358
13b
Linda STP
Marysville
56
14
South WRF
Yuba City
3
15
Olivehurst STP
Olivehurst
1
16
S Lake Tahoe WRF
S Lake Tahoe
6
17
Rsvle-Rocklin-Loomis WWTF Roseville
1
18a
Woodland Domestic WWTF Woodland
13
18b
Woodland Industrial WWTF Woodland
13
19
Northeast WWTF
Carmichael
19
20a
Meadowview WWTF
Sacramento
19
20b
Sacto Regional WWTF
Sacramento
167
20c
Main WWTF
Sacramento
19
20d
Sanitation District No. 6
Sacramento
19
20e
Arden Sanitary District
Sacramento
1
21
Cordova WWTF Rancho Cordova
19
22a
Central Plant
Davis
1
22b
Davis Campus WWTF
Davis
1
23
W Sacramento WWTF
W Sacramento
1
24a
West College STP
Santa Rosa
137
24 b
Laguna STP
Santa Rosa
137
25
Rohnert Park WWTF
Rohnert Park
19
26
Easterly WWTF
Vacaville
71
27
Napa SD Ponds
Napa
1
28
Sonoma Valley WWTF
Sonoma
16
29
Petaluma WPCF
Petaluma
1
30
Fairfield-Suisun Regnl WWTF Fairfield
136
31
White Slough WPCF
Lodi
16
32
Vallejo WWTF
Vallejo
1
33a
Novato STP
Novato
91
33b
Ignacio STP
Novato
9
34
Montezuma STP
Pittsburg
19
35
Pinole STP
Pinole
19
36
Central Contra Costa SD STP Martinez
17
37
Antioch WWTF
Antioch
19
38a
Las Gallinas Valley WWTF San Rafael
19
38b
San Rafael SD WWTF
San Rafael
9
39a
Main WQCF
Stockton
19
39b
North WQCF
Stockton
1
40
San Pablo WPCF
San Pablo
1
41
Sanitation District 1 STP
Greenbrae
1
42
Richmond WPCF
Richmond
1
43
Mill Valley WWTF
Mill Valley
1
44
Sausalito-Marin City STP Sausalito
1
45
East Bay MUD STP
Oakland
1
46a
Southeast Plant No. 2
San Francisco
1
46b
North Point WPCF
San Francisco
9
46c
Richmond-Sunset WPCF San Francisco
29
47
Manteca WQCF
Manteca
6
48
Oakdale WWTF
Oakdale
39
49
San Leandro WPCF
San Leandro
1
50
Ripon Sewage Facilities
Ripon
13
51
Tracy WPCF
Tracy
1
52
Oro Loma-CV. WWTF
Castro Valley
19
53
VCSD STP
Dublin
19
54
North San Mateo WWTF
Daly City
2
55
Riverbank STP
Riverbank
9
56
Hayward STP
Hayward
1
57
Livermore WRF
Livermore
169
58
Sunol STP
Pieasanton
369
59
Sharp Park WWTF
Pacifica
2
60
S S.F.-Sn Bruno WWTFS Sn Francisco
1
61
Modesto WQCF
Modesto
1
62
Millbrae-Madrone WWTF
Millbrae
1
63
Alvarado Plant
Union City
1
64
Burlingame WWTF
Burlingame
1
65
Mammoth WWTF Mammoth Lakes
35
66
Hughson WWTF
Hughson
3
67
San Mateo WQCF
San Mateo
1
68
Foster City WWTF
Foster City
29
69
Redwood City WPCF
Redwood City
91
70
San Carlos-Belmont WWTF San Carlos
91
71
Menlo Park STP
Menlo Park
19
72
Palo Alto STP
Palo Alto
19
73
Turlock WQCF
Turlock
1
74
Patterson STP
Patterson
1
75
Sunnyvale STP
Sunnyvale
19
76
Bishop STP
Bishop
6
77
Atwater WWTF
Atwater
1
78
San Jose WWTF
San Jose
19
79
Merced WWTF
Merced
16
80
Gustine STP
Gustine
356
81
Chowchilla WWTF
Chowchilla
356
82
Los Banos STP
Los Banos
16
83
Capitola-Aptos WWTF
Aptos
29
84
Gilroy WWTF
Gilroy
93
85
Santa Cruz STP
Santa Cruz
2
86
Madera STP
Madera
3
87
WWTF No. 1
Watsonville
19
88
Municipal WWTF
Hollister
53
89
Fresno WPCF
Fresno
356
90
Sanger WWTF
Sanger
1
91a
Salinas WWTF No. 1
Salinas
19
91b
Salinas Industrial WWTF Salinas
169
91c
Salinas WWTF
Salinas
19
92
Pacific Grove STP
Pacific Grove
29
93
WPCF Seaside-Sand City
19
94
Reedly WWTF
Reedly
6
95
Monterey Collection System Monterey
29
96
Carmel WPCF
Carmel
2
97
Dinuba WWTF
Dinuba
36
98
Hanford WWTF
Hanford
36
99
Visalia WWTF
Visalia
1
100
King City WWTF
King City
6
101
Tulare STP
Tulare
36
102
Porterville WWTF
Porterville
56
103
Delano Plant No. 1
Delano
9
104
El Paso de Robles WWTF Paso Robles
1
105a
Bakersfield WWTF No.
2 Bakersfield
63
105b
N. of River SD Plant No. 1 Bakersfield
6
105c
Bakersfield WWTF
Bakersfield
6
105d
Bakersfield WWTF No.
3 Bakersfield
5
105e
Bakersfield WWTF No.
1 Bakersfield
639
106
Morro Bay-Cuycos
Morro Bay
26
107
S. L. Obispo WWTF
San Luis Obispo
136
108
S San Luis Obispo WWTF Oceano
2
109a
Santa Maria STP
Santa Maria
3769
109b
Laguna County SD WWTF Santa Maria
163
110
Barstow WWTF
Barstow
57
111
District 14 WRF
Lancaster
19
112
Victor Valley Regnl WWTF Oro Grande
5
113
Lompoc WPCF
Lompoc
13
114
District 20 WRF
Palmdale
67
115
Goleta SD WWTF
Goleta
2
116
Santa Barbara WWTF
Santa Barbara
2
117
District 26 WRF
Saugus
1
118
Carpenteria STP
Carpenteria
2
119
Oak View Sewerage System Oak View
13
120
District 32 WRF
Valencia
1
121
Santa Paula WRF
Santa Paula
81
122
Eastside WRF
Ventura
1
123
Simi Valley WWTF
Simi Valley
1
124
Camarillo WWTF
Camarillo
16
125
Oxnard STP
Oxnard
2
126
Hill Canyon WWTF
Thousand Oaks
13
127
Port Hueneme STP
Port Hueneme
2
128
San Bernardino WWTF San Bernardino
16
129
Regional WWTF No. 3
Fontana
5
130
Tapia WRF
Calabasas
167
131
Burbank WRF
Burbank
19
132
Rialto STP
Rialto
15
133
Whittier Narrows WRF
El Monte
1
134
Colton Wastewater Facilities Colton
15
135
Redlands WWTF
Redlands
1
136
Hyperion STP
Los Angeles
29
137
Pomona WRF
Pomona
1
138
Rubidoux WPCF
Rubidoux
169
139
Riverside WQCF
Riverside
1
140
Regional WWTF No. 2
Chino
1567
141
San Jose Creek WRF
Whittier
15
142
Corona WRF
Corona
351
143
Palm Springs WRF
Palm Springs
1356
144
Joint WPCF
Carson
2
145
Los Coyotes WRF
Cerritos
1
146
Hemet-San Jacinto WRF San Jacinto
56
147
Long Beach WRF
Long Beach
15
148
Terminal Island WWTF
Los Angeles
29
149
Valley Sanitation District WWTF Indio
15
150
WWTF No. 1
Fountain Valley
25
151
Coachella WWTF
Coachella
16
152
WWTF No. 2 Huntington Beach
2
153
Irvine WWTF
Irvine
457
154
Laguna Beach STP
Laguna Beach
29
155a
Subregional STP
Laguna Niguel
76
155b
Coastal Treatment Plant Laguna Niguel
2
156
SER System San Juan Capistrano
2
157
San Clemente WRF
San Clemente
2
158a
Buena Vista STP
Oceanside
9
158b
San Luis Rey STP
Oceanside
2356
158c
La Salina STP
Oceanside
179
159
Carlsbad WPCF
Carlsbad
2
160
Hale Avenue WQCF
Escondido
259
161
San Elijo Joint Facilities Cardiff
23
162
Brawl ey STP
Brawley
1
163
El Centra WPCF
El Centra
1
164
Point Loma STP
San Diego
2
165
Calexico STP
Calexico
1
Abbreviations
Municipal Utility District
Public Utility District
Sanitation District
Sewage Treatment Plant
Water Pollution Control Facility
Water Quality Control Facility
Water Reclamation Facility
Wastewater Treatment Facility
The great quantities of sediment
occurring as effluents into the
ocean from the urban and indus-
trial centers of the South Coast
have been chromatically enhanced
in the satellite image below.
or activated charcoal and, if necessary, treated
chemically to remove unwanted constituents such
as iron. It is then sterilized by chlorination or by
exposing it to ultraviolet lights. While the goal of
water treatment is to change the characteristics of
water to meet certain use requirements, the purpose
of sewage treatment is to remove organic and other
material that may deplete the quantity of dissolved
oxygen and thereby bring on septic conditions in
receiving waters. Like water treatment, sewage treat-
ment methodology is dependent upon the composi-
tion of the sewage received.
Sewage treatment is classified into three levels:
primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary treatment
removes trash, oils, and other solids. The sewage is
first screened to remove sticks, rags, and other large
items. The fluid is then passed into basins where sus-
pended solids are settled out. At this point the sewage
leaves the primary treatment phase. Although many
plants discharge disinfected primary effluents, this
practice is changing under the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act. If further treatment is required, the
effluent is usually pumped to another portion of the
plant for secondary treatment.
Secondary treatment removes many of the remain-
ing biological and chemical impurities. Treatment
begins by aerating the sewage to increase the amount
of oxygen and hasten the natural breakdown of
organic wastes. This part of the treatment process is
biochemical in nature; microorganisms do most of the
work. The sewage is then placed in basins or ponds
where the decomposed organic materials — known as
sludge — are allowed to settle out. The remaining
water is given chlorine or ozone treatment to elimi-
nate bacteria before it is discharged. The remaining
sludge is converted into methane gas, water, and a
heavy humus-like material through a process known
as sludge digestion. Sludge may also be burned or
used for landfill or compost.
Primary and secondary treatments are generalized
processes. Tertiary treatment, in contrast, varies
according to the specific constituents that are to be
removed. Tertiary treatment most often involves the
removal of nutrients. Nutrients provide food for
aquatic plants and algae and aid in the eutrophication
of water bodies. Several methods of nutrient removal
are available. One process begins with nitrification.
Water is aerated to convert ammonia to nitrites and
then to nitrates. In the next step in the process, called
denitrification, methyl alcohol is added to the solution
which helps bacteria to convert nitrates into nitrogen
gases. Phosphorus can be precipitated out of solution
by adding lime to the effluent. Viruses are removed
by filtration. The resulting water is disinfected and
then either discharged to water bodies or reused for
certain purposes.
Wastewater treatment is a more efficient method
of protecting downstream uses than additional treat-
ment at the next point of use. Wastewater treatment
can also be considered a method of water conserva-
tion. California, however, currently reclaims only
about 190,000 acre-feet of water each year through
formal reclamation projects. The amount of inciden-
tal reclamation — where water is used, treated, and
then returned to a water course for reuse down-
stream — is unknown but believed to be substantial.
The inertia against development of this resource
stems from the lack of a clear concept of who will
utilize reclaimed water, restrictions based on the
assumed "staying power" of certain pollutants such as
heavy metals, water rights laws, a preoccupation with
the fact that agricultural needs exceed the amount of
water that could be reclaimed, the tendency to persist
in accustomed habits, and the lower cost of fresh
water as opposed to the economies of reclamation.
The Office of Water Recycling, established by Gover-
nor Edmund G. Brown Jr. in 1977, is currently
attempting to overcome these obstacles in order to
reclaim an additional 400,000 acre-feet per year by
1982.
The science of water quality treatment is changing
rapidly and technological advances have introduced
new approaches to treatment and revealed new areas
of concern. The most virulent waterborne diseases
have been all but eradicated in California, for
example, while concern for the largely unknown,
long-term effects of pesticides on human health is
growing. The emphasis in California's programs was
originally placed upon the control of effluents from
specific sources and the removal of specific contam-
inants. As these approaches have progressed, non-
point sources of pollution and the control of trace
elements such as heavy metals are receiving greater
attention. These new areas of activity, in turn, have
required the development of new methods which are
not so dependent upon structural solutions to the
problem of pollution.
The trend now is toward source control and non-
structural solutions which seek to get at the source of
a problem by changing the practices which cause it
rather than simply treating the waste product. Water
pollution from some agricultural practices can be
reduced, for example, by altering irrigation and tillage
techniques and by controlling the amount of pesti-
cides and nitrogen fertilizers applied. Similarly,
erosion and sedimentation from logging operations
can be restricted by not harvesting timber adjacent to
streams. The implementation of these new
approaches, moreover, depends upon cooperation
between individual industries, state, and local
agencies instead of the traditional methods of regula-
tion and enforcement.
In addition, governmental agencies today are
exploring alternative methods for the treatment of
domestic waste through wastewater reclamation,
sprinkler irrigation, and the use of septic tanks. An
estimated 12 percent of the housing units in
California are currently served by septic tanks or
other home-site waste management systems.
Although governmental water quality control pro-
grams have traditionally emphasized the construc-
tion of centralized sewer systems, there is growing
support today for further experimentation with these
so-called on-site waste management techniques as a
less expensive alternative to sewer construction in
rural areas.
A field of expertise that is developing as rapidly as
water quality control depends ultimately upon the
continuous monitoring of the constituents of water
quality. Although a relatively expensive activity, con-
tinuous monitoring provides the means of identify-
ing developing trends and changes in water quality so
that necessary corrective measures can be taken in
advance. Through monitoring, for example, scientists
have learned that some of the chemical compounds
formed in early water treatment processes may them-
selves be carcinogens. Similarly, monitoring has
revealed that airborne pollutants can be an
important factor in the protection of natural water
bodies such as Lake Tahoe and that air and water
quality control programs should consequently be
linked. Monitoring has thus become an essential part
of water planning in California and increasing atten-
tion to the relationships between land and water
resource planning helps to assure that fewer remedial
measures will need to be adopted in the future.
—,
CHAPTER 11
Unresolved Questions for
the Future
The preceding sections of this volume have each
identified problems for the future which rise to signifi-
cance in relation to the individual topics treated and the
expertise of the authors involved. This section will not
seek to separate from this multitude of issues those
that seem really important in the view of this author;
nor will it attempt to prognosticate the future of water
development in California. The intent of this section is
to identify instead those questions related to water
which seem to loom largest for the state as a whole, at
least in 1978. The risk of such an undertaking is great.
It is doubtful, for example, that any but the most far-
sighted water developers in 1880 would have predicted
that the problems of urban water supply would have
assumed the urgency they obtained by 1900. Similarly,
few people in 1950 foresaw the influence that the costs
of energy supply have come to exercise over the eco-
nomics of water delivery in the 1970s. The risk, there-
fore, is that this piece too may become simply an
historical curiosity 20 years from now, of interest prin-
cipally for the things it left out or the problems it failed
to foresee.
On the other hand, many of the great water systems
we have built in California and the institutional ar-
rangements we have erected to manage the business of
water today were designed, for the most part, to resolve
problems that had already been identified in the
nineteenth century. Inflation, a greater awareness of
environmental considerations, and a host of other
factors, however, are changing the rules by which
water development proceeded in the past. As a result,
many of the problems that concern us most today have
simply not been raised before now. The development of
water quality protection programs since the 1950s
provides the most prominent example of a new range of
concerns that have been addressed by later additions to
the water supply and delivery systems we have built.
The questions for the future of our relationship with
the water environment are consequently legion, and
only time, hard work, and the involvement of an
informed public will tell what answers we will find.
ELEMENTS OF DEMAND
One thing that has not changed is the expectation
that our demand for additional water supplies will con-
tinue to increase. California's population is projected to
increase to a level of approximately 29 million by the
year 2000. In addition, the increasing complexity of the
social, economic, and technological aspects of our cul-
ture can be expected to intensify demands for water
use.
Southern California in particular has experienced a
phenomenal rate of population and economic growth
in the last 50 years, despite the fact that water supplies
in this entire area from local streams and groundwater
sources are not nearly adequate to support so great a
demand for water. These needs were met by massive
importations of water, first from the Owens Valley,
then from the Colorado River, and today through
deliveries from the State Water Project. The United
States Supreme Court decree in Arizona v. California
reduced California's apportionment of Colorado River
water by approximately one million acre-feet. This
reduction will not take full effect, however, until the
completion of the Central Arizona Project by the Uni-
ted States Bureau of Reclamation sometime after
Salt marshes and mudflats off Palo Alto
101
Irrigation Methods and Crop Acreage, 1972
Acreage ■ 5,000 acres employing the same irrigation method
□ 2,000-4,999 acres employing the same irrigation method
O Less than 2,000 acres employing the same irrigation method
Methods of
Irrigation
Surface Irrigation, Wild Flood
Surface Irrigation, Border
Surface Irrigation, Basin
Surface Irrigation, Furrow
Sprinkler Irrigation, Solid Set,
Hand Move, or Mechanical Move
Drip Irrigation
Sub Irrigation
In areas where only one symbol is present, the total irrigated acreage is
under 5,000, and only the dominant irrigation method has been shown.
9>
c
c
■S
Q.
(4
(0
OQ
s
i
Klamath River
Sacramento River
Sacramento-
San Joaquin Delta
San Joaau n River ■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■
oau uuanuiii niver ■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■
Kings Kern Rivers-
Tula re Lake
North High-
Desert Lahontan
South High-
Desert Lahontan
West Low-Desert
Colorado River
East Low-Desert
Colorado River
Santa Ana River
San Diego River
Crops
&*
^
•
<r
4r
f
**
cr^
0**
J?
<&
The grain fields in the photograph at top are an example of dry
farming in the Montezuma Hills. In the lower photograph,
irrigation water enters the furrows of a field south of Dixon.
IRRIGATION METHODS
The selection of the various irrigation methods used in
different areas in California is determined in large part by
the cost, availability, and quality of the water used; drain-
age, ground slope, and the quality, texture, and depth of the
soil; and the type of crop being grown. Border check irriga-
tion, whereby water is directed across a field by parallel
earth dikes, is the most prevalent method and has devel-
oped in areas where the topography is flat and water is
available cheaply and in abundance. Although a less effi-
cient method of irrigation in terms of water use, this type
flood irrigation is usually the least expensive method where
water is readily available at costs often dollars per acre-foot
or less. Rice is usually irrigated by contour checks and
border check irrigation is used in some parts of California
for almost all types of crops including orchards and vine-
yards.
Furrow irrigation is a variation of flood irrigation in
which the water is confined to narrow furrows rather than
wide border checks. Furrow irrigation is used for row crops,
orchards, and vineyards where the ground slopes less than
two percent, the soils are fine textured, and the crops them-
selves would be drowned if flooded.
Sprinkler irrigation systems are generally used under
conditions in which flood or furrow irrigation cannot be
applied efficiently, as in areas where the soil is sandy, the
ground slopes more than three percent, and water is expen-
sive and available only in limited quantities. Sprinklers are
also required, however, to deal with specialized problems
such as frost control, leaching, or where crops are being
planted on ungraded land. Sprinkler irrigation methods
usually require less water and less labor than border check
or furrow irrigation, but the initial investment for installa-
tion is higher.
Drip irrigation is the most efficient in terms of water use
because the system delivers small quantities of water con-
tinuously and directly to the root zones of the plants being
grown. In some instances, water can be reduced by one-
third or more with drip irrigation, lower quality water can
be used, and crop yields are increased. The installation and
maintenance costs of drip irrigation systems, however, are
high and this method is used on orchard, vineyard, and
truck crops but not field crops.
1985. Contracts for the delivery of two million acre-
feet from the State Water Project will more than make
up for this reduction.
Although the most immediate problems of water
supply for Southern California and the protection of
water quality in the Colorado seem to have been met,
numerous questions remain for the years ahead. The
State Water Project has contractual commitments to
provide water service in the future that exceed its
present supply by a considerable margin. Additional
development will therefore be needed to firm up these
commitments. On the Colorado, although the upper
basin states have not as yet used all of their compact
rights to the river, accelerated development of the
extensive oil shale and coal deposits in this area could
create water quality problems all the way down to the
mouth of the river unless existing laws are enforced. A
question of even greater potential effect is posed by
the claims of various Indian tribes to portions of the
flow of the Colorado, a concern which applies equally
to virtually all the rivers on which California depends.
Even though 85 percent of California's people live in
cities, about 85 percent of the state's total water supply
is used for agriculture. California has been the nation's
leading agricultural state for each of the past 25 years.
Today California has more irrigated acreage and pro-
duces a wider variety of commercial crops than any
other state. Agriculture in California currently pours
out a cornucopia of wealth worth some $9 billion a
year. When these commodities are processed, stored,
transported, and marketed, another $18 to $20 billion
is added to California's economy. Irrigated agriculture
provides a uniformity of quantity and quality of output
and, thus, a degree of economic stability, that cannot
be matched by the rain-fed agriculture of the Mid-
Western and Eastern United States. Irrigation allows
the production of a wider variety of crops with the
result that California's agricultural industry can
respond more readily to changes in market demands.
Irrigation also permits an intensity of land use that
surpasses that of any rain-fed producing region.
Agriculture is like water in that both are annually
renewable resources so long as they are managed prop-
erly. Otherwise, deterioration follows. In recent years,
however, hundreds of thousands of acres of prime farm
land have been forever lost to the expansion of large and
small cities in the south coastal area of Southern Cali-
fornia, San Jose, Sacramento, Fresno, Modesto, and
Davis. It is currently estimated that 20,000 acres of irri-
gated land are converted to urban uses every year in
California.
The problem is one of significance to consumers
throughout the United States, especially to the extent
that urban expansion affects those agricultural regions
which produce two-thirds or more of the total national
supply of a given crop. These crops in which California
has virtually a monopoly position in the national market
include lettuce, broccoli, garlic, artichokes, Brussels
sprouts, grapes, plums, lemons, almonds, walnuts,
olives, avocados, apricots, figs, dates, and ladino clover
seed. Most of these crops require special climatic and
soil conditions, and urban expansion in such areas could
consequently reduce production and increase costs for
the consumer. In addition, with millions of people living
in concentrated areas, air quality in some of the agricul-
tural regions located adjacent to large urban centers has
deteriorated to the point that the productivity and qual-
ity of some crops have been reduced. If this situation
continues to worsen in the future, the market may be
forced to accept the substitution of crops which are
more tolerant of air pollution. State policy is lacking,
however, with respect to these specialized crop situa-
tions and future action on these questions or the lack
thereof will affect all consumers of these commodities
throughout the country.
A second threat to agricultural productivity, which is
also growing worse each year, is posed by the deteriora-
tion of soil quality due to waterlogging and soil salinity.
The continued application of fertilizers and irrigation
water, which usually contains some mineral salts,
results in a buildup of salts in the soil and an accumula-
tion of saline groundwater near the soil surface. These
conditions reduce the quantity and quality of crop pro-
duction. The remedy is drainage, whereby the salts can
be leached out and carried away and the water table
lowered. Irrigated croplands that slope usually drain
adequately, but lands located in flat areas, especially
lands lying in the trough or lowest parts of a valley, may
have little or no natural drainage. These areas will even-
tually go out of production if drainage is not provided.
The state's most endangered area in this regard is the
San Joaquin Valley, where upwards of 400,000 acres
could be lost by the end of this century. Salts and salty
water threaten the productivity of the soils, endanger
the valley's groundwater basins, and degrade surface
water supplies in the San Joaquin River. At the level of
development predicted to occur by 1990, about three
million tons of new salts will be added to the valley floor
each year, mostly on irrigated lands. Approximately 1.1
million acres, or nearly 25 percent of the irrigated land
in the valley, possess the potential of developing saline
drainage problems.
Although a master drain has been proposed to carry
salts out of the valley through a canal extending along
the length of the valley trough from a point west of
Bakersfield to a final point of discharge in the tidal
waters contiguous to San Francisco Bay, the financial
and institutional obstacles to development of this
project have thus far proven insurmountable. To avoid
degrading usable water supplies with saline water or
adversely affecting fish and wildlife resources, the point
of discharge for such a drain would have to be carefully
chosen. Although the ocean, with its vast assimilative
capacity to absorb poor quality water, seems the most
logical physical solution, the cost of transporting saline
waters from inland valleys directly to the ocean is
enormous. Short of that, any other receiving waters
such as the Delta, would probably be adversely affected
unless the draining waters were treated first to a quality
equal to that of the water already in the Delta. Thus,
while the implementation of a valley-wide salt manage-
ment system with the master drain as its central feature
has been delayed by financial, institutional, and political
problems, the need for drainage continues to increase.
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT
The future productivity of the San Joaquin Valley is
further threatened by the problem of overdraft of its
groundwater supply, which could eventually remove
large amounts of the valley's land from crop production
if some kind of rescue action is not taken. Although
there are numerous instances of groundwater over-
draft occurring throughout the state, the situation is
most serious in the San Joaquin Valley, where the
extent of overdraft has reached 1.5 million acre-feet in
years of normal precipitation.
The problems of groundwater management are com-
plicated by a lack of clarity in the legal principles govern-
ing groundwater extractions and the competition
among pumpers. Questions about groundwater apply
both to the nature of the groundwater right and to the
possible limitations upon this right which might be
imposed in order to develop effective management of
the total groundwater resource. The decision of the
California Supreme Court in 1975 in City of Los Angeles v.
City of San Fernando largely destroyed the utility of the
"mutual prescription" doctrine under which the rights
of groundwater pumpers in overdrafted groundwater
basins had been decided on the basis of historical usage
by the pumpers. In principle it remains possible to
return to concepts developed by the court at the
beginning of the twentieth century, according to which
pumpers overlying a groundwater basin and using
water on land they owned would have the first prefer-
ence and others would be treated as appropriators of
groundwater bound by the principle of "first in time,
first in right."
These concepts are easy to state, but in basins with
heavy groundwater pumping at a wide range of loca-
tions and for a diversity of purposes/these concepts
may be difficult if not impossible to apply in practice.
Another approach, suggested indirectly by the court's
opinion in the San Fernando ease, is to allocate ground-
water pumping rights on the basis of the doctrine of
"equitable apportionment." This doctrine, frequently
used by the United States Supreme Court in resolving
conflicts between states, provides a flexible means for
courts to take into account a broad range of factors in
order to reach a just result in particular controversies.
Whatever doctrine is used to allocate groundwater
pumping rights after the San Fernando decision, it
remains clear that the judiciary could premise any
adjudication of groundwater rights upon the notion of
"safe yield." In overdrafted basins the aggregate of
pumping would have to be reduced in order to return
that basin to some balance between extractions and
average annual replenishment. It also appears to be
clear that under the established precedents, such cut-
backs would not entitle present or potential pumpers to
compensation for their losses.
Safe yield adjudication provides one means for
achieving effective groundwater management. In sev-
eral Southern California adjudications of this type, the
parties engaged in elaborate negotiations to reach set-
tlements based upon stipulated judgments. These
103
The rich agricultural productivity
of the Delta farmlands, indicated
in the photograph at right by red
colors, contrasts dramatically with
the unirrigated land on the op-
posite bank of the Sacramento
River. Rio Vista can be seen in
the upper right quarter of the
photograph and the San Joaquin
River enters from the lower right
corner.
judgments establish relatively sophisticated manage-
ment programs for the particular groundwater basins
in question. These programs, however, have been made
possible by the fact that the basins involved are
relatively isolated, and in every instance supplemental
surface waters have been available to replace waters no
longer available from under the ground. The focus of
these negotiations consequently has been upon means
for paying for the more expensive supplemental surface
water, not upon deciding who should receive less water.
In considering means for bringing effective ground-
water management to other areas of California, adjudi-
cation may be of limited utility. Particularly with regard
to the badly overdrafted areas in the southern half of
the San Joaquin Valley, it has been recognized that the
basins are related to each other, that supplemental sur-
face water is not readily available, and that the number
of groundwater pumpers may make groundwater
rights adjudication entirely impractical. An important
question in this context is whether proposed projects
for importing water to the San Joaquin Valley can be
made to correct such overdrafts before bringing new
lands under irrigation. If, on the other hand, the cost of
providing new water supplies continues to increase at
its current rate, agriculture by the end of the century
may be unable economically to compete for these addi-
tional supplies, and even some urban areas may find
them too expensive, with the result that a portion of
agriculture's existing supplies could be transferred to
urban uses.
A report by the Governor's Commission to Review
California Water Rights Law in 1978 recommended
that emphasis be placed upon development of nonad-
judicatory means for the effective management of the
groundwater resource through the development of a
statewide groundwater policy. The commission recom-
mended a process by which local governments would
develop groundwater management programs within
the context of state groundwater policy. The commis-
sion suggested that such a process would be useful in
protecting the local and statewide interests in proper
groundwater management, both in deficit basins
plagued by problems of overdraft, water quality degra-
dation and subsidence, and in nondeficit basins where
groundwater surpluses may exist and may serve to
meet deficits elsewhere in the state.
THE DELTA
The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta lies at the center
of almost all discussions of California's future water
supply. What is so important about it? Why should
700,000 acres — less than one percent of the total area of
California — have such a major influence on our future?
The Delta lies in that area where the Sacramento and
San Joaquin rivers meet to discharge over 40 percent of
the state's natural runoff into the eastern part of San
Francisco Bay. As a result, whatever affects the Delta in
one way or another tends to influence much of our total
water resource. And the reverse is also true, for what-
ever affects water elsewhere in the state sooner or
later is felt in the Delta. This was never more apparent
than in 1977 when California was short on water and
long on perplexing water issues. Probably one of the
biggest stumbling blocks to resolution of the tangle of
Delta problems is the enormous complexity of the
issues involved and the manner in which each ties in
tightly with another. This is the case whether it is a
matter of preserving the fishery, maintaining a usable
supply of water for Delta farms and industries, or mak-
ing certain that enough good quality water is available
to meet delivery commitments to contracting water
agencies elsewhere in California. Solving one problem
depends on solving some others. And there is a multi-
plicity of interests and overlapping jurisdictions —
federal, state, county, regional, local, and private —
which have a stake in the well-being of the Delta.
The Delta has had problems ever since the 1860s,
when Delta farmers began to suffer from the vast
amounts of debris that were being swept down the riv-
ers from the upstream hydraulic mining sites. Once a
vast marshland, much of the Delta today has been
reclaimed for rich agricultural lands, producing crops
worth over $300 million a year. This land, some of it as
much as 20 feet below sea level, consists of almost 60
islands protected by aging levees from over 700 miles of
meandering waterways. When the flow of fresh water
through the Delta is substantially decreased by up-
stream diversions or by natural conditions, it is replaced
by salt water from San Francisco Bay. This saline
intrusion adversely affects the farmers and other Delta
industries which take their water directly from the
waterways.
Saline intrusion in the Delta does not only affect
human enterprise, for in addition to agriculture, the
Delta provides a major habitat for many kinds of wild-
life. The Suisun Marsh, located in the western part of
the Delta and the largest area not under agricultural
production, is the winter home for millions of water-
fowl of the Pacific Flyway. Because of upstream water
diversions, the diking of natural waterways, the uncer-
tainties of nature during periods of low Delta outflow,
and poor management techniques, the marsh during
some years has become dependent on releases of water
from upstream storage to sustain the plants on which
the wildfowl feed. In addition, over half of California's
anadromous fish, such as striped bass and salmon which
live in the ocean but travel to fresh water to spawn, are
dependent on the waters of the Delta. They need posi-
tive downstream water flows and a salinity gradient
where they can make a gradual change from salt water
to fresh water and back in order to migrate successfully.
And, because of the abundant fish and wildlife, and the
scenic lands and waterways, the Delta is an important
recreation area for hunters, fishermen, bird watchers,
and boaters from throughout the state.
Approximately 20 major storage projects, each with a
capacity of 200,000 acre-feet or more, have been
constructed in the Central Valley for supplying local
uses and for export to the San Francisco Bay region, the
San Joaquin Valley, and Southern California. Each of
these projects affects the quantity and quality of inflows
to the Delta. Both the State Water Project and the
Central Valley Project pump water through the Delta
for export. In addition to upstream and local Delta uses,
one-fourth of the land area and two-thirds of the
population of the state are served (at least partially) by
water exported from the Delta. Under the presently
authorized contracts of these two agencies, the amount
of water exported will increase substantially during the
balance of this century.
While some of these projects provide valuable flood
control for the Delta and the release of stored water
during the dry summer months improves water quality
and the general environment of the Delta, the lessening
of naturally high winter and spring flows through
capture and storage and the pumping of water through
the natural waterways of the Delta cause damage to the
environment. As exports increase, these problems will
become more severe.
Pumping water from the Delta has resulted in
numerous conflicts among the water agencies involved.
The Bureau of Reclamation, for example, has not con-
formed with water quality standards adopted by the
state and the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, although the 1978 decision by the United
States Supreme Court concerning the operation of the
New Melones Dam may result in some modification of
the Bureau's policies. In addition, although the State
Water Project and Central Valley Project have the right
to pump water from the Delta, the operators of these
systems have failed to establish a permanent operating
agreement which specifies their respective responsibili-
ties in meeting both Delta needs and project needs.
Moreover, there are no contracts between the major
Delta water agencies, the state Department of Water
Resources, and the federal government concerning
water supply and quality. The present yield of both
projects, moreover, is insufficient to cover existing
export water supply contracts while still meeting Delta
quality and quantity needs.
In sum, all of these human activities have combined
with nature's functions to produce severe problems of
supply for both local and distant water users, and
problems of quality which will affect fish and wildlife
because of the reduced flows available to flush out the
Delta and San Francisco Bay and resist the ebb and flow
of the ocean tides. The welter of issues surrounding the
Delta involve questions of efficiency, monetary gains
104
San Francisco Bay
and the Delta
Sonoma
Major Effluent Dischargers October 1, 1978
1. Sacramento County S.D.
2. City of Fairfield
3. Exxon Company, USA
4. City of Benicia
5. Vallejo S.D.
6. Napa S.D.-American Canyon
7. Sonoma Valiey County S.D.
8. Novato, Marin County S.D. 6
9. Ignacio, Marin County S.D. 6
10. Las Gallinas Valley S.D.
11. San Rafael S.D.
12. San Ouentin Prison
13. Marin County S.D. 1
14. City of Mill Valley
15. Richardson Bay S.D.
16. Marin County S.D. 5
17. Sausalito-Marin City S.D.
18. San Francisco (North Point)
19. P. G. & E. (Potrero)
20. San Francisco (Southeast)
21. P. G. & E. (Hunters Point)
22. Merck & Co.
23. South San Francisco and San Bruno
24. San Francisco Intl. Airport
25. San Francisco Intl. Airport
26. City of Millbrae
27. City of Burlingame
28. City of San Mateo
29. Estero Improvement District
30. San Carlos and Belmont
31. Redwood City
32. Menlo Park S.D.
33. City of Palo Alto
34. City of Sunnyvale
35. City of San Jose
36. Irvington, Union S.D.
37. Newark, Union S.D.
38. FMC Corporation
39. Alvarado, Union S.D.
40. City of Livermore
41. Dublin-San Ramon S.D.
42. City of Hayward
43. Oro Loma S.D.
44. City of San Leandro
45. East Bay Municipal Utility District
46. Colgate-Palmolive Co.
47. Stauffer Chemical Co.
48. City of Richmond
49. Chevron, USA
50. Chevron Chemical Co.
51. West Contra Costa S.D.
52. City of Pinole
53. Pacific Refining Co.
54. Rodeo S.D.
55. Union Oil Company
56. P. G. & E. (Oleum)
57. C & H Sugar Refining Co.
58. Shell Oil Company
59. Mountain View S.D.
60. Tosco Corporation
61. Central Contra Costa S.D.
62. Allied Chemical Company
63. Contra Costa County S.D. 7
64. P. G. & E. (Pittsburg)
65. City of Pittsburg (Montezuma)
66. U.S. Steel
67. City of Pittsburg (Stoneman)
68. Dow Chemical Company
69. City of Antioch
70. Crown Zellerbach Corporation
71. Fiberboard Corporation
72. P. G. & E. (Contra Costa)
73. E. I. du Pont
74. City of Tracy
75. City of Stockton
Delta Outflows Under Different Conditions
Estimated actual outflow in year shown
Calculated outflow assuming current conditions
50,000 ,
Wet Year (1940-41)
25,000.
■// \\
00.000
75.000 -
50.000 .
// \ \
25.000
I \\
J
Above Normal Runoff (1935-36)
ONOJ FMAMJJAS
Dry Year (1943-44)
125.000.
100.000
I
t
1 75.000-
□ 50.000
I
1 /
//
//
l\
\ \
\ \
25.000
//
\ \
==»
ONDJFMAMJ JAS
Critically Dry (1932-33)
Q 10,000
y
ONDJ FMAMJJ AS
ONDJ FMAMJ JAS
Estimated Annual Delta Outflows (Water Years 1922-1977)
50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
Outflow in acre-feet
20,000,000
10,000,000
1922 1930
1940
1950
1960
1970 1977
Water quality in San Francisco Bay and the Delta
is the product of a complex and only incompletely
understood interaction of natural and human
influences. The columns on this map identify the
major sources of man-made wastes that are
introduced into the waters of this dynamic system,
either as industrial effluents in the form of
processing or cooling water, or as municipal
sewage which is characterized by various levels of
treatment as defined by the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Salinity levels in the Delta are determined by the
interaction of tides, freshwater inflows, and
agricultural return flows. The histogram of
estimated annual Delta outflows reveals wide
variations in historic freshwater flows. These flow
variations are linked to expanding and contracting
areas of salinity intrusion in the Delta, as shown by
the lines marking the maximum intrusion of water
containing 1,000 parts per million of chloride.
Differences between the limits of salinity intrusion
during the dry years of 1931 and 1977, and between
the wet years of 1941 and 1969 are primarily the
result of water management programs upstream.
The four graphs at left show monthly Delta outflows
under various conditions and the outflows that
would have occurred in these years if current levels
of water export and development had existed.
Tidal action plays a central role in
the dynamics of San Francisco
Bay and the Delta. Tidal features
and the variations in water depth
are given special prominence in
this view of the southern end of
the bay at low tide.
and losses, equity, and the environment. And, the
problems grow more acute with each passing year, as
the amounts of water pumped out of the Delta increase
while urban and agricultural development continues to
expand upstream, thereby further reducing the quanti-
ties of water available.
Numerous solutions have been proffered: a peripher-
al canal, first formally proposed in the mid-1960s to
convey water for export across the Delta more effici-
ently; the construction of more water projects up-
stream to add water to the Delta; increased use of the
groundwater resources of the Central Valley conjunc-
tively with surface water supplies; and, higher water
prices for some water agencies which use water
originating in the Central Valley in order to bring about
the more efficient use of water. In 1977 the Department
of Water Resources proposed an amalgam of programs
and multi-billion dollar facilities to be jointly con-
structed by the state and the federal government which,
among other things, would include the Peripheral
Canal, Suisun Marsh protection facilities, on-stream
and off-stream storage in the Sacramento Valley,
groundwater and off-stream storage in the San Joaquin
Valley, a Mid-Valley Canal in the San Joaquin Valley,
groundwater storage in Southern California, waste-
water reclamation, and enhanced water conservation
practices. Each proposal, however, seems to meet with
vigorous opposition from one or another of the many
interests involved. As a result, that compromise which
is essential for resolving the problems of the Delta has
yet to be found.
CONSTRAINTS ON SUPPLY
Where will the water come from to meet the domes-
tic needs of an estimated seven million more people in
California by the year 2000, protect water quality in the
Delta, fulfill the contracts for delivery by the State
Water Project and the implied commitments for in-
creased service from the Central Valley Project, and
mitigate the effects of groundwater overdraft in the
San Joaquin Valley? The answer to this question does
not lie simply in additional development.
The last ten years have seen the introduction of some
very sobering constraints upon project development,
the full effects of which have probably not yet been fully
realized. Inflation in this period has doubled the capital
costs of water project construction, while interest rates
have increased by about one-third. Thus, the annual
financing costs of a major water project over a typical
30-year repayment period have increased by nearly two
and one-half times. In addition, federal and state envi-
ronmental laws and the requirement for more seis-
mically safe structures have increased construction
costs while at the same time restricting the areas within
which construction might occur. Considering all of
these factors, overall costs are estimated to have
increased nearly three times within the last ten years.
And even this comparison does not take into account
the fact that the annual yield of water that is made
available per acre-foot of project storage is declining
because the best storage sites have already been
developed.
The increased costs of project construction affect all
water agencies, of course, but the problems are most
acute for federal agencies, which have had the longtime
habit or political custom of annually appropriating
limited sums of money to many projects. When infla-
tion was minimal and interest rates low, this "shotgun
approach" perhaps was tolerable. In view of the serious
capital funding problems that exist today, however, this
tradition is causing havoc to both financing and repay-
ment.
If a project is to be built, it would seem the only way to
combat the insidious effects of inflation is either to scale
down the size of the project or to obtain a lump sum of
money necessary to complete the project as soon as
possible rather than depending upon uncertain, sequen-
tial appropriations. This so-called lump sum method of
financing is commonly used by the state and by local
agencies for their construction projects.
The panoply of constraints upon development,
however, make it increasingly difficult to obtain
approval for any kind of new project, no matter what
the method of financing may be. As a result, water
planners now and in the future must confront at least
five principal questions regarding any new project they
may propose. Is the project feasible in terms of engi-
neering? Is it economically justified? Is it financially
feasible? Is it environmentally sound? And, is it
institutionally operable? If the answer to any one of
these tests is negative, then it is unlikely that the project
will ever be built. Moreover, these tests become even
more critical when imported water supplies are in-
volved, whether interbasin or interstate.
The history of California's water development
reveals that local surface and groundwater supplies are
developed first and, as these become inadequate, then a
widening parameter of source possibilities is explored.
Statutes protecting the areas in which water supplies
originate from exploitation and the rigidity of water
rights laws retard the transferability of water from
lower to higher beneficial uses of water. As a result,
entities have had to reach out farther for new supplies
even though cheaper sources may be nearer by. These
conditions have encouraged many water planners
through the years to extend their search for new
supplies beyond the borders of California.
The development of the Colorado River represents
the most successful interstate project California has
undertaken. California is, however, involved in another
interstate compact. The California-Nevada Interstate
Compact of 1968 allocates the waters of Lake Tahoe
and the Truckee, Carson, and Walker river basins
between the two states. In contrast to the Colorado,
California in this case is in the position of being an upper
basin state. Unfortunately, the compact has not as yet
received the necessary ratification by the federal
government, but the two states have continued to
honor its terms in the meanwhile. Difficulties lie ahead,
especially with respect to the limited water supply in the
Truckee River, because of the absence of federal
approval, the claims of Indian tribes to a larger share of
the Truckee River waters, the lowering level of Pyramid
Lake which is the river's terminous, and the vigorous
urban growth occurring in the Reno area.
Although plans have been proposed to draw water
for California from as far away as Idaho and Alaska, the
prospects for importation from the Columbia River
have received the most widespread attention in recent
years. The Columbia has more than ten times the
runoff of the Colorado River and more than twice that
of all the streams in California combined. In the 1950s
and 1960s some federal water planners and several
consulting firms began feasibility studies of importing
water from the Columbia or its principal tributary, the
Snake River, to California and the Southwest. These
plans ran into opposition, however, from the Pacific
Northwest states, and the Congress in 1968 declared a
moratorium on any such planning by a federal agency.
This moratorium was extended for another ten years in
1978.
The prospects for importations from the Columbia
are consequently quiescent for the time being, although
the day may come when the situation of supply and
demand in California will be so acute that this huge,
external source of supply will be given serious
consideration. Given the enormous quantities of
energy that would be required to lift water some 4,500
feet into California, the environmental and institutional
constraints that need to be overcome, and the likelihood
that the resulting cost of Columbia River water would
be prohibitive for irrigation, it may prove to be more
economical to go without, or to seek other sources
closer by.
For its part, California's state government does not
suggest the Columbia as a future supply possibility,
contending instead that there are sufficient water
resources within the state, if managed properly, to meet
the needs of California. The great collection of
programs and projects which the state proposed in 1977
in connection with the controversy over the Delta
would provide about 2.7 million acre-feet of water to
meet designated needs up to the end of the century. The
diversity of interests competing for water and the
dependence of this proposal upon extensive state and
federal financial participation, however, suggest that it
will take years to implement this plan or something
approximately equivalent to it.
Increased storage might also be achieved by enlarging
the Shasta and Monticello dams as well as expanding
existing canal capacities. The New Don Pedro and New
Melones dams are both the result of efforts to enlarge
The importation of water from the Columbia River would require
the construction of pumping plants on an even greater scale than
this facility of the State Water Project.
106
«■
"""
PIPE DREAMS
The approval of the State Water Project by California's
voters in 1960 and the United States Supreme Court's de-
cision in 1963 restricting California's access to the Colorado
River inspired a flurry of plans and proposals in the mid-
1960s for even larger and more technologically sophisticated
waterworks to serve California and the American South-
west. All of the plans described here achieved a measure of
notoriety among water planners, engineers, and some
governmental agencies in this period. But this list of pro-
posed projects is far from complete and none has actually
been approved for construction.
Within three months of the Supreme Court's decision in
Arizona v. California, Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall
proposed a panoply of water conservation and development
projects in the Pacific Southwest Water Plan which would
have substantially rearranged the water supplies of Cali-
fornia, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and New Mexico. Within
California the plan, among other things, called for damming
the Trinity, Eel, Mad, and Van Duzen rivers on the North
Coast and diverting a portion of their flows to Arizona. The
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power responded to
Udall's proposal by recommending consideration of a plan
proposed by a private engineer, William G. Dunn, to bypass
Snake-Colorado Project
existing dam and reservoir projects. This approach has
the advantage that the incremental costs of added
storage normally would be less than the cost of an
alternative supply, while the environmental impacts
and social dislocation effects are also reduced. In
addition, a number of projects are currently being
implemented for the storage of water in groundwater
basins during wet years and the conjunctive use of
groundwater and surface supplies in times of need.
Difficult financial and institutional problems and
political resistance, however, have so far precluded
widespread adoption of such programs in the largest
groundwater basins, which are in the Sacramento and
San Joaquin valleys.
State planning and policy for the future are currently
focused on the Sacramento Valley where it is possible to
develop more supplies more economically by means of
both on-stream and off-stream storage and through the
use of groundwater basins. Nevertheless, as economic
and therefore political pressures increase for additional
water supplies in the Sacramento and San Joaquin
valleys and in Southern California, there is expected to
the North Coast and transfer instead 2.4 million acre-feet
from the Snake River in Idaho to supplement the flows of
the lower Colorado.
In contrast to the estimated $2.4 billion cost of the Pacific
Southwest Water Plan, Dunn's proposal carried an esti-
mated price tag of $1.4 billion. Another consulting engineer
in Los Angeles pointed out in 1964, however, that for an-
other $1.2 billion, the plan could be expanded to tap the Yel-
lowstone River in Montana, thereby increasing the yield of
the project to 3.4 million acre-feet. In 1965, Dunn did modify
his original plan, but he eschewed the Yellowstone, deter-
mining instead to bring five million acre-feet from the Snake
south through eastern Oregon at a cost then estimated at
$3.2 billion.
Other water planners meanwhile turned their eyes to-
ward the Columbia River. In 1964, Frank Z. Pirkey, a private
consulting engineer retired from the Army Corps of Engin-
eers and the Department of Water Resources, proposed
pumping 15 million acre-feet of water from the Columbia
4,900 feet over the mountains to Goose and Shasta lakes,
whence it would flow south to Lake Mead. Pirkey estimated
his project would cost $11 billion, but other engineers of-
fered somewhat less expensive alternatives that would have
bypassed Goose and Shasta lakes, relying instead upon a sys-
tem of new reservoirs.
As expensive as tapping the Columbia for California may
be, a Pasadena engineering firm in 1965 proposed a novel
method for achieving interbasin transfers within California
through a pipeline under the ocean which the Bureau of
Reclamation estimated would cost $20 billion. The so-called
NESCO Plan called for anchoring a fiberglass pipe along
California's continental shelf to carry four million acre-feet
of water from the rivers of the North Coast to serve the
municipal and industrial water needs of Monterey, Santa
Maria, and the South Coast.
The most elaborate project of all also originated in Pasa-
dena with the Ralph M. Parsons Company in 1964. This plan,
the North American Water and Power Alliance, proposed
tapping the rivers of the Yukon to augment water supplies in
Canada, Mexico, and the United States from the Great Lakes
to California. Although several, less expensive modifica-
tions to the Parsons plan have since been suggested by other
engineers, the proponents of NAWAPA estimated that this
massive system, drawing from watersheds with a total area
nine times the size of California, would cost an estimated
$200 billion and require over 30 years to construct.
Western Water Project
(Pirkey Plan)
be increasing pressure to release at least a portion of the
large undeveloped water supplies of the verdant North
Coast for export. Here lie the state's last great untamed
and free-flowing rivers, the Smith, Klamath, Van
Dusen, and Eel, containing 21 million acre-feet of water
or about one-third of the state's total supply.
Since 1972 these rivers have been under the
protection of California's Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Some North Coast waters are already exported out of
the region. The Trinity River, which flows into the
Klamath, has had large quantities of water diverted to
the upper Sacramento Valley for the Central Valley
Project since the early 1960s. And a utility has been
diverting water from a branch of the upper Eel River to
the Russian River for the last 50 years. The federal
government is not precluded from constructing
facilities in the North Coast, although the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act does prohibit state agencies from
lending any assistance to such an effort. The statute
does, however, provide for state reports after 1984 as to
the need for flood control and water conservation
facilities on the Eel River and the appearance of these
North American Water and Power Alliance
(NAWAPA)
reports can be expected to encourage demands by
potential recipients of North Coast exports for a
reopening of the question of wild and scenic rivers
protection.
PROBLEMS OF MANAGEMENT
As the opportunities for new, large-scale water
development projects have diminished, greater
attention has been directed to problems of water
management. These involve, in turn, questions of
equity, economics, efficiency, administrative practice,
and the prospects for new legal and technological
innovations which will help California conserve the
water supplies it already has.
Cities and water districts individually and collectively,
and the state and federal governments have
constructed an amazing grid of water storage and
distribution systems that convey water through
mountains and across and down valleys from one water
basin to another. Probably there is no other area in the
107
Although the law currently per-
mits almost any reasonable use
of water, choices may have to be
made among competing uses if
the demand for a limited water
supply continues to intensify in
the future. This prospect has
assumed particular currency in
the case of Mono Lake, shown at
top right, where diversions to
the City of Los Angeles have
substantially lowered the lake
level in recent years. Should the
needs of an urban populace su-
percede the use of water to
preserve a remote saline lake or
support desert vegetation like
that of the Antelope Valley shown
at the lower left? Some water
planners are already suggesting
that the constitutional mandate
to apply water to beneficial pur-
poses may invalidate state stat-
utes designed to protect the en-
vironment as well as the local
water supplies of areas such as
the North Coast shown at
bottom.
world where such intensive and extensive water
development has occurred. This grid of water
distribution systems became even more useful during
the unprecedented drought of 1976-77 when numerous
arrangements were made between local, state, and
federal water agencies to exchange water or aid areas
facing critical shortages. These major engineering
accomplishments can thus be compared to a huge
insurance policy which is capable of providing
protection to the people and their activities from nearly
all vicissitudes of the weather or even natural disaster.
Inasmuch as the best water development sites have
been developed and water agencies have had to reach
out ever farther for additional water supplies, the
magnitude of the legal and financial problems associated
with large projects has increased so as to preclude nearly
all but the largest agencies from water development
planning. As a consequence, most of the proposed
projects today are being planned by the state
Department of Water Resources, the Army Corps of
Engineers, and the federal Bureau of Reclamation. In
view of the fact, however, that there are more than a
thousand districts and municipalities and numerous
state and federal agencies engaged in various aspects of
California's water business, many arenas for conflict
exist between consumptive users of water, between
consumptive and nonconsumptive uses, and between
different levels of government. Recognizing this
multiplicity of diverse interests, the state for at least the
past quarter century has been emphasizing that it is the
only agency vested with a statewide interest and
responsibility and that it, therefore, is in the best
position to know where, when, and how water
development should occur.
The federal water agencies, though influenced by
state policy and actions, do not necessarily believe
themselves to be bound by such direction. As a result,
opportunities for the development of comprehensive
water management strategies have all too often been
frustrated by a controversy between state and federal
agencies that has existed for the past 25 years and that
may even intensify in the future.
This continuing rivalry between state and federal
authority reached its most recent peak in the
controversy over efforts by the State Water Resources
Control Board to impose restraints upon the operation
of the New Melones Dam by the Bureau of
Reclamation. Although the United States Supreme
Court ruled in favor of the state on this question in
1978, indicating that the state may impose conditions so
long as they are not contrary to a clear Congressional
directive, it remained unsettled which, if any, of the
particular conditions the board has imposed are
contrary to a clear Congressional directive. Similar
questions exist for the conditions contained in other
permits issued to the Bureau of Reclamation.
Another broad front of continuing controversy over
water management involves the pricing practices of the
Bureau's Central Valley Project. The price of water
plays an important role in water usage. As a general
rule, when water is cheap, there is little or minimal
incentive to conserve. Low-priced water in California
usually occurs where there is pumping from
groundwater, riparian and appropriative rights to
streamflows, or subsidized prices. In such situations,
crops with high water needs are grown, such as rice,
alfalfa, and pasture. These, together with other crops
grown for livestock use, such as corn, milo, and grain,
account for 40 to 45 percent of the state's total irrigated
acreage. These crops, however, generally do not have a
high enough value to pay the cost of the water they
require. Inasmuch as the outlook is for a tightening of
water supplies in relation to increasing demand,
questions are beginning to be raised as to whether
applying nearly half of the water used by agriculture to
crops consumed by livestock truly enhances the
commonweal.
In California, the biggest subsidizer of irrigation
water is the federal government, principally the Bureau
of Reclamation. The Central Valley Project currently
has contracts to deliver approximately 3.5 million
acre-feet of irrigation water at prices which are several
hundred percent below costs. The resulting subsidies
amount to more than $1,100 per acre. This federal
policy no doubt had merit during the first half of this
century as a means of speeding up settlement of the arid
West. Many believe this policy has today become
anachronistic and have called for more rigorous pricing
policies to put at least some of this highly subsidized
water to higher beneficial uses, especially where the
cost of developing new supplies exceeds $100 an
acre-foot. In response, the Bureau is moving in the
direction of adopting somewhat more rigorous
repayment policies, although these will not become
fully effective until the 1990s.
Water rights laws also play an important role in water
conservation, often adversely, by protecting the
longtime uses of water regardless of changing priorities
and needs. The role of the law in bringing increased
efficiency, however, remains uncertain. Of central
importance is the provision in the California
Constitution which limits all water rights to
"reasonable beneficial use." While this provision serves
to direct all water users to engage in water conservation
in times of shortage, the courts have not established
many guidelines for the determination of
reasonableness. Nor has the Legislature deemed it
appropriate to develop detailed statements of what
would constitute reasonable beneficial use in particular
situations.
Many resource economists suggest that more
exchanges or transfers of water and water rights would
be beneficial to improving the efficiency of water use
and that the law acts currently to prevent such
transactions. It has been recognized, however, that such
transferability should be coupled with appropriate
protection for areas of origin and that only modest
exchanges and transfers should consequently be
anticipated. It appears that in addition to specific
constraints in the law, broad institutional factors
involving the way in which water districts are
established, the objectives they are designed to serve,
and the means open to them for disposal of their
revenues, play a large part in inhibiting water rights
transfers and exchanges from taking place.
Although groundwater, discussed in an earlier part of
this section, appears to be the most pressing
management question for California's future, another
important area of concern involves the protection of
in-stream uses of water for such purposes as fishery
preservation and enhancement, recreation, and scenic
and aesthetic enjoyment. Although the state has
108
m
Supply and Demand
1972
North Coastal
North Lahontan
San Francisco Bay
The isometric diagrams compare the natural
surface water supply and actual demand within
each of the eleven hydrologic basins for water
year 1972.
The base of each diagram represents the total
area of the basin, divided into 100,000-acre units.
The total supply within the basin from precipita-
tion is projected above this base, and is distribut-
ed to an equal depth of water, in feet, over the
entire basin. This is shown as the dashed blue
line. The shaded blue block represents the net
supply which occurs as runoff. The difference
between precipitation and runoff is a measure of
the natural moisture demand within the basin.
Actual demand is shown by the orange and
green columns representing the gross amount of
water applied within each basin for irrigated
agricultural and urban use. The area of the base
of each column depicts the amount of land within
that basin which is classified as urban (orange)
or agricultural (green). The height of the column
represents the depth in feet of water applied to
that area of use within the basin.
Beside each graphic is a numerical breakdown
of the basin Area in acres (all figures are given in
thousands), followed by the percentages of the
basin area devoted to irrigated agriculture (a)
and urban use (u). Available supply is shown as
Runoff in acre-feet, together with a multiplier
that will give total precipitation for that basin.
Finally, total agricultural and urban Demand is
stated in acre-feet.
Sacramento Basin
Area: 3,891 (3.5°ha, .5%u)
Runoff: 1,420 (x4.0)
Demand: 420a, 23 u
Area: 3,910 (3%a, 12%u)
Runoff: 1,110 (x4.4>
Demand: 250a, 990 u
Area: 11,334 (2%a, .4%u)
Runoff: 30,736 (x 1.5)
Demand: 710a, 93u
Delta-Central Sierra
San Joaquin Basin
Tulare Basin
Area: 16,960 (9% a, 1%u)
Runoff: 18,370 (x 1.8)
Demand: 6,020a, 470 u
Area: 3,168 (25%a, 2%u)
Runoff: 940(x5.0J
Demand: 2,470a, 173u
Area: 7,078 (20% a, .8%u)
Runoff: 4,224 fx2.2;
Demand: 5,450a, 192u
Area: 11,129 (28%a, 1%u)
Runoff: 1,551 <x5.1)
Demand: 10,890
Central Coastal
South Lahontan
South Coastal
Colorado
Desert
Area: 7,328 (5%a, 2%u)
Runoff: 730 (x8.2)
Demand: 1030a, 181 u
Area: 17,312 (.5%a, .4%u)
Runoff: 1,090 (x5.7)
Demand: 310a, 89u
Area: 7,027 (5% a, 20% u)
Runoff: 560 (x9.6)
Demand: 920a, 2,370 u
Area: 12,422 (5%a, .5%u)
Runoff: 150 (x7.6)
Demand: 3,220a, 99u
Water Year 1972
Percent of Average
Annual Runoff
. Delta-Central
San \ "S Sierra
Francisco Bayj^X 66%
Interregional Transfers, 1972
This graphic illustrates
the quantity of water, in acre-
feet, that was exported and imported
by each hydrologic basin during 1972
Groundwater pumping alleviates deficits in some basins
All figures in thousands of acre-feet
Exported water does not orginate in basin.
The photographs on this page
provide several examples of the
importance of technology to the
creation of the modern water
system. The introduction of the
clamshell dredge on the left revo-
lutionized reclamation methods
and made possible the construc-
tion of hundreds of miles of dikes
to protect Delta agriculture. Be-
cause horses ana conventional
wheeled vehicles soon bogged
down in the porous, peaty soils
of the Delta, track-laying vehicles
like the Holt tractor at right were
invented and these later served
as the basis for the modern tank.
Each technology, however, has
locational advantages and disad-
vantages. When Los Angeles im-
ported the track-laying vehicles
developed for use in the Delta to
haul pipe during the construction
of the aqueduct to the Owens
Valley, the machines quickly broke
down in the desert, forcing the
city to replace them by assem-
bling huge teams of mules.
repeatedly articulated a policy favoring in-stream
protection, the means for implementing this policy
remain unsatisfactory. At one extreme, for many years
it has been possible for those concerned about in-stream
protection to protest applications filed by those seeking
to appropriate water for beneficial uses away from the
stream. Thus, in many instances, prospective
appropriators seeking water for irrigation, municipal
water supply, or other off-stream purposes have been
required to negotiate protests filed by the state
Department of Fish and Game. Although this process
has provided some in-stream protection, it has offered
at best a fragmentary, reactive, and unsystematic
approach to the problem. At the other extreme, near
total protection for in-stream flows has been provided
in limited instances by the California Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act. This approach, while perhaps satisfactory
and certainly effective for the rivers in question, is of
doubtful utility on the vast majority of rivers where
extensive development has taken place or is
contemplated for the future.
Two important legal questions regarding the
protection of in-stream uses of water remain
unresolved at the end of 1978. First, to what extent is
the classical system for establishing private property
rights in water available to protect in-stream uses? It is
clear that riparians need not take water from a stream in
order to protect their uses, including in-stream uses.
And it is clear that the State Water Resources Control
Board can deny an application to appropriate because
the water in question is needed for in-stream beneficial
uses and it could consequently condition the permits
and licenses it grants in ways designed to protect
in-stream uses. It is unsettled, however, whether public
or private entities can acquire appropriative rights
without establishing some sort of physical control over
the water.
The second unresolved question with regard to
in-stream uses is whether a more effective "middle of
the road" means of regulation can be found. The
Governor's Commission to Review California Water
Rights Law recommended in 1978 that the State Water
Resources Control Board be authorized to develop
comprehensive in-stream flow standards on a
stream-by-stream basis. These standards would be
implemented by requiring all subsequent
administrative decisions to conform to them, by
arranging physical solutions which would reorganize
diversions to enhance in-stream protection wherever
possible, by limiting restrictions placed upon off-stream
users in the name of the public interest, and by
compensating those off-stream users whose rights
would be purchased in order to realize the in-stream
objectives. Whether this proposal will be accepted,
however, remains to be seen at the time of this writing.
NEW TECHNOLOGY
The course of water development in California has
been in large part a function of technological
advancement. People in the nineteenth century could
dream of building the massive water delivery systems
which have changed the face of the California
waterscape today but, until the technology existed for
the construction of large-scale siphons and pumps,
these dreams had no means of realization. Without the
invention of the centrifugal pump, the Caterpillar and
Holt tractors, and, most important, the discoveries of
Thomas Edison, California could never have developed
in the way it did.
New technologies do not just happen. Instead they
are usually the result of economic and political
necessity. As the costs of conventional sources of supply
increase at a faster rate than the costs of the new
technologies required to develop what once were
considered exotic water sources, these new sources
come closer to being justified. Technological
developments outside the water industry can have the
effect of increasing the future demand for water, as in
the case of water for electrical powerplant cooling, or
decreasing the future demand for water through, for
example, the genetic development of plants capable of
withstanding drought and salinity.
Within the water industry there are a number of
unfolding technological developments for increasing
usable water supplies through the desalting of seawater
and brackish water, cloud seeding, and long-range
weather forecasting. In addition, technologies exist
which extend the use of water through the advanced
treatment of sewage and wastewater for reuse, the
aeration of water for quality improvement, the
renovation of wastewater by surface spreading, and
water recycling by industry.
Each technology has locational advantages and
disadvantages. For instance, cloud seeding is impractical
in desert regions and desalination is impractical for
providing a new or supplemental water supply for most
of California's irrigated agriculture. On the other hand,
improvement in the accuracy of both intra-year and
inter-year weather forecasting can have a tremendous
impact on the management and use of the state's water
resources.
As the population and economy grow, more
wastewater must be treated because state and federal
water quality laws require treatment of urban
wastewater before it is discharged into another body of
water. There are today more than 850 community
wastewater treatment systems in California serving a
population of 19 million. Less than ten percent of these
treated waters, however, was further treated for reuse
and approximately two-thirds was discharged to the
ocean, coastal bays, and estuaries. With additional
treatment, these waters offer a potential for meeting a
significant portion of the water supply needs in and
adjacent to metropolitan regions where they can be
Beneficial Uses of Reclaimed Water in
California in 1975
TYPE OF USE
VOLUME RECLAIMED
PER YEAR
(acre-feet)
Agricultural
Landscaping
Industrial
Groundwater Recharge
Recreational Impoundments
TOTAL
134,657
17,574
1,936
26,971
6,605
187,743
reused as an industrial water supply, for the irrigation
of crops, parks, and other open spaces, and for
groundwater recharge.
Nearly 200 wastewater reuse and reclamation
projects exist in California today and many experts
believe that advanced treatment and the extensive
reuse of urban wastewater will be commonplace by the
end of the century. Not all of the treated wastewaters,
however, can be reused due to their chemical
constituents. This technology, moreover, is capital- and
energy-intensive and public health concerns and
institutional problems need to be resolved before much
progress can be made in its widespread application.
Water planners, however, need to have these options
remain open for as long as possible in order to perceive
what effect technological developments occurring
outside of the water industry will have on overall water
demand and supply.
CONSERVATION
The unprecedented severity of the drought of
1976-77 in the northern two-thirds of the state called
for similarly unprecedented water conserving measures
by residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural
users. Water use was reduced by one-third in many
instances and by as much as one-half in some areas. The
drought provided a classic demonstration of how use
can be reduced to the level of supply. But this is what
water conservation is all about. If the development of
new water supplies does not keep pace with the
increases in demand that are expected to result from a
rising population and greater economic activity, then
the per capita use of water must decrease. Reducing the
per capita use of water, in turn, postpones the day when
already very expensive planned water storage projects
need to be built and thereby reduces the bonded
indebtedness of water utilities, adverse environmental
effects, the need for electrical energy, and the future
costs of water and sewage treatment.
110
The question in 1978 does not appear to be whether
or why water conservation will occur in California. The
why is already clear in the greatly increased costs of
developing new water supplies. The how of water
conservation is not so much in doubt either.
Fortunately, many techniques, practices, and policies
are already available to reduce per capita water use
through fixtures inside the household, revised
residential watering and landscaping, new industrial
production and cooling processes, metering, rationing,
increased water prices, drip irrigation, leak detection
programs, sewer charges based on water consumption,
and many others.
The issue, therefore, involves the cost — both
monetary and nonmonetary — at which increased
conservation will be achieved. Just as increasing water
supplies exacts its costs in diverse ways, so too does the
conservation of water. Each area of the state has
different water supply and demand relationships and
the response of the public to the ways and means of
water conservation in agricultural and urban settings
will vary in accordance with the situation in particular
areas. The policies of water districts and urban
communities with regard to meters, pricing, and ad
valorem taxes, for example, can have profound effects on
water use. Meters provide an economic incentive to
curb water use. Prices can encourage water use by
decreasing as use increases, or they can discourage use
by increasing as the use of water increases. Similarly, if
ad valorem taxes are used to subsidize and thereby reduce
the prices charged for water, greater use will be
encouraged.
The halcyon days when ample new water supplies
were available at low development costs are gone
forever in California. Whether the many agencies that
make up the modern water industry will grasp this
fundamental point and move effectively to adopt
conservation policies in a timely manner is a matter very
much in doubt. The capacity of our citizens, however, to
adjust to these changed conditions was demonstrated
most effectively in Marin County during the recent
drought. Water consumption in the Marin Municipal
Water District, the county's largest, dropped from
31,600 acre-feet in 1975, before the drought, to 24,000
acre-feet in 1976, and 11,700 acre-feet in 1977. During
July and August, the peak periods of water use, when
approximately 41 million gallons per day are normally
consumed, consumption for these two months in 1977
declined to approximately 11 to 12 million gallons per
day.
The costs of these conservation measures included
agricultural losses, damage to the landscape, plumbing
changes, sewer repairs, wells and pumps, and the
purchase of bottled and trucked-in water for residences,
apartment houses, and businesses. It is to be hoped that
such severe measures will never need to be taken again
in California. But, the so-called Marin approach to the
drought probably was the most sophisticated and
equitable attempt at universal conservation that has
ever been put into effect. It demonstrated that people
can and will manage with far less water than they once
thought adequate. Thus, as complex as the problems of
California's future relationship to water may be, there
seems to be little cause for pessimism. In reviewing the
long history of struggle and conquest by the people in
coping with a myriad of water problems in the Golden
State, there is still reason to believe that there will be
sufficient wisdom, born out of experience and
knowledge, to sustain us in the years ahead.
Just as San Francisco Bay and the
Delta lie at the center of any
discussion of the future of water
development in California, so too
does the example of Marin Coun-
ty's success in meeting the
Drought of 1976-77.
Ill
Afterword
At one dicey point when the California Water Atlas Project looked as
though it might collapse, Bill Kahrl quietly checked his alternatives. He called
a few outfits in the private sector who might be expected to handle such jobs.
They were boggled by the scope and schedule of the project, and Bill was
boggled by their estimated cost of taking it over — five times greater than
what it was costing the state to do it.
Why?
At any point after the first months if you had looked in on the administra-
tive, research, cartographic and editing staffs of the project you would have
found people working 80-hour weeks (and getting paid for 40) and heard
comments such as, "Nobody has any personal life left," "Tired doesn't matter
anymore," "Nobody here has ever worked this hard in their life," "Everyone's
giving 150%," "I've never felt so good about myself."
Why?
This afterword will try to give some sense of the process that led to the
product you're holding, try to answer the two questions above, and try to pin
down what went well and not so well in the structure of our atlas-making
process so that others on similar projects might be inspired or warned by our
experience.
It didn't begin as a water atlas. Years before this project got started, an
informal gathering of California-based cartographers had noted the shocking
lack of any atlas for the state and schemed up a list of subjects they thought
should be in such a tome. Imagining that the Reagan administration would be
unreceptive to the idea, they went no further with the plan. But later, one of
that group, Ted Oberlander of the University of California, Berkeley, know-
ing that I was doing temporary duty as a consultant to the new Brown
administration, mentioned the atlas idea to me while we were working
together on a world map.
I bandied the notion around the Governor's Office until it was seized by
Bill Press, head of the Office of Planning and Research. The time was 1976-
1977, California's worst drought in this century. A special commission was in
the process of reviewing the state's water laws. And the Peripheral Canal
around the Delta was a major political issue. In that context we decided to
approach an "Atlas of California" incrementally. We would start with a water
atlas of a state that we were realizing was uniquely defined by its water
situation.
It would be nice, we told one another, to have in one place a mutual frame
of reference for all the parties to the various water issues, so they could
identify more clearly their points of disagreement and perhaps see also the
larger water context in which resolution might lie. It would be nice, we said,
if California's citizens and representatives had some help in understanding
why and where and how water was a problem in the state.
At this point three key figures made key decisions. Bill Kahrl of the Office
of Planning and Research (OPR) agreed to take on full responsibility for the
project. Governor Brown agreed that the project should go ahead. And Ron
Robie, head of the Department of Water Resources, on whose turf all state
mapping and water matters properly belonged, enthusiastically endorsed
OPR as the vehicle for the project.
That kind of support never let up. When the water drought year of 1977
passed rainily into the fiscal drought year of 1978, the year of the Jarvis-Gann
tax limitation initiative, and everybody's pet projects were dying, the water
atlas survived. Part of the attraction was that the water atlas is expected to
pay back in sales the cost of its production. Also, the $515,000 proposed to be
spent on the project did not loom very large in the context of a $20 billion
state budget. Furthermore, by the time the Jarvis-Gann limitations took
effect, the project was under way and already had a reputation as something
going well.
Why was it doing well? Mainly because it was attracting outstanding
people. As Bill Kahrl recalls, "The project sold itself." Starting with Bill
Bowen, who had been recommended by Oberlander, the cartographic staff
came together amidst the excellent equipment at California State University,
Northridge. Some of the research staff was acquired through the normal
process of announcement-resume-interview (Walraven Ketellapper); some
were stumbled on fortuitously (Marlyn Shelton).
Bill Kahrl: "To select the advisors we talked to everyone we could think of
and asked, 'Who else should we talk to?' The advisors we eventually selected
came largely from that second generation of contacts. Advisory groups are
often rubber-stamp operations, but in this case the advisors personally
shaped the whole thing from the beginning. I don't know any other advisory
group that has been made to work as hard.
"With the authors the entire problem was finding precisely the right
person for each section, someone whose expertise in the subject would not
only be recognized but who would also be detached enough to provide a
balanced perspective. Those people are rare enough, but we also needed the
kind of people who can reduce their knowledge to fit within the limited space
we had available and still be able to write it up in such a way that it would all
come alive for the reader. Once we had a list of the people we wanted, all but
one said they would be delighted to contribute, even though we were saying
to them, 'We'll give you 90 days to write this and we won't pay you hardly
anything and, I'm sorry, it probably means you'll have to give up your plans
for the summer.'
"People worked as hard as they did, regardless of their compensation,
because of a realization that working on the water atlas was an oppor-
tunity that might never come again. It was a once-in-a-lifetime shot."
Bill Kahrl had a job similar to that of a movie director — holding the vision of
the whole intact and refining it while balancing and integrating the many
talents involved and scheduling their work so that each part of the process
informed the others. Research (familiarization) started first, then initial
advisory meetings, then beginning data collection from the agencies, then the
first cartographic images, and finally the generation of text. Each group —
researchers, advisors, agencies, cartographers, and authors — had to review
and improve and adapt to the products of others.
Some of it was easier than expected. The state government probably has
more information on water than any other subject, but early fears that the
information would be jealously guarded by the agencies turned out to be
incorrect. At every level, from local to state to federal, people were generous
with their data and their time.
Walraven Ketellapper: "You have some guy who's been collecting a certain
kind of a number for 25 years and the only people looking at it are other guys
like him. Now all of a sudden his numbers are going to be put in a place where
a whole new bunch of people are going to see it. It's refreshing for him.
"We learned that before calling we needed to get a good background in the
subject we were calling about. A lot of these people are really input-output
minded. If you say, 'What do you do?' they say, 'We do a lot of things. What do
you want to know?' So first you look at a report by that agency or you look at
a textbook and get some terms down. You don't ask about water quality if
you can't tell the difference between dissolved oxygen and a nitrate. And as
you go along you develop a giant list of contacts — you tap into a network of
rolodexes."
The major frustrations in the project occurred because of the lag in getting
graphic material generated and cycled. The 500-mile distance between the
cartographic equipment and staff in Los Angeles and the research informa-
tion and staff in Sacramento was maddening at times. And there were
recurring instances of an elaborate color plate being prepared, going back to
the agency for review, who said, "Oh, sorry, wrong information, that was
interim data, here's the final data," and amid gnashing teeth the plate would
have to be adjusted.
Part of the problem, or advantage, was that the early plates set a high level
of complex sophistication — "avant garde cartography," someone called it —
which everyone wanted to maintain even though it was costly in time to do.
In retrospect all of the staff agree it would have been better to have had the
research team start much farther in advance of the cartography team so as to
generate a body of confirmed data, using perhaps one in-house graphic
person to sketch up the plates for review by the agency people. In addition,
the cartographic staff should have been larger earlier — five people from the
beginning instead of three. It would have been helpful at the very start to
have generated one prototype for each plate to establish time, cost, sophisti-
cation, and printing standards early on instead of having to confront these
limitations later, when in a sense it was too late.
The question of schedule is a fascinating one. The water atlas was done in
15 months. Would it have helped to have a longer time? Everyone I've talked
to says no, crushing as the workload was, the prospect of an end-in-sight
made it bearable. Better sequencing and pacing would have solved the struc-
tural problems. However, as it was, the load on the cartography end got too
heavy late in the game and the 50 color plates originally planned had to be cut
back along with the number of diagrams to accompany the text. It's the old
illusion I've seen (and committed) around magazine and book publishing for-
ever—that once the "piece" is done, then editing, design, illustration, paste-
up, and corrections take no time. Ha.
I'm able to focus on what went awkwardly with the project because so
much went so well. The advisory process was smooth, lending perspective to
the judgment of staffers, shaping and reshaping the content of the book, and
providing many of the authors — all of that managed adroitly by Bill Kahrl's
office (not by me the decorative chairman). Research, especially Marlyn
112
Shelton, gracefully handled the three-way press of traffic between the
agencies, the cartography team, and the process of administration and
editing.
In the course of its development the water atlas inspired many of the
agencies to a broader sense and pride of what they were about, and it brought
attention to new kinds of information that the state needs to have. We need
to collect more data about water quality and about the end-use and cost of
water in various areas. Bill Kahrl: "Many of the components of the modern
water system and consequently the data collection efforts of the responsible
agencies have been designed to address problems that were identified and
defined in the nineteenth century. We were unable to get information on
many of the topics we wanted most to treat simply because the questions
we were raising had never been asked before.
"The weight of water, for example, is an aspect of delivery that has not
been considered except as an engineering problem; but now that energy is
no longer cheap, the cost of moving water around the state is a key problem
for the future operation of the State Water Project and the Colorado River
Aqueduct. Similarly, even though groundwater provides 40 percent of the
water we use, this atlas has the first map of the state's groundwater basins,
and the information we have on the subject is incredibly incomplete."
Was it worth doing?
Bill Kahrl: "We start with the presumption that it is worthwhile to spend
taxpayers' dollars to enhance taxpayers' understanding of the opportunities
for them to take a role in shaping policy in a very difficult subject area."
The key word there is understanding. It's the difference between raw data
and the ability to do something with it. The sheer labor of doing the water
atlas indicates its need. The digging, collecting, translating, reporting, illus-
trating, and checking of information that went into this book is that much
work that has been saved any citizen who might want to do something about
water in California.
A bargain.
Do more such.
Stewart Brand
Sausalito, 1978
For Further Reading
The printed matter pertinent to California water problems
might be measured, not in volumes, but in tons. This bibliography
has, consequently, been limited to a few guides to the literature of
the field, some of the more important works on the history of
water development and water-related problems in the state, and
the most comprehensive sources of statistical data on water supply
and water use in California. These titles should be accessible in the
larger public libraries, in college libraries, or through inter-library
loan from the State Library and the major academic institutions.
The reader who wishes to pursue a particular topic beyond the
confines of this bibliography will find more specialized citations in
the works listed below, many of which contain extensive biblio-
graphies of primary source materials, and in the guides to the liter-
ature listed here.
California. Department of Water Resources. Chronological List of
Bulletins and Reports: Department of Water Resources and its Predecessors,
from 1880. Sacramento, CA: Department of Water Resources,
Central Records Section. Loose-leaf, additional pages issued
frequently. List of DWR Bulletins and other reports, some of
which were originally issued in very limited numbers. The list
is arranged by year of publication, without an index; however,
key words are underscored in most titles to facilitate scanning.
Although many reports are not readily available in most
libraries, copies may be borrowed from the California State
Library on inter-library loan.
California. State Library. Government Publications Section. Cali-
fornia State Publications. Vol. 1-. Sacramento, CA: State Library,
1947 to date. Monthly, cumulated annually in the December
issue. "Listing of official California state documents received
by the Government Publications Section, California State
Library." This is not a complete list of all publications of state
agencies, but includes only those publications sent to deposi-
tory libraries under the Library Distribution Act, and some
additional agency-produced material received in the State
Library. Arranged by State Library classification number,
indexed by personal and corporate author, title, and subject.
California. University. Water Resources Center Archives. Diction-
ary Catalog of the Water Resources Center Archives, University of
California. 5 vols. Boston: G.K. Hall & Company, 1970. Up-
GUIDES TO THE LITERATURE
dated with annual or biennial supplements, 1971 to date.
Photographic reproduction of the card catalog of the state's
major library in the field of water resources. The Archives,
with its primary collection on the Berkeley Campus of the
University, and a Southern California and southwestern re-
gional collection at UCLA, collects historical and technical
works on all aspects of water resources development, man-
agement, use, and conservation; water economics and law;
and coastal and offshore engineering. Both collections are
open to the public and will lend materials to other libraries.
Giefer, Gerald J. Sources of Information in Water Resources: An Annota-
ted Guide to Printed Materials. Port Washington, NY: Water Infor-
mation Center Inc., 1976. 290 pages. A list of reference
works, handbooks, manuals, bibliographies, abstracting jour-
nals, indexes, dictionaries, and encyclopedias in the field of
water resources. Citations are annotated, arranged by broad
subject and by form within subject, and indexed by author,
title, and specific subject.
Jones, James R. Inventory of Research Activities in the Lake Tahoe Area: A
Bibliography, 1845-1976. South Lake Tahoe, CA, and Carson
City, NV: Lake Tahoe Area Research Coordination Board and
Nevada State Library, 1976. 219 pages. Listing of over 1,000
research reports, journal articles, conference papers and
theses, published and unpublished, many with annotations.
Citations are arranged by broad topic and indexed by author
and subject. Libraries possessing copies of these reports are
noted. Appendix gives summaries of current research projects.
Orse, Richard J. A List of References for the History of Agriculture in
California. Davis, CA: University of California, Agricultural
History Center, 1974. 141 pages. Annotated bibliography of
books and journal articles on the history of agriculture in
California. Includes agricultural and irrigation practices of
the Indians and of the missions. Arranged by subject with
author index.
Selected Water Resources Abstracts. Vol. 1-. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Water Resources Scientific Information Center, 1968 to date.
Biweekly. Abstracts of books, scientific and technical reports,
journal articles and symposia in the field of water resources.
Author, subject, organization, and accession number indexes
are cumulated annually.
U.S. Geological Survey. Reports for California by the Geological Survey
Water Resources Division. Menlo Park, CA: U.S. Geological
Survey, Water Resources Division, 1978. 145 pages. Alpha-
betical listing by author of the Survey's publications about
water in California. The list, which includes publications
dealing with broader regions and the United States as a
whole if data on California are included, is updated and
reissued every few years. Indexed by hydrologic area, county,
and subject.
Bailey, Harry P. The Climate of Southern California. In California
Natural History Guides: 17. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA:
University of California Press, 1966. 87 pages. Discusses
climatic regions of Southern California, the effects of wea-
ther patterns on the problems of fire, flood, drought, and
smog. Tabular data on temperature and precipitation for
selected stations.
Bain, Joe S., Richard E. Caves, and Julius Margolis. Northern
California's Water Industry: The Comparative Efficiency of Public Enter-
prise in Developing a Scarce Natural Resource. Baltimore, MD:
John Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future, 1966.
766 pages. Economic and legal analysis of the institutions
responsible for water supply development and management
in California west of the Sierra Nevada and north of the
Tehachapi Mountains. Discusses the legal framework and
operations of water agencies, costs of supplying water, and
water pricing and allocation.
Bakker, Elna, S. An Island Called California. Berkeley and Los
Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1971. 357 pages.
A natural history of California with discussion of each of the
major ecological communities. Lists of plant and animal
species are included.
California. Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. California
Coastal Plan. San Francisco, CA: Coastal Zone Conservation
Commission, 1975. 443 pages.
. Summary. 1975. 22 pages. Compilation of the
findings, conservation and development policies, and goals
prepared by the six regional commissions in response to the
1972 Coastal Initiative. Colored maps detail coastal resour-
ces, including estuaries, lagoons, and marshes, and planning
goals for each subregion.
California. Department of Fish and Game. Coastal Wetlands Series.
No. 1-. Sacramento, CA: Department of Fish and Game, 1970
to date. Each report covers geography, hydrology, and eco-
logy of the area, inventories of plant and animal species, uses
READING LIST AND SOURCES OF STATISTICS
to which these resources have been and are being put, and
recommendations for the mitigation of adverse impacts.
Reports issued to date are:
. No. 1 : Report on the Natural Resources of Upper Newport
Bay and Recommendations Concerning the Bay's Development, by Herbert
W. Frey, Ronald F. Hein, and Jack L. Spruill. 1970. 68 pages.
. No. 2: The Natural Resources of Goleta Slough and
Recommendations for Use and Development, by John W. Speth, et al.
1970. 42 pages.
. No. 3: The Natural Resources of Bolinas Lagoon: Their
Status and Future, by Paul E. Giguere, et al. 1970. 107 pages.
. No. 4: The Natural Resources of Elkhorn Slough: Their
Present and Future Use, by Bruce M. Browning, et al. 1972.
105 pages.
. No. 5: The Natural Resources of San Diego Bay: Their
Status and Future, by Bruce M. Browning, John W. Speth, and
Wendal Gayman. 1973. 105 pages.
. No. 6: The Natural Resources of Humboldt Bay, by
Gary W. Monroe. 1973. 160+ pages.
. No. 7: The Natural Resources of Los Pensacuitos Lagoon
and Recommendations for Use and Development, by Peta J. Mudie,
Bruce Browning, and John W. Speth. 1974. 75+ pages.
. No. 8: The Natural Resources of Morrow Bay: Their
Status and Future, by Gene L. Gerdes, Edward R. J. Primbs, and
Bruce M. Browning. 1974. 103+ pages.
. No. 9: Natural Resources of the Eel River Delta, by
Gary W. Monroe, et al. 1974. 108 pages.
. No. 10: Natural Resources of Lake Earl and the Smith
River Delta, by Gary W. Monroe, Bobby J. Mapes, and Patrick L.
McLaughlin. 1975. 114 pages.
. No. 11 : The Natural Resources of Bodega Harbor, by Jon
Standing, Bruce M. Browning, and John W. Speth. 1975.
183+ pages.
. No. 12: The Natural Resources of San Dieguito and
Batiquitos Lagoons, by Peta J. Mudie, Bruce M. Browning, and
John W. Speth. 1976. 100+ pages.
. No. 13: The Natural Resources of Carpinteria Marsh:
Their Status and Future, by Keith B. MacDonald. 1976. 69+ pages.
. No. 14: Natural Resources of Coastal Wetlands in
Northern Santa Barbara County, by Clark R. Mahrdt, et al. 1976.
99+ pages.
. No. 15: The Natural Resources of the Nipomo Dunes and
Wetlands, by Kent A. Smith, John W. Speth, and Bruce M.
Browning. 1976. 106+ pages.
. No. 16: The Natural Resources of Agua Hedionda
Lagoon, by Jack Bradshaw, et al. 1976. 110+ pages.
. No. 17: The Natural Resources of Mugu Lagoon, by
Keith B. MacDonald. 1976. 119+ pages.
, . No. 18: The Natural Resources of Anaheim Bay —
Huntington Harbour, by John W. Speth, et al. 1976. 103+ pages.
. No. 19: The Natural Resources of Napa Marsh, by
Madrone Associates. 1977. 97+ pages.
. No. 20: The Natural Resources of Esteros Americano and
de San Antonio, by Madrone Associates and James Swanson.
1977. 81+ pages.
California. Department of Fish and Game. Fish Bulletin. No. 1-.
Sacramento, CA: Department of Fish and Game, 1913 to date.
An irregular series of reports on various fish and fishery-
related topics, including, annually, the California marine fish
catch. Other titles of general interest include:
. No. 96: California Fishing Ports, by W. L. Scofield.
1954. 159 pages.
. No. 113: The Ecology of the Salton Sea, California, in
Relation to the Sportfishery, by Boyd W. Walker. 1961. 204 pages.
. No. 123: The California Oyster Industry, by Elinore
M. Barrett. 1963. 103 pages.
. Nos. 133 and 136 : Ecological Studies of the Sacramento-
San Joaquin Estuary, by D. W. Kelley and Jerry L. Turner. 1966.
133 and 168 pages.
. No. 150: A History of California's Fish Hatcheries,
1870-1960, by Earl Leitritz. 1970. 92 pages.
. No. 157: Guide to the Coastal Marine Fishes of Califor-
nia, by David J. Miller and Robert N. Lea. 1972. 235 pages.
113
. No. 164: Trout and Salmon Culture, by Earl Leitritz
and Robert C. Lewis. 1976. 197 pages.
California. Department of Navigation and Ocean Development. A
Guide to California Boating Facilities. Sacramento, CA: Depart-
ment of Navigation and Ocean Development, 1974 to date.
Issued in three booklets covering Northern, Central, and
Southern California, tables keyed to maps show locations of
launching ramps, berths, fuel docks, and associated chandler-
ies along the Pacific Coast and on inland rivers, lakes, and
reservoirs.
California. Department of Public Health. Bureau of Sanitary
Engineering. Water Reclamation. 15 vols. Berkeley, CA: Depart-
ment of Public Health, Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, 1972.
Part I provides general information on possible uses of re-
claimed water in California, with quantity and quality re-
quirements and public health considerations. Part II consists
of separate volumes for each of the major drainage basins,
including information on existing and planned reclamation
operations (as of 1971) and identification of potential markets.
California. Department of Water Resources. Bulletin. No. 1-. Sacra-
mento, CA: State Printing Office, 1922 to date. The bulletins,
of which numbers 1-56 and new series numbers 1-24 were
published by the Department's predecessor agencies, include
reports and statistical data on many aspects of water supply,
development, management, and use in California. An anno-
tated list and comprehensive index to the entire series is
published semi-annually with periodic cumulations as Bulletin
No. 170. The index also includes a list of libraries which
receive the bulletins. Some titles of general and current
interest are:
. No. 17: Dams Within the Jurisdiction of the State of
California. 1941 to date, irregular.
. No. 63: Sea Water Intrusion in California. 1957 to date.
irregular. A series of reports on the intrusion of salt water
into groundwater basins in various parts of the state.
. No. 68: Inventory of Waste Water Production and Waste
Water Reclamation in California. 1953 to date, irregular.
. No. 69: California High Water. 1962/63 to date.
annual. Report of precipitation, peak flows, floods, and damages
resulting from major storms during the water year October 1 to
September 30.
. No. 80 : Reclamation of Water from Wastes in Southern
California. 1961 to date, irregular.
• No. 113: Vegetative Water Use in California. 1954 to
date, irregular. Data tabulated by evapotranspiration zone
and by crop.
. No. 118: California's Ground Water. 1975. 135 pages.
. No. 120: Water Conditions in California. 1963 to date.
Issued monthly, February through May with summary in
October. Includes precipitation, snowpack, reservoir storage
and streamflow data.
. No. 130: Hydrologic Data. 5 vols. 1963 to date.
annual. Contents: (l) north coastal area; (2) northeastern
California; (3) central coastal area; (4) San Joaquin Valley;
and, (5) Southern California. Includes streamflow at selected
stations, water level in observation wells, surface and ground-
water quality data.
. No. 132: California State Water Project in (year). 1963
to date, annual. Report on construction, operation, finance,
and water deliveries to contracting agencies.
. No. 160: The California Water Plan: Outlook in (year).
1966 to date, irregular. This report updates the planning
assumptions and projections of the Department and describes
alternative future development and operating policies.
■ No. 166-2 : Urban Water Use in California, by Richard
J. Wagner. 1975. 172 pages.
. No. 189: Waste Water Reclamation: State of the Art, by
James M. Morris, Jr., Charles F. Kleine, and Earl G. Bingham.
1973. 43 pages.
■ No. 190: Water and Power from Geothermal Resources in
California: An Overview, by Charles R. White and Phyllis J.
Yates. 1974. 52 pages.
• No. 194: Hydroelectric Energy Potential in California,
by Robert G. Potter, et al. 1974. 61 pages.
■ No. 198: Water Conservation in California, by Glenn
B. Sawyer, et al. 1976. 95 pages.
. No. 200: California State Water Project. 6 vols. 1974.
Contents: vol. 1, History, Planning and Early Progress: vol. 2,
Conveyance Facilities; vol. 3, Storage Facilities; vol. 4, Power and
Pumping Facilities; vol. 5, Control Facilities; vol. 6, Project Supplements.
• No. 201 : California Water. 1977 to date, annual. A
report intended for the general public discussing current
water supply and management issues and Department activities.
California. Department of Water Resources. Directory of Officials of
Flood Control, Reclamation, Levee and Drainage Districts, and Munici-
palities. Sacramento, CA: Department of Water Resources,
1964 to date, irregular. List, arranged by district, of officials
responsible for flood control activities. Includes addresses
and telephone numbers. Center-fold map shows locations of
districts in Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys.
California. Governor's Commission to Review California Water
Rights Law. Staff Paper. No. 1-. Sacramento, CA: Governor's
Commission to Review California Water Rights Law, 1977 to
date. A series of background reports on various questions
prepared for the Commission. Papers issued to date are:
. No. 1: Appropriative Water Rights in California: Back-
ground and Issues, by Marybelle D. Archibald. 1977. 63 pages.
• No. 2: Groundwater Rights in California: Background
and Issues, by Anne J. Schneider. 1977. 105 pages.
. No. 3 : Legal Aspects of Water Conservation in California :
Background and Issues, by Clifford T Lee. 1977. 76 pages.
. No. 4: Riparian Water Rights in California: Background
and Issues, by David B. Anderson. 1977. 90 pages.
. No. 5 : The Transfer of Water Rights in California: Back-
ground and Issues, by Clifford T. Lee. 1977. 72 pages.
. No. 6: Legal Aspects of Instream Water Uses in Cali-
fornia: Background and Issues, by Anne J. Schneider. 1978. 131
pages.
California. State Water Resources Control Board. Publication. No. 1-.
Sacramento, CA: State Water Resources Control Board, 1952
to date. A series of reports on various aspects of water
quality and water pollution. Before 1968, issued by the
board's predecessor agencies: Numbers 1-24 by the State
Water Pollution Control Board, and numbers 25-37 by the
State Water Quality Control Board. Some titles of general
and current interest are:
. No. 3- A: Water Quality Criteria, edited by Jack
Edward McKee and Harold W. Wolf. 2nd ed., 1963. 584 pages.
A condensation and critical evaluation of the technical and
legal literature pertaining to water quality criteria for the
various beneficial uses of water. Includes a bibliography of
some 3,800 citations.
. No. 44: Study of Toxicity and Biostimulation in San
Francisco Bay-Delta Waters. 8 vols. 1972. Contents: vol. 1, Sum-
mary Report, by Randall L. Brown and Louis A. Beck; vol. 2, A
Statistical Evaluation of the Relationships Between Relative Toxicity and
Species Diversity Index, by Hydroscience Inc.; vol. 3, Acute Toxicity
of Discharged Wastes, by Dennis C. Wilson and C. R. Hazel; vol. 4,
Toxicity Removal from Municipal Wastewaters, by Larry A. Esvelt,
Warren J. Kaufman, and Robert E. Selleck; vol. 5, Dispersion
Studies, by Harlan J. Proctor, Jr. and Gerald C. Cox; vol. 6,
Bioassays of the Lower Trophic Levels, by Hans-Jurgen Krock and
David T Mason; vol. 7, Effects of Wastes on Benlhic Biota, by Dick
A. Daniel and Harold K. Chadwick; vol. 8, Algal Assays, by
Randall L. Brown, Gary Varney, and Harold K. Chadwick.
. No. 46: Environmental Impact of Detergent Builders on
the Waters of the State of California, by David Jenkins, et al. 1972
61 pages.
. No. 50: A Method for Regulating Timber Harvest and
Road Construction Activity for Water Quality Protection in Northern
California, by Jones and Stokes Associates. 2 vols. 1973
. No. 56: Oil Spills in California and Effects of Cleanup
Agents, by Fred Kopperdahl, Charles Hazel, and Norman
Morgan. 1975. 106 pages.
. No. 57: Tahoe Basin Studies Report, A compendium of
Reports to the State Water Resources Control Board. 1974. 79 pages.
. No. 59: California Water Quality Research needs. 1977.
83+ pages.
California. University. Water Resources Center. Annual Report.
Davis, CA: Water Resources Center, 1964 to date. The
Center was established in 1957 to coordinate and fund water-
related research on all campuses of the University of Cali-
fornia. The Annual Report summarizes research in progress or
completed in the past year, and lists reports published by the
Center and other publications emanating from research
projects.
California. University. Berkeley. Sanitary Engineering Research
Laboratory. Comprehensive Study of San Francisco Bay: Final Report
In the Laboratory's SERL Report Nos. 65-7, 65-8, 67-3, 65-10, 67-2,
67-4, 67-1, and 67-5. 8 vols. Berkeley, CA: Sanitary Engineer-
ing Research Laboratory, and the School of Public Health,
1965-1907. Contents: vol. 1, Physical, Chemical and Microbiolog-
ical Sampling and Analytical Methods; vol. 2, Biological Sampling and
Analytical Methods; vol. 3, Waste Discharges and Loadings; vol. 4,
Physical and Hydrological Characteristics of San Francisco Bay; vol. 5,
Summary of Physical, Chemical and Biological Water and Sediment Data ;
vol. 6, Water and Sediment Quality and Waste Discharge Relationships;
vol. 7, A Model of Mixing and Diffusion in San Francisco Bay; vol. 8,
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations.
California Water Code. Compilation and codification of laws in effect
at the time of publication dealing with state powers over
water, water rights, flood control, water conservation and
development projects including the California Water Plan and
Central Valley Project, water quality, and the formation and
operation of various types of water districts. Through 1969
the Water Code was published biennially by the California
Department of General Services. After that date, commer-
cially published editions such as West's Annotated California
Codes: Water, or Deering's California Codes, Anotated: Water, should
be consulted. These latter include, in addition to the text of
the law, cross-references to legal opinions, law review arti-
cles, etc. The reader should be warned that not all water-
related law is contained in the Water Code; it is sometimes
necessary to consult other codes such as Government, Harbors
and Navigation, or Public Utilities.
Cooper, Erwin. Aqueduct Empire: A Guide to Water in California, Its
Turbulent History and Its Management Today. In Western Lands
and Waters Series VII. Glendale, CA: Arthur H. Clark Co.,
1968. 439 pages. Summarizes the history of California water
development with special emphasis on the State Water Pro-
ject and future alternatives.
Dames & Moore. National Shoreline Study, California Regional Inventory.
San Francisco, CA: U.S. Corps of Engineers, South Pacific
Division, 1971. 256 pages. Inventory of erosion problems
along the California coast, recommendations as to suitable
protection, tables and maps detailing shoreline characteristics
ownership status, use, erosion, and protection measures.
Dana, Richard Henry. Two Years Before the Mast, (many editions
available). This classic of the sea contains an eyewitness
account of California in the 1830's. Detailed account of the
hide and tallow trade and shipping, descriptions of climate
coastal weather, and the geography and vegetation of the
California coast.
DeRoos, Robert. The Thirsty Land: The Story of the Central Valley Project:
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1948. 256 pages.
History of the Central Valley Project, includes planning,
politics, conflicts between the Bureau of Reclamation and the
Corps of Engineers, 160-acre limitation, hydroelectric power,
and conflicts with Pacific Gas and Electric Co., financing and
repayment, state versus federal control.
Dunne, Thomas and Luna B. Leopold. Water in Environmental Plan-
ning. San Francisco, CA: Freeman, 1978. 818 pages. Compre-
hensive text and basic reference covering hydrology, fluvial
geomorphology, and river quality. Illustrated with numerous
examples of field problems frequently encountered by plan-
ners and water resource managers. An interdisciplinary
approach stressing alternative strategies and the bases and
techniques of quantitative analysis.
Fellmeth, Robert C. Politics of Land. New York: Grossman, 1973.
715 pages. Report of Ralph Nader's Study Group on Land Use
in California. Analysis of land ownership patterns and the'
concommitant political and financial influence on water pol-
lution regulation, the development and operation of publicly
funded irrigation and water transfer projects. Included are
the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act and the regulatory
performance of the State and Regional Water Quality Con-
trol Boards; financial arrangements of the State Water Pro-
ject; operations of the Bureau of Reclamation in the San Luis
Project, Westlands Water District; and the effects of recrea-
tion development on adjacent waters.
Fuhriman, Dean K. and James R. Barton. Ground Water Pollution in
Arizona, California, Nevada and Utah. U. S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Water Pollution Control Research Series 16060
ERU 12/71. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing
Office, 1971. 249 pages. Survey of groundwater pollution
problems, discussion of the various causes of pollution, and
recommendations for further research. Includes extensive
bibliography.
Gilliam, Harold. Weather of the San Francisco Bay Region. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 1966. 72 pages. (California
natural history guides: 6). Covers basic principles of meteor-
ology and how the topography of the Bay Area modifies the
prevailing weather patterns, creating local microclimates.
Goldman, Charles R. Eutrophication of Lake Tahoe Emphasizing Water
Quality. In U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ecological
Research Series EPA-660/3- 74-034. Washington, D.C.: U. S.
Government Printing Office, 1974. 408 pages. Study of the
chemical and limnological factors affecting Lake Tahoe water
quality. Graphs, tables, and maps showing data from 4 1/2
years of water quality monitoring. Some discussion of land
application of waste water within the watershed.
Harding, Sidney Twichell. Water in California. Palo Alto, CA: N-P
Publications, 1960. 231 pages. Summarizes the geography of
water in California and traces the history of water supply
development and use, including the evolution of water rights
and water law, hydraulic mining, navigation, irrigation, hy-
droelectric power, and flood control.
Hundley, Norris. Water and the West: The Colorado River Compact and
the Politics of Water in the American West. Berkeley and Los
Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1975. 395 pages.
Historical and political study of the background and effects
of the Colorado River Compact apportioning Colorado River
water between the upper and lower basins, legal conflicts
between Arizona and California, and apportionments of
lower basin flows among Arizona, California, and Nevada.
Hutchins, Wells Aleck. The California Law of Water Rights. Sacra-
mento, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Research Service and California State Printing Office, 1956.
571 pages. Analysis and explanation of water rights law in
California, with index of topics covered and of cases cited.
Kelley, Robert L. Gold vs. Grain: The Hydraulic Mining Controversy in
California's Sacramento Valley, A Chapter in the Decline of the Concept
of Laissez-Faire. In Western Lands and Waters Series I. Glendale,
CA: Arthur H. Clark Co., 1959. 327 pages. Study of the rise
of hydraulic mining in California, the effects of hydraulic
mining debris on agriculture, navigation, and flooding in the
Sacramento River Valley, and the battles in the courts, State
Legislature, and Congress between mining and agricultural
interests.
MacDiarmid, John MacLeod. The Central Valley Project, State Water
Project, and Salinity Control in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Sacra-
mento, CA: State Water Resources Control Board, 1976. 553
pages. (Thesis, M.A. in Geography, California State Univer-
sity, Chico). Available from National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA PB 254-093. History of salinity intru-
sion problems in the Delta and the response of governmental
agencies, including various saltwater barrier projects. The
planning and operation of the Central Valley Project by the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and of the State Water Project
by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and of the State Water Pro-
ject by the California Department of Water Resources; the
setting of Delta water quality standards and the responsibil-
ities of the State Water Resources Control Board; as well as
conflicts among these and other agencies are discussed.
MacMullen, Jerry. Paddle-Wheel Days in California. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press, 1944. 157 pages. History of inland
steam navigation on San Francisco, San Diego, and Humboldt
bays, the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, and the lower
Colorado. Appendices list steamboats which saw service on
California rivers, steamboat builders, tables of distances be-
tween river landings, and ferry-boats.
McNairn, Jack and Jerry MacMullen. Ships of the Redwood Coast. Stan-
ford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1945. 156 pages. History
of the coastwise lumber trade. Appendices list wooden steam-
schooners, steam-schooner conversions, steam-schooner op-
erators, lumber ports of Northern California, and masters of.
May, Philip Ross. Origins of Hydraulic Mining in California. Oakland,
CA: Holmes Book Co., 1970. 88 pages. Historical study con-
centrating on the technological developments in hydraulic'
mining, with illustrations from contemporary sources.
Nadeau, Remi A. The Water Seekers. Santa Barbara, CA: Peregrine
Smith, 1974. 278 pages. History of water supply development
in Southern California since the late 1800s with emphasis
on the building of the Owens Valley Aqueduct and develop-
ment of the Colorado River.
Ostrom Vincent. Water and Politics : A Study of Water Policies and Admin-
istration in the Development of Los Angeles. Los Angeles, CA:
Haynes Foundation, 1953. 297 pages. History of the develop-
ment of the municipal water supply system of Los Angeles
from Pueblo days to the post-War era, concentrating on the
political, institutional, and administrative aspects.
Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Committee. California Region
Framework Study Committee. Comprehensive Framework Study,
California Region. 21 vols, [n.p.], The Framework Study Com-
mittee, 1971. Water supply and use data for the California
Region (including parts of southern Oregon drained by the
Klamath River) as of 1965, with projections to 2020. Outlines
alternative water and land resource uses for the future. Con-
tents : appendix 1, History of the Study; app. 2, The Region; app. 3,
Legal and Institutional Environments ; app. 4, Economic Base and Pro-
jections; app. 5, Water Resources; app. 6, Land Resources and Use;
app. 7, Mineral Resources; app. 8, Watershed Management; app. 9,
Flood Control; app. 10, Irrigation and Drainage; app. 11, Municipal
and Industrial Water; app. 12, Recreation; app. 13, Fish and Wildlife;
app. 14, Electric Power; app. 15, Water Quality, Pollution and Health
114
Factors; app. 16, Shoreline Protection; app. 17, Navigation; app. 18,
General Program and Alternatives. State and federal comments.
Rada, Edward L. and Richard J. Berquist. Irrigation Efficiency in the
Production of California Crop Calories and Proteins. Davis, CA: Uni-
versity of California Water Resources Center, 1976. 93 pages.
(The Center's Contribution No. 158). Includes statistics on
production of calories and protein per acre-foot of irrigation
water applied by crop and by hydrologic area. Data for 1964,
1969, and 1972.
Rogers, Harold E. and Alan H. Nichols. Water for California: Planning,
Law and Practice, Finance. 2 vols. San Francisco, CA: Bancroft-
Whitney, 1967. Compiled primarily as a reference work for
engineers, attorneys, public officials, and financial consul-
tants, these volumes discuss various water development pro-
jects, water rights, types of water organizations and their
statutory basis, and the financing of water projects. Many
legal citations.
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
Background Reports. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Bay Con-
servation and Development Commission, 1966-1968. 25 re-
ports and summaries. An unnumbered series of reports by
various consultants and the staff of the BCDC. Titles are:
The Tides of San Francisco Bay, by Bernard Smith; Sedimentation
Aspects of San Francisco Bay, by Bernard Smith; Pollution, Water
Pollution and San Francisco Bay, by BCDC staff; Preliminary Fish
and Wildlife Plan for San Francisco Bay-Estuary, by Glenn Delisle;
Some Ecological Aspects of San Francisco Bay, by H. Thomas Harvey;
Flood Control in the San Francisco Bay System Tidal Plain, by Bernard
Smith; Smog and Weather: The Effect of San Francisco Bay on the Bay
Area Climate, by Albert Miller; Appearance and Design: Principles
for Design and Development of San Francisco Bay, by Harold B.
Goldman; Fill: Three Reports on Aspects of Fill in San Francisco Bay,
by Lee and Praszker, Consulting Engineers, H. Bolton Seed,
and Karl V. Steinbrugge; Salt, Sand and Shells: Mineral Resources
of San Francisco Bay, by Harold B. Goldman; Economic and Popu-
lation Growth in the San Francisco Bay Area, by Clifford W. Graves;
Ports: Maritime Commerce in the San Francisco Bay Area, by Clifford
W. Graves; Air Transportation and San Francisco Bay, by Clifford
W. Graves; Transportation: Surface Transportation On and Around
San Francisco Bay, by George E. Reed; Recreation On and Around
San Francisco Bay, by BCDC staff; Waterfront Industry Around San
Francisco Bay, by Dorothy Muncy; Waterfront Housing: Residential
Development Around San Francisco Bay, by Clifford W. Graves;
Public Facilities and Utilities In and Around San Francisco Bay, by
Clifford W. Graves; Solid Waste Disposal and San Francisco Bay, by
David M. Stevens; Ownership, by BCDC staff; Government:
Regional Organization for Bay Conservation and Development, by
Stanley Scott and John C. Bollens; Powers and Money Needed to
Carry Out the Bay Plan, (7 vols, by various authors); Oil and Gas
Production in San Francisco Bay, by Peter A. Stromberg; Review of
Barrier Proposals for San Francisco Bay, by Richard W. Karn.
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
San Francisco Bay Plan. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission, 1969. 43 pages.
In 1965 the McAteer-Petris Act established the Commission
to prepare "A comprehensive and enforceable plan for the
conservation of the water of San Francisco Bay and the devel-
opment of its shoreline." This volume summarizes the find-
ings and details the proposed policies of the Commission.
The Commission was made permanent by act of the State
Legislature in 1969.
. Supplement. 1969. 572 pages. Summaries of all
of the Background Reports prepared for the Commission by its
staff and consultants for use in formulating the Bay plan.
Schelhorse, Larry D., et al. The Market Structure of the Southern
California Water Industry. La Jolla, CA: Copley International
Corp. for the U.S. Office of Water Resources Research, 1974.
204 pages. Description of water supply and use in Southern
California, and an analysis of the physical, legal, and organi-
zational aspects of the water industry of Los Angeles, Orange,
San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Imperial,
and Inyo counties. Discusses demand for water by various
sectors of the Southern California economy and the costs
of supplying that water.
Scott, Edward B. The Saga of Lake Tahoe. Crystal Bay, NV: Sierra-
Tahoe Publishing Co., 1957. 519 pages. Illustrated history of
the development of the Tahoe area from its discovery (Euro-
pean discovery, that is) in 1844.
Seckler, David, ed. California Water: A Study in Resource Management.
Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California
Press, 1971. 348 pages. A collection of 16 papers by various
authors. Subjects covered include: the State Water Plan; use
of water in urban areas, in agriculture, and by native vegeta-
tion; desalination; waste water reclamation; geothermal and
hydroelectric resources; acreage limitation; conjunctive use;
and techniques of resource allocation and project evaluation.
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. Coastal Water
Research Project Annual Report. El Segundo, CA: Southern Cali-
fornia Coastal Water Research Project, 1974 to date. The
project was established in 1969 by local government agencies
in the Southern California coastal area to study the waters
from Point Concepcion to the Mexican border. The Annual
Report summarizes research findings and lists papers and tech-
nical reports prepared by the project staff. Research for the
period 1970-73 was reported in The Ecology of the Southern
California Bight: Implications for Water Quality Management. 1973.
531 pages.
Stewart, J. Ian. Irrigation in California: A Report to the State Water
Resources Control Board. Davis, CA: University of California,
Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, Water Science
and Engineering Section, 1975. 64 pages. Detailed study of
irrigation water use in California based on 1972 data. In-
cludes irrigation locations, types of crops and acreages of
each, quantities of water applied and irrigation methods
in use.
Thomas, Harold Edgar and D. A. Phoenix. Summary Appriasals of
the Nation's Groundwater Resources — California Region. In U. S. Geo-
logical Survey, Professional Paper 813-E. Washington, D. C. :
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1976. 51 pages.
Information on the location and geology of aquifers and
groundwater basins, pumpage, natural and artificial recharge,
seawater intrusion, land subsidence, groundwater quality and
pollution, conjunctive use, and reservoir management.
Thompson, John. Settlement Geography of the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta, California. 1957. 551 pages. (Thesis, Ph.D. in Geography,
Stanford University. Available from University Microfilms,
Ann Arbor, MI). Comprehensive study of the geography,
hydrography, European discovery, exploration, and settle-
ment of the Delta. History of reclamation efforts, agricultural
development and land use patterns, establishment of towns
and transportation facilities, and floods since 1850.
U. S. Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. Port Series. Wash-
ington, D. C: U. S. Government Printing Office, (various
dates). Each volume of this series, which is prepared for the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, covers a single port or group
of nearby ports, and provides data on port and harbor con-
ditions, navigation channels and anchorages, wharves and
piers, shoreside warehouses and cargo-handling facilities,
marine repair facilities, and a detailed map. Updated at irreg-
ular intervals. Port Series volumes for California are:
. No. 27: Port of San Diego.
. No. 28: Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
. No. 30: Ports of San Francisco and Redwood City.
. No. 31: Ports of Oakland, Alameda, Richmond and Ports
on the Carquinez Strait.
. No. 32 : Ports of Sacramento, Stockton, Pittsburg and
Antioch.
U. S. Bureau of the Census. Report on Agriculture by Irrigation in the
Western Part of the United States at the Eleventh Census: 1890, by
F. H. Newell. Washington, D. C. : U. S. Government Printing
Office, 1894. 336 pages.
. Crops and Irrigation. Washington, D. C. : U. S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office, 1902. 880 pages (12th Decennial
Census: 1900, vol. 6).
. Irrigation. Washington, D. C: U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1913. pages 827-876. (Taken from the 13th
Decennial Census (1910) chap. 11 of the vol. 6).
. Irrigation and Drainage: General Report and Analytical
Tables and Reports for States, with Statistics for Counties. Washington,
D. C. : U. S. Government Printing Office, 1922. 741 pages.
(14th Decennial Census: 1920, vol. 7).
. Drainage of Agricultural Lands: Reports by States with
Statistics for Counties, a Summary for the United States and a Synopsis of
Drainage Laws. Washington, D. C: U. S. Government Printing
Office, 1932. 453 pages. (15th Decennial Census: 1930).
. Irrigation of Agricultural Lands. Washington, D. C:
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1942. 689 pages. (16th
Decennial Census: 1940).
. Drainage of Agricultural Lands. Washington, D. C. :
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1942. 683 pages. (16th
Decennial Census: 1940).
. Irrigation of Agricultural Lands. Washington, D. C:
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1952. various pagings.
(U. S. Census of Agriculture: 1950, vol. 3).
. Drainage of Agricultural Lands. Washington, D. C. :
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1952. 307 pages (U. S.
Census of Agriculture: 1950, vol. 4).
. Irrigation of Agricultural Lands. Washington, D. C. :
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1962. 400 pages. (U. S.
Census of Agriculture 1959, vol. 3).
. Drainage of Agricultural Lands. Washington, D. C. :
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1961. 364 pages. (U. S.
Census of Agriculture: 1959, vol. 4).
. Irrigation. Washington, D. C: U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1973. 273 pages. (U. S. Census of Agriculture :
1969, vol. 4). While, with the exception of the report from
the 1890 Census, the reports listed above cover the entire
United States, much of the detailed data is arranged by state.
In addition, data on irrigated acreage and the value of crops
therefrom are presented in the California volume of each
U. S. Census of Agriculture (1950, 1954, 1959, 1964, and
1969).
. Census of Housing. Washington, D. C. : U. S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office, 1940 to date. Decennial. Reports
prepared from data collected in the Decennial Census of
Population include statistics on plumbing, source of house-
hold water supply, and, since 1960, method of sewage disposal.
In the most recent censuses, data are presented by state, by
standard metropolitan statistical area, and by city block. The
1940 census included special tables on rural housing.
. Water Use in Manufacturing. Washington, D. C. :
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1954 to date. Quinquennial.
(U. S. Census of Manufactures: 1954 to date, vol. 1, various
chapters). Data for industries, grouped according to the
Standard Industrial Classification, are presented by state in
some tables and by industrial water use region in others.
Topics covered include water intake and source, water con-
sumption, water discharged, and effluent treatment.
U. S. Comptroller General. California Drought of 1976 and 1977:
Extent, Damage, and Governmental Response. Washington, D. C. :
U. S. General Accounting Office, 1977. 92 pages. Summary
of extent and economic impact of the latest California drought.
Analysis of governmental responses to the drought on the
federal, state, and local level.
U. S. Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
Central Valley Project Documents, compiled by Clair Engle and the
Committee staff 84th Cong. 2nd sess. REPT. 415. 85th
Cong., 1st sess. REPT. 246. 2 vols. Washington, D. C. : U. S.
Government Printing Office, 1956-1957. Volume 1 is a com-
pilation, in whole or in excerpt, of the authorizing docu-
ments, reports, and legislation related to water planning in
California beginning with the establishment of the Office of
Surveyor General in 1850, through the first two decades of
operation of the Central Valley Project. Volume 2 contains
operating documents, excerpts from committee hearings,
water and power contracts, financial data, and legal opinions
and decisions. Each volume is indexed separately.
U. S. Corps of Engineers. Waterborne Commerce of the United States,
Part 4: Waterways and Harbors, Pacific Coast, Alaska and Hawaii.
Vicksburg, MS: U. S. Army Engineer Division Lower Missi-
ssippi Valley, 1920 to date, annual. Statistics on tonnage of
imports, exports, and coastwise shipping by commodity and
port or waterway. Trips and drafts of vessels inbound and
outbound by port and type of vessel. Passenger statistics for
certain ports.
. South Pacific Division. Water Resources Development
by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers in California. San Francisco,
CA: U. S. Corps of Engineers, South Pacific Division, 1950 to
date, biennial. Reports of flood control, harbor and navigation
and beach erosion control projects and research undertaken
by the Corps in California.
U. S. Environmental Data Service. Climate of California. In the Ser-
vice's Climatography of the United States, No. 60 : Climates of the
States. Asheville, NC: National Climatic Center, 1959 to date,
irregular. Brief text, tables of monthly average temperature,
precipitation, and probability of freezing. Tables of normals,
means, and extremes for selected stations. Maps of mean
temperature, precipitation, and freeze-free period. The 1970
edition has been reprinted in Climates of the States. Port Wash-
ington, NY: Water Information Center Inc., 1974.
. Climatological Data, California. Vol. 1-. Asheville,
NC: U. S. Environmental Data Service, 1897 to date. Monthly.
Daily precipitation and temperature, evaporation and wind,
snowfall and snow on ground, map of gauging stations and
station index are included. Issue No. 13 each year is the an-
nual summary.
U. S. Geological Survey. Estimated Use of Water in the United States,
1950—. In the Survey's Circular Nos. 115, 398, 456, 556, 676,
765. Washington, D. C: U. S. Government Printing Office,
1951 to date. Quinquennial. Estimates of ground and surface
water withdrawn and consumed for public water supply,
rural domestic and livestock use, irrigation, industrial use
(self-supplied) and thermoelectric and hydroelectric power
generation. Data are presented by state and region.
. Water Resources Data for California, 196 1 -. Menlo Park,
CA : U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, 1963
to date. Annual. Daily streamflow records from several hun-
dred gauging stations maintained by the Survey, reservoir
storage, water level in observation wells, water quality, and
suspended sediment measurements. The surface water sup-
ply records are cumulated at intervals in Surface Water Supply of
the United States, Part 9: Colorado River Basin; Part 10: Great Basin,
and Part 11: Pacific Slope Basins in California. Records of obser-
vation wells are cumulated in Groundwater Levels in the United
States: Southwestern States. Water quality data was republished
annually through 1970 in Quality of Surface Waters of the United
States, Parts 9, 10, and 11. All of these cumulations and repub-
lications are issued as various numbers of the U. S. Geolog-
ical Survey Water-Supply Papers.
. Water-Supply Paper. No. 1-. Washington, D. C. :
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1896 to date. Irregular.
Reports on water-related topics throughout the United States,
and occasionally abroad. Includes records of ground and sur-
face water supply, water quality, and floods in California.
Indexed by author, topic, and geographic area in Publications of
the Geological Survey. Index volumes cover 1879-1961, 1962-
1970, and have been issued monthly with annual cumulations
thereafter.
. Water Resources Division. California Streamflow
Characteristics (from Records through 1968). 2 vols. Menlo Park, CA:
U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, 1971.
(Openfile report). Includes gauging station descriptions, dur-
ation tables for daily discharge, highest mean discharge for
specified consecutive periods, and statistics for monthly and
annual mean discharges for selected gauging stations.
U. S. National Weather Service. Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the
Western United States, Volume 11: California. In NOAA Atlas 2.
Silver Spring, MD: U. S. National Weather Service, 1973. 71
pages. Isopluvial maps showing 6-hour and 24-hour precipi-
tation for 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-
year frequency of occurrence. Accompanying text gives meth-
ods of data collection and analysis, interpretation of results,
and procedures for estimating values for durations other
than 6 and 24 hours. Prepared for the U. S. Soil Conser-
vation Service.
Waananen, A. O. and J. R. Crippen. Magnitude and Frequency of Floods
in California. Menlo Park, CA: U. S. Geological Survey, Water
Resources Division, 1977. 96 pages. (The Division's Water
Resources Investigation 77-21). Equations and nomographs
for the estimation of magnitude and frequency of floods on
gauged and ungauged drainage areas in California.
Water Quality Control Plan Report: (name of basin). Sacramento, CA:
State Water Resources Control Board, (various dates). Irreg-
ular. Plans for the various basins, prepared by the Regional
Water Quality Control Boards in response to the Porter-
Cologne Water Quality Act, have appeared in several pre-
liminary versions over the past decade. The "Final" Plans
were submitted to the State Board in 1975, the "Draft"
Environmental Impact Reports on the adoption of the Plans
have now begun to appear. The Plans identify past, present,
and potential beneficial uses of surface and groundwater,
and set water quality objectives to protect those uses, and
recommend alternative pollution control measures. Back-
ground data on the geography, hydrology, and current waste-
water production of the basin are included. Plans have been
issued for the following basins: 1 — A, Klamath River Basin:
1— B, North Coastal; 2, San Francisco Bay; 3, Central Coast;
4 — A, Santa Clara River Basin; 4 — B, Los Angeles River
Basin; 5 — A, Sacramento River Basin; 5 — B, Sacramento —
San Joaquin Delta Basin; 5 — C, San Joaquin River Basin;
5 — D, Tulare Lake Basin; 6 — A, North Lahontan; 6 — B,
South Lahontan; 7— A, West Colorado River Basin; 7 — B,
East Colorado River Basin; 8, Santa Ana River Basin; 9, San
Diego Basin.
Watkins, Tom H. "California: The New Romans." The Water
Hustlers. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club, 1971, pp, 131-201.
History and critique of water resources development in
California, concentrating on the State Water Project, its plan-
ning, financing, and political controversies.
Watkins, Tom H., et al. The Grand Colorado: The Story of a River and
Its Canyons. Palo Alto, CA: American West Publishing, 1969.
310 pages. Copiously illustrated work covering many facets
of the Colorado: history of Indian settlement; Spanish ex-
ploration; early cartographic efforts; American explorers,
particularly the expedition of John Wesley Powell; develop-
ment of irrigated agriculture in Arizona and Imperial Valley;
construction of dams; the images of painters and photo-
graphers; and the coming of tourists and conservationists.
115
Key to Sources
The lists below identify the principal sources
used in the preparation of maps, tables, and
charts, as well as the institutions and individuals
who contributed photography and other graphic
materials to the atlas. Because the atlas was in-
tended in part as a demonstration of the ways in
which the great quantities of information gov-
ernmental agencies collect can be reconstituted
in a form which is more readily accessible to the
general reader, the emphasis in our research
program was placed at the outset upon the
assembly of already available data rather than
the generation of new information. In the pro-
cess of fitting together data from disparate
sources in order to create a statewide presenta-
tion of particular aspects of the water situation
in California, however, we encountered numer-
ous inconsistencies not only among the data
supplied by the major water agencies but even
between reports published by the same agency.
A major part of the research effort consequently
involved the resolution of conflicts between re-
porting agencies with respect to definitions,
reservoir capacities, methods of calculation, and
the names given to place names and facilities.
In the selection of data sources, our prefer-
ence throughout the project was to use already
published or publicly available information. The
water year 1975 was selected for the illustration
of many aspects of the modern water environ-
ment because that was the most recent fully
reported year in which precipitation and runoff
nearly approximated long-term averages. Earlier
years were used where more recent information
was not available or where historic events were
treated. Later years were used in instances
where the exceptional events associated with
the drought of 1976-77 would not be relevant to
the topic being presented or where the drought
itself was the topic. With respect to place names,
the identification used by the United States
Geological Survey has been given. In the de-
tailed maps of individual water delivery systems,
however, the facilities have been identified with
the names used by the agency operating that
facility.
In many instances a choice had to be made
among several available data sets, any one of
which would have given different results than
any of the others. In these instances, we selected
that data set which best suited our desire to give
a comprehensive treatment of the topic being
presented. Additional research was sometimes
necessary either to fill in missing elements or to
correct obvious errors, and these instances have
been noted below. In general, in those cases
where experts might disagree as to the validity
of some of the specific information contained in
the data sets we have employed, our rule was to
maintain a degree of consistency with the pub-
lished source given below such that another
person using the same source would obtain a
comparable result.
PLATES
HYDROLOGIC BALANCE
Adapted from Department of Water Resources
flow diagram Hydrologic Balance for Cali-
fornia, November 1977.
Artist: David L. Fuller Page: v
CALIFORNIA IN CONTEXT
U. S. Geological Survey. Estimated Use of Water in
the United States in 1975. In Circular 765.
Washington, D. C. : U. S. Government Print-
ing Office, 1977.
. National Atlas of the United States
of America. Washington, D. C. : U. S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office, 1970.
. Water Supply Paper. Washington,
D. G: U. S. Government Printing Office,
1970. (various numbers and dates).
Artist: Wdliam A. Bowen Page: 2
MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION
Rantz, S. E. Mean Annual Precipitation in the Cali-
fornia Region. Menlo Park, CA: U. S. Geolog-
ical Survey (open-file maps), 1969.
U. S. Department of Commerce. Climatological
Data: California. Washington, D. O: Super-
intendent of Documents, 1975.
Artist: Donald A. Ryan Page: 5
PRECIPITATION VARIABILITY
Data provided by unpublished computer listings
from the Department of Water Resources,
Division of Planning, Water Resources Eval-
uation Section.
Artist: Judith Christner Page: 7
ANNUAL RUNOFF AND SEASONALITY
U. S. Geological Survey. National Atlas of the
United States of America. Washington, D. C. :
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1970.
Additional information provided by the U. S.
Geological Survey, Water Resources Divi-
sion, California District, Menlo Park, Cali-
fornia.
Artist: David L. Fuller Page: 8
SNOW DEPTH
Data provided by Department of Water Resour-
ces, Division of Flood Management, Snow
Surveys Branch, and Division of Planning,
Resources Evaluation Section.
Map adapted from material developed by Greg
Scharfen, intern with Department of Water
Resources for Division of Planning, Re-
sources Evaluation Section.
Artist: David L. Fuller Page: 11
NATURAL MOISTURE DEMAND
California. Department of Water Resources.
Bulletin. No. 113-3: Vegetative Water Use in
California, 1974. Sacramento, CA: State Print-
ing Office, 1974.
Data for the evapotranspiration maps were
adapted from material developed by W. O.
Pruitt, Department of Land, Air, and Water
Resources, and Elias Fereres and Kent Kaita,
Cooperative Extension, University of Cali-
fornia, Davis.
Artist: Mark E. Goldman Page: 13
THE VIRGIN WATERSCAPE
Derby, G. H. Map of San Diego River, 1853. Ob-
tained from the California Section of the
State Library.
Kuchler. Natural Vegetation of California (map),
1977. Obtained from the California Section
of the State Library.
Nichols, D. and N. Wright. Preliminary Map of
Historic Margins of Marshlands, San Francisco
Bay, California. San Francisco, CA : San Fran-
cisco Bay Region Environment and Resour-
ces Planning Study, U. S. Geological Survey
and Department of Housing and Urban
Development Basic Data Contribution 9.
Whitney, J. D. Map of California and Nevada, 1873.
Obtained from the California Section of
the State Library.
. Map of Tidelands of California,
1873. Obtained from the California Section
of the State Library.
Artist: Donald A. Ryan Page: 17
SACRAMENTO FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM
California. Department of Water Resources.
Bulletin. No. 69-65: California High Water 1964-
1965. Sacramento, CA: State Printing Of-
fice, 1965.
. Flood Channel Capacities (map).
Sacramento, CA: Department of Water
Resources, 1970.
. 1975 National Assessment : Specific
Problem Analysis. Sacramento, CA: State
Printing Office, 1977.
U. S. Geological Survey. California Streamflow
Characteristics (open-file report). Menlo Park,
CA: U. S. Geological Survey, 1971.
. Water Supply Paper 1686, Part
11. Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in the United
States. Menlo Park, CA: U. S. Geological
Survey, 1967.
Artist: Mark E. Goldman Page: 18
HISTORIC WATER DEVELOPMENT
California. Department of Public Works, Divi-
sion of Water Resources. Dams Under the Jur-
isdiction of California. Sacramento, CA: State
Printing Office, 1971. (Now identified as
Bulletin 17-41).
California. Department of Water Resources. Bul-
letin. No. 3: The California Water Plan. Sacra-
mento, CA: State Printing Office, 1957.
. No. 160-74: The California Water
Plan Outlook in 1974. Sacramento, CA: State
Printing Office, 1974.
. No. 200, Vol. 1 : California State
Water Project. Sacramento, CA: State Print-
ing Office, 1974.
Hall, William H. Irrigation Maps, 1890. Obtained
from the Water Resources Archives, Uni-
versity of California, Berkeley.
Harding, Sidney Twichell. Water in California.
Palo Alto, CA: N-P Publications, 1960.
Tait, C. E. Irrigation in the Imperial Valley. Senate
Document No. 246. Washington, D. C:
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1908.
U. S. Bureau of the Census. Report on Agriculture
by Irrigation in the Western Part of the United
States at the Eleventh Census -.1890, by F. H.
Newell. Washington, D. C. : U. S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1894.
U. S. Department of Agriculture. Office of
Experiment Stations. Bulletin. No. 100: Irri-
gation Investigations in California. Washington,
D. O: U. S. Government Printing Office,
1901.
. No. 158: Annual Report of Irriga-
tion and Drainage Investigations. Washington,
D. O: U. S. Government Printing Office,
1904.
. No. 207: Irrigation in the Sacra-
mento Valley. Washington, D. C. : U. S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office, 1909.
. No. 237: Irrigation in California.
Washington, D. C. : U. S. Government Print-
ing Office, 1911.
. No. 239: Irrigation in the San
Joaquin. Washington, D. O: U. S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1912.
. No. 254: Irrigation Resources of
California and their Utilization. Washington,
D. O: U. S. Government Printing Office,
1912.
U. S. Geological Survey. Water-Supply Paper
No. 17: Irrigation Near Bakersfield. Menlo Park,
CA: U. S. Geological Survey, 1898.
Near Fresno. Menlo Park, CA: U. S. Geo-
logical Survey. 1898.
Artist: Donald A. Ryan Page: 25
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA URBAN
DELIVERY SYSTEMS
East Bay Municipal Utility District. Distribution
System Comprehensive Map. Oakland, CA: East
Bay Municipal Utility District, 1973.
. Flow and Distribution Diagram for Fiscal
1975. Oakland, CA: East Bay Municipal
Utility District, 1975.
. Map of Water Production System. Oakland,
CA: East Bay Municipal Utility District,
1975.
San Francisco Department of Water. Annual
Report. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco
Department of Water, 1975.
. San Francisco Department of Water Service
Area (map). San Francisco, CA: San Fran-
cisco Department of Water, 1962.
Artist: Donald A. Ryan Page: 30
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA URBAN
DELIVERY SYSTEMS
Flaxman, B. The Price of Water: Who Pays and Who
Benefits? A Policy Study of the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California. Berkeley, CA:
Claremont Graduate School, Public Policy
Studies, 1976.
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.
Map of Water and Power Facilities Along the Los
Angeles Owens River Aqueduct System. Los An-
geles, CA: Los Angeles Department of Wa-
ter and Power, 1968.
Metropolitan Water District of Southern Cali-
fornia. Map of Member Agencies 1977. Los
Angeles, CA: Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California, 1977.
. Thirty-Eighth Annual Report, 1976. Los
Angeles, CA: Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California, 1976.
. Thirty-Seventh Annual Report, 1975. Los
Angeles, CA: Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California, 1975.
Additional data provided by the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power, Los An-
geles, California.
Artist: David L. Fuller Page: 34
GROWING SEASON
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
California. Department of Water Resources. Bul-
letin. No. 113 — 3: Vegetative Water Use in Cali-
fornia, 1974. Sacramento, CA: State Print-
ing Office, 1975.
Additional information provided by B. D. Meek
of the Imperial Valley Conservation Re-
search Center, Brawley, California, in a
letter dated January 30, 1978.
Artist: David L. Fuller Page: 40
COLORADO RIVER BASIN 1975
U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs. Indian Land Areas and Related
Facilities as of 1971 (map). Washington, D. C. :
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1971.
U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation. Colorado River System Consump-
tive Uses and Losses Report, 1971-75. Washing-
ton, D. C. : U. S. Government Printing
Office, 1975.
Additional data provided by the Colorado River
Board of California, Los Angeles, California.
Artist: William A. Bowen Page: 44
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT:
WATER YEAR 1975
U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley
Operations. Annual Report of Operations, 1974.
Sacramento, CA: Bureau of Reclamation,
1974.
. Annual Report of Operation, 1975. Sacra-
mento, CA: Bureau of Reclamation, 1975.
Additional information provided by Bureau of
Reclamation : Operations Branch, Repay-
ment Branch, and Public Information Of-
fice; and Department of Energy, Western
Area Power Administration.
Artist: David L. Fuller Page: 48
STATE WATER PROJECT:
WATER YEAR 1975
California. Department of Water Resources. Basic
Facts Booklet: California Water Project. Sacra-
mento, CA: State Printing Office, 1973.
. Boundaries of Public Water Agencies San
Joaquin Valley (map). Sacramento, CA: State
Printing Office, 1975.
. Bulletin. No. 132-75: The California State
Water Project in 1975. Sacramento, CA: State
Printing Office, 1975.
. No. 132-76: The California State
Water Project in 1976. Sacramento, CA: State
Printing Office, 1976.
. State Water Project: Report of Operations.
Sacramento: CA: State Printing Office,
October 1974 through September 1975.
Issued monthly.
. Sacramento, CA: State Print-
ing Office, 1974. Annual report.
. Sacramento, CA: State Print-
ing Office, 1975. Annual report.
Artist: David L. Fuller Page: 52
APPLIED IRRIGATION WATER
California Department of Water Resources. Bul-
letin. No. 198: Water Conservation in California.
Sacramento, CA: State Printing Office, 1976.
Artist: David L. Fuller Page: 55
PRINCIPAL LAKES AND RESERVOIRS
California. Department of Finance. California
Statistical Abstract. Sacramento, CA: State
Printing Office, 1975.
California. Department of Water Resources. Bul-
letin. No. 17-76: Dams Within the Jurisdiction
of the State of California. Sacramento, CA:
State Printing Office, 1976.
California. State Water Resources Control Board.
Lakes of California: An Electronically Processed
File. Sacramento, CA: State Water Resour-
ces Control Board, Division of Planning
and Research, Surveillance and Monitoring
Unit, 1978.
Artist: Donald A. Ryan Page: 59
MEASURED AND UNIMPAIRED
STREAMFLOWS: WATER YEAR 1975
California. Department of Water Resources. Bul-
letin. No. 120-75: Water Conditions in California.
Sacramento, CA : State Printing Office, 1975.
U. S. Geological Survey. Water Resources Data for
California: Water Year 1975. In Water Data
Report CA— 75. Vol. 1—4. Menlo Park, CA:
U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Division, 1975.
Additional information provided by the Depart-
ment of Water Resources, Snow Surveys
Branch.
Artist: Donald A. Ryan Page: 60
GROUNDWATER
California. Department of Water Resources. Bul-
letin. No. 98: N. E. Counties Groundwater Inves-
tigation. Sacramento, CA: State Printing Of-
fice, 1963.
. No. 118: Groundwater in Califor-
nia. Sacramento, CA: State Printing Office,
1975.
. No. 118-4: Groundwater Resour-
ces: Sonoma County. Sacramento, CA: State.
Printing Office, 1975.
. No. 130-72: Southern California.
Sacramento, CA : State Printing Office, 1972.
. No. 130-73: San Joaquin Valley.
Sacramento, CA: State Printing Office, 1973.
. No. 130-75 : Hydrologic Data. Vol.
1-5. Sacramento, CA: State Printing Office,
1975.
California. Department of Water Resources.
San Joaquin District. Artificial Recharge of
Groundwater in the San Joaquin-Central Coastal
116
Area. Sacramento, CA: State Printing Of-
fice, 1977.
California. Department of Water Resources.
Southern District. Summary of Groundwater
Quality Data. Sacramento, CA: State Print-
ing Office, 1973.
Los Angeles County Flood Control District.
Hydrologic Report, 1974-75. Los Angeles, CA:
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors,
1975.
Santa Clara Valley County Water District.
Groundwater Recharge Report. San Jose, CA:
Santa Clara Valley County Water District,
1977.
Thomas, Harold E. and D. A. Phoenix. Summary
Appraisals of the Nation's Groundwater Resources
— California Region. In U. S. Geological Sur-
vey, Professional Paper 813-E. Washington,
D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office,
1976.
U. S. Geological Survey. Artificial Recharge in
Upper Santa Ana Valley (open-file report).
Menlo Park, CA: U. S. Geological Survey,
1969.
. Groundwater Data as of 1967 (open-file
report). Menlo Park, CA: U. S. Geological
Survey, 1969.
Additional data provided by the Department of
Water Resources, Division of Planning,
Statewide Planning Branch.
Artist: Mark E. Goldman Page: 68
CALIFORNIA WATERSCAPE
California. Department of Finance. California
Statistical Abstract 1975. Sacramento, CA:
State Printing Office, 1975.
California. Department of Fish and Game.
Coastal Wetland Series. Nos. 1-20. These are
listed individually in the bibliography.
California. Department of Wafer Resources.
Bulletin. No. 160-7 '4: Surface Water Resources
Development in California. Sacramento, CA:
State Printing Office, 1974.
Major, J. and M. G. Barbour. Terrestrial Vegetation
of California. New York, NY: John Wiley &
Son, 1977.
U. S. Geological Survey. State of California (map).
Menlo Park, CA: U. S. Geological Survey,
1970.
. State of California — North Half (map).
Menlo Park, CA: U. S. Geological Survey,
1970
. State of California — South Half (map).
Menlo Park, CA: U. S. Geological Survey,
1970.
HYDRAULIC MINING IN 1867 Page: 16
Browne, J. Ross. Resources of the Pacific Slope: A Sta-
tistical and Descriptive Summary; with a Sketch of
the Settlement and Exploration of Lower California.
New York, 1869.
THE CITY WATER BUILT Page: 36
City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering.
Annexation and Detachment Map, 1978.
SALTON SEA SALINITY LEVELS Page : 43
Layton, David and Donald Ermak. A Description
of Imperial Valley, California, for the Assessment
of Impacts of Geothermal Energy Development.
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, UCRL-
52121.
Additional data provided by the Imperial Irri-
gation District.
FUTURE DELIVERIES OF THE Page: 53
STATE WATER PROJECT
California. Department of Water Resources. Bul-
letin. No. 132-76: The California State Water
Project in 1976. Sacramento, CA: State Print-
ing Office, 1976.
INLAND COMMERCIAL Page: 62
FISHING
California. Department of Fish and Game. The
Commercial Pish Catch of California for the Year
Bancroft Library, University of California, Ber-
keley: 15, 16, 19, 31, 47, 90.
William A. Bowen: 12, 39, 56, 58, (2) 63, 90,
(2) 91, 95, (2) 103, 108.
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power:
29, (3) 32, 90, 110.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Ames Research Center : 1, 6, 10, 12, 14, 19,
Additional data provided by the Department of
Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Sec-
tion; and the Department of Water Re-
sources, Northern District.
Artist: Mark E. Goldman Page: 70
PEAK STREAMFLOWS
Waananen, A. O. and J. R. Crippen. Magnitude
and Frequency of Floods in California. In U. S.
Geological Survey Water Resources Inves-
tigation 77-21. Menlo Park, CA: U S. Geo-
logical Survey, Water Resources Division,
1977.
Additional information provided by the U S.
Geological Survey, Water Resources Divi-
sion, California District Office, Menlo Park,
California; and the City of Bakersfield
Water Department, Bakersfield, California.
Artist: David L. Fuller Page: 72
DROUGHT: WATER YEARS 1976/1977
California. Department of Water Resources.
Bulletin. No. 202-76: Water Conditions and
Floods in California. Sacramento, CA: State
Printing Office, 1976.
. Unpublished computer printout of
reservoir storage data. Sacramento, CA:
Department of Water Resources, Snow
Surveys Branch.
Artist: David L. Fuller Page: 76
URBAN WATER USE AND PRICE
Data provided by the Department of Water Re-
sources, Division of Planning, Water Use
and Economics Unit.
Artist: David L. Fuller Page: 80
CROP PATTERNS AND APPLIED WATER
California. Department of Water Resources.
Untitled Land Use Maps of Fresno County.
Sacramento, CA: Department of Water Re-
sources, 1968, 1972.
Artist: William A. Bowen Page: 82
WATER USE BY INDUSTRY
U. S. Bureau of the Census. Water Use in Manu-
facturing. Washington, D. O: U S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1972.
Additional information provided by the Cali-
fornia Energy Commission.
Artist: Donald A. Ryan Page: 87
HYDROELECTRIC POWER GENERATION:
FACILITIES, INSTALLED CAPACITIES,
AND LOAD FACTORS
California. Department of Water Resources.
Bulletin. No. 194: Hydroelectric Energy Po-
tential in California. Sacramento, CA: State
Printing Office, 1974.
Artist: Donald A. Ryan Page: 89
SURFACE WATER QUALITY:
WATER YEAR 1975
Ayers, R. S. and R. Branson. Water Quality: Guide-
lines for the Interpretation of Water Quality for
Agriculture. Davis, CA: University of Cali-
fornia, Davis, Department of Land, Air,
and Water Resources, Cooperative Exten-
sion, December 1973, rev. September 1976.
California. Department of Water Resources.
Course Manual, Introduction to Water Quality.
Unpublished instruction manual by Jim
Morris with the Department of Water Re-
sources.
California. Water Resources Control Board.
Publication No. 3A: Water Quality Criteria.
Sacramento, CA: State Printing Office,
1963.
. Publication No. 36: Problems of Setting
Standards and of Surveillance for Water Control.
Sacramento, CA: State Printing Office,
1967.
Environmental Protection Agency. Water Quality
Criteria 1972. Washington, D. C: U. S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office, 1972.
. Water Quality Criteria 1976. Washing-
ton, D. C: U. S. Government Printing Of-
fice, 1976.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations. FAO Irrigation and Drain-
age Paper No. 29: Water Quality for Agricul-
ture. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Or-
ganization of the United Nations, 1976.
Ingram, W M. and Kenneth MacKenthun. "Pol-
lution." McClane's Standard Fishing Encyclopedia.
New York, Chicago, San Francisco: Holt,
Rinehart, & Winston, 1965 ed.
U. S. Geological Survey. Water-Supply Paper
No. 1473: Study and Interpretation of
Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water.
Menlo Park, CA: U S. Geological Survey,
1970.
Artist: David L. Fuller and Judith Christner
Page: 96
SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES:
CAPACITIES, TREATMENT STANDARDS
AND VOLUMES, 1975
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cost Es-
timates of Construction of Publicly-Owned Waste-
water Treatment Facilities — 7976 Needs Survey.
SUPPLEMENTARY GRAPHICS
(year). Sacramento, CA: Department of Fish
and Game, (various years).
Outdoor California, March-April 1970.
Skinner, John. Fish and Wildlife Resources of the San
Francisco Bay Area. Sacramento, CA: Depart-
ment of Fish and Game, Water Projects
Branch, Report No. 1, June 1962.
Additional data provided by the Department of
Fish and Game.
WATER DISTRICT Page: 63
ORGANIZATION
Goodall, Merrill R., John D. Sullivan, and Timothy
De Young. California Water: A New Political
Economy. New York, NY : Allanheld, Osmum
and Co., 1978.
URBAN RESPONSE TO Page: 77
DROUGHT
California. Department of Water Resources. The
1976-77 California Drought: A Review. Sacra-
mento, CA: State Printing Office, 1978.
AGRICULTURAL RESPONSE Page: 78
TO DROUGHT
California Crop and Livestock Reporting Ser-
vice: California Fruit and Nut Statistics, 1965-
19 77 ; and California Vegetable Crops; Acreage,
Production, and Value, 1969-1977.
U. S. Department of Agriculture and California
Department of Food and Agriculture. An-
nual Field Crop Summary. Released January 23,
1978.
TRENDS IN URBAN WATER USE Page : 81
California. Department of Water Resources. Bul-
letin. No. 166-2: Urban Water Use in California.
Sacramento, CA : State Printing Office, 1975.
COMPARATIVE VALUES IN Page: 84
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
Stewart, J. Ian. Irrigation in California : A Report to
the State Water Resources Control Board. Davis,
CA: University of California, Department
of Land, Air and Water Resources, Water
Science and Engineering Section, 1975.
California. Department of Finance. California Sta-
tistical Abstract. Sacramento, CA : State Print-
ing Office, 1973.
PUBLIC WATER RECREATION Page: 92
FACILITIES
California. Department of Finance. California Sta-
tistical Abstract. Sacramento, CA: State Print-
ing Office, 1977.
California. Department of Finance. Population
Estimates for California Counties. Sacramento,
PHOTOGRAPHY
20, 21, 28, 33, 38, 42, 50, 54, 62, 65, 66, 67,
73, 74, 77, 85, 86, 88, 93, 94, 98, 101, 104,
106. 111.
Security Pacific National Bank, Los Angeles,
California: (2) 24, 27, (2) 49, 110.
Argus Books: 91; Army Corps of Engineers:
78; Hon. Peter H. Behr: 69; California De
partment of Water Resources: 4, 54, 64,
106 ; California Historical Society, San Fran-
cisco, California: 24, 27, 29, (2) 31; Califor-
nia Historical Society, Title Insurance Com-
pany of Los Angeles: (2) 51, (2) 84, 91, 110;
California State Library: 19; California State
University, Northridge: 36; Jack Clark: 54,
56, 95; William L. Kahrl: 12, 36, 108;
Walraven F. Ketellapper: 75; Jet Propulsion
Laboratory: 37, 57, 100; Kerr McGee Cor-
Denver, CO: General Services Adminis-
tration, 1977.
Artist: Donald A. Ryan Page: 99
IRRIGATION METHODS AND
APPLIED DEMAND
Stewart, J. Ian. Irrigation in California: A Report to
the State Water Resources Control Board. Davis,
CA: University of California, Department
of Land, Air, and Water Resources, Water
Science and Engineering Section, 1975.
Artist: David L. Fuller Page: 102
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AND THE DELTA
California. State Water Resources Control
Board. Interim Water Quality Control Plan, San
Francisco Bay. Sacramento, CA: State Water
Resources Control Board, 1971.
. Environmental Impact Report for the Water
Quality Control Plan and Water Rights Decision,
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh.
Sacramento, CA: State Water Resources
Control Board, 1978.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration. Nautical Chart 18652. Washing-
ton, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing
Office, 1978.
Additional data provided by the Department of
Water Resources Central District, Delta
Branch; the State Water Resources Control
Board Delta Studies Unit; and, Regional
Water Quality Control Boards, Regions 2
(San Francisco Bay Region) and 5 (Central
Valley Region).
Artist: William A. Bowen Page: 105
SUPPLY AND DEMAND: 1972
California. Department of Water Resources:
Bulletin. No. 120-72: Water Conditions in Cali-
fornia. Table 3, p. 17. Sacramento, CA: State
Printing Office, 1972.
. No. 160-74: The California Water
Plan Outlook in 1974. Figures 32-53 and
Figure 3. Sacramento, CA: State Printing
Office, 1974.
Pacific Southwest Interagency Committee. Cali-
fornia Region Framework Study Commit-
tee. Comprehensive Framework Study, California
Region. Appendix V, Table 1, p. 11. [n.p.] The
Framework Study Committee, 1971.
Additional data provided by the Department of
Water Resources, Division of Flood Man-
agement, Snow Surveys Branch.
Artist: David L. Fuller Page: 109
CA: State Printing Office, 1977. Report
No. 77E-2.
California. Department of Navigation and Ocean
Development. Inventory of California Boating
Facilities. Prepared by Management Consult-
ing Corporation, Sacramento, California,
1977.
California. Department of Parks and Recrea-
tion. Parks and Recreation Information Sys-
tem (PARIS).
California. State Water Resources Control Board.
Lakes of California: An Electronically Processed
File. Sacramento, CA : State Water Resour-
ces Control Board, Division of Planning
and Research, Surveillance and Monitoring
Unit, 1978.
BENEFICIAL USES OF Page: 110
RECLAIMED WATER IN
CALIFORNIA IN 1975
California. Department of Health, Water Sani-
tation Section. Reliability of Wastewater Recla-
mation Facilities. Sacramento, C A : State Print-
ing Office, 1976.
poration: 79; Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California: (3) 41; Ontario City
Library, Model Colony Collection: 39; Scott
Stine: 108; United Aerial Survey: 64; Peter
T Vorster : 45, 91, 108; Werner Vorster: 10;
Water Resources Archives, University of
California, Berkeley: 22, 23, 26, 46; Peter C.
Welti: 91.
117
Index
We assumed in constructing this volume that
many people do not read an atlas from begin-
ning to end but instead turn directly to the sub-
jects that interest them most. The contents have
consequently been organized to ease a peripate-
tic approach of this kind and the reader will find
the treatment of discrete topics like the Hetch
Hetchy project or water quality concentrated for
the most part in individual segments of the
narrative. Certain topics, however, such as
groundwater or the law of rights, are ubiquitous
in any discussion of water in California. Where
such topics crop up repeatedly, we have attemp-
ted to introduce them within the specific context
in which they appear in a manner that would be
sufficient for the individual who reads that sec-
tion and none other. While this means that such
a reader will not have to hunt through other
sections of the book to discover the meaning of
an unfamiliar principle such as the appropriative
doctrine when he or she encounters it for the
first time, the approach does have at least two
drawbacks. First, the person who reads the atlas
consecutively will encounter some unavoidable
repetition, although instances of this have been
kept to a minimum. More importantly, the
reader who encounters a topic such as the
appropriative doctrine in relation to hydraulic
mining should not make the mistake of believing
that this context exhausts the topic. There are
many other aspects of the appropriative doc-
trine, for example, that are treated in other
parts of the volume. The index has, therefore,
been prepared primarily to aid the reader in
tracing the substantive treatments of such multi-
faceted topics, as well as to locate specific refer-
ences to individuals and institutions mentioned
in the text.
Acreage limitation, 49,50,51
Area of origin (statutes), 36, 69
Arizona v. California, 36, 42, 45, 66, 101
Arkansas Act of 1850, 16
Army Corps of Engineers, 19, 49, 50, 53, 56,
90, 91, 108
Ballinger, Richard, 31
Behr, Peter H„ 69
Blythe, Thomas, 39
Brown, Edmund G., Jr., 100
Brown, Edmund G., Sr., 51
Bond Certification Commission, 27
Boswell, J.G., Corporation, 64
Boulder Canyon Project, 39, 41, 66, 88
Bureau of Reclamation, 21, 33, 39, 49, 50, 51,
54, 56, 78, 91, 101, 104, 108
Burns-Porter Act, 51, 53
California Debris Commission, 19, 20
California Development Company, 39, 43
California Irrigation Association, 47
California Limitation Act, 41
California-Nevada Interstate Compact, 106
California Steam Navigation Company, 90
California Water and Power Act, 49
California Water District Act, 64
Central Arizona Project, 42, 45, 101
Central Valley Project, 21, 46, 47-56, 66, 69,
78, 85, 88, 104, 106, 108
Chaffey, George B., 24, 39
Colorado River, 10, 15, 36, 38-45, 66, 101,
103, 106
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, 43
Colorado River Board, 43
Colorado River Compact, 41, 43, 45
Columbia River (proposals for development),
106,107
Community Services District Law, 63
Constitutional Amendment of 1928, 27, 49, 64,
65, 73, 108
Crandall v. Woods, 26
Davis-Dolwig Act, 91
Davis-Grunsky Act, 53, 91
Delta, 3, 10, 14, 21, 47, 51, 56, 62, 63, 91,
103, 104-106, 110
Department of Fish and Game, 43, 110
Department of Water Resources, 43, 51, 106, 108
Dickey Act, 98
Districts, 16, 19, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 39, 43, 47,
54, 56, 63-64, 108, 111
Drainage Act of 1880, 19
Drought, 24, 29, 73, 75; 1976-77, 3, 45, 75-78,
108, 110, 111
Earthquakes, 74-75
Edison, Thomas, 110
Edmonston, Arthur D., 50, 51, 54
Engle, Clair, 53
Environmental Protection Agency, 98, 104
Evapotranspiration, 3, 6, 10, 14, 73
Federal Project Recreation Act, 91
Fish and wildlife, 3, 4, 21, 58, 62-63, 73, 92,
94, 104, 110
Fisher, Walter, 31
Flood control, 19-21, 74, 75
Floods, 9, 16, 19, 20, 64, 73-75, 78
Garfield, James R., 29, 31
Glenn, Hugh J., 22
Governor's Commission to Review California
Water Rights Law, 104, 110
Green Act, 21
Groundwater, 3, 10, 12, 36, 47, 66-69, 73, 90,
103-104, 106
Grunsky, C.E., 19
Hall, William "Ham", 19, 21, 22, 23, 26, 46, 90
Herminghaus v. Southern California Edison Company, 27
Hetch Hetchy, 29-32, 66, 69
Hitchcock, Ethan A., 29
Hoover, Herbert, 49
Huntington, Henry, 32
Hyatt, Edward, 49, 56
Hydraulic mining, 16, 19, 20, 21, 26, 28, 62, 86
Hydroelectric power, 31, 32, 39, 41, 42, 49, 88-90
Ickes, Harold L., 31
Indians, 15, 22, 39, 45, 103, 106
Irvine Company, 64
lvanhoe Irrigation District v. McCracken, 50
Jackson, Thomas, 20
]oslin v. Marin Municipal Water District, 27
Knight, Goodwin, 50, 51
Lane, Franklin K., 31
Lippincott, Joseph B., 33, 39
Los Angeles Aqueduct, 31-36, 39
Los Angeles County Flood Control District, 36,
75
Los Angeles v. San Fernando, 67, 69, 73, 103
Lux v. Haggin, 26, 27
Manson, Marsden, 19, 29
Marshall, James, 15
Marshall, Robert B., 47, 51
Marshall Plan, 47, 49
Metropolitan Water District, 36, 41, 42, 43, 51,
53, 54, 66, 67, 77, 85
Mexican-American Water Treaty, 43
Muir, John, 29, 31
Mulholland, William, 32, 33, 39
Natural moisture demand, 10, 12, 13, 73, 75
Navigation, 19, 21, 22, 90-91
O'Shaugnessy, M.M., 31
Owens Valley controversy, 15, 33, 41, 47, 53,
95
Pacific Gas and Electric company, 31, 32, 49-50
Palou, Francisco, 15
Parks Dam, 27
Pasadena v. Alhambra (Raymond Basin), 67
Peabody v. City of Vallejo, 27
Peripheral Canal, 56, 106
Pinchot, Gifford, 29, 31
Porter-Cologne Act 98
Powell, John Wesley, 39
Precipitation, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 73
Pricing, 54, 56, 79-85, 108, 110, 111
Quality, 3, 36, 42-43, 62-63, 93-100
Railroads, 21, 28-29, 90
Raker, John E., 31
Reagan, Ronald, 56, 69
Recycling, 1, 100, 110
Right of Way Act, 29
Rights, 24, 26, 27, 29, 47, 49, 64-73, 79, 108, 110
Rockwood, Charles R., 39
Rolph, James, 31
Roosevelt, Franklin D., 49
Roosevelt, Theodore, 19, 29, 31, 32, 33, 88, 90
Ruef, Abraham, 29, 31
Runoff, 3, 6-10, 73, 94, 95
Sacramento Flood Control Project, 15, 16, 19-21,
27
Safe Drinking Water Act, 98
Salinity, 42-43, 103
Saltwater intrusion, 14, 58, 103, 104
Salyer, J.G., Land Company, 64
San Joaquin Master Drain, 54, 103
Scattergood, E.F. 39
Seasonality, 4, 6-9
Sewage treatment, 100
Smythe, William, 46
Snow, 4, 9, 10, 11, 73
Soil moisture, 10, 12, 73
Spanish, 15, 22, 66
Spring Valley Water Company, 29, 31
State Water Project, 36, 45, 46, 50-56, 69, 73,
78, 85, 91-92, 101, 103
State Water Resources Control Board, 56, 66,
108, 110
State Water Resources Development Bond Act,
51, 53, 66
Subsidence, 58, 103
Supreme Court, California, 19, 24, 26, 27, 65,
67, 69, 73
Supreme Court, United States, 36, 45, 64, 66,
101, 103, 104, 108
Sutter, John August, 15
Taft, William Howard, 31
Tevis, William, 29
Town Sites and Power Act, 88
Tsunamis, 74
Use: Agricultural, 1, 81, 103; commercial, 65,
84; consumptive, 3; industrial, 84, 86-88,
95; instream, 3, 69, 73, 108, 110; recrea-
tional, 91-92; residential, 1, 81, 84
Water colonies, 22-24, 29, 46-47
Water Commission Act, 27, 66
Water pollution Control Act, 98
Wilbur, Ray Lyman, 31
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 3, 56, 69, 92, 107,
110
Wilson, Woodrow, 31
Winters v. United States, 45
Woodruff v. North Bloomfield ei.al, 19
Works, John D., 31
Wozencraft, Oliver M., 39
Wright Irrigation Act, 26, 47, 63
Wyoming v. Colorado, 41
Young, Clement, 49
118
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11