Full text of "California's ground water"

See other formats

^!^!?^^^W

■:^;

^ALIFOKNIA. DEFT. OF WATER RESOURCES.
BULLETIN .

PHYSICAL SCI. LIB. -

Californiai
Groundwater

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE RESOURCES AG N Y
SEPTEMBER 1975

DEPARTMENT OF

VMLl P^.S'iirC'S

Q'.U. ir ^O. (18

California's Hidden Resource

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The Resources Agency

Department of Water Resources

BULLETIN No. 118

CALIFORNIA'S GROUND WATER

SEPTEMBER 1975

CLAIRE T. DEDRICK EDMUND G. BROWN JR. RONALD B. ROBIE

Director

Secretary for Resources Governor

The Resources Agency State of California

Department of Wafer Resources

FOREWORD

The water in our underground basins and the storage space afforded by those
basins comprise one of California's most valuable resources. A significant por-
tion of the total water used each year in California is ground water.

This Bulletin summarizes the known technical information on ground water
basins and the extent of their water supplies throughout the State. It also
discusses the ways in which ground water basins have been used and misused
in the past and suggests better management mechanisms for the future.

By using ground water and surface water supplies together in a planned
manner, more complete management of the total water resources is possible.
Although both surface and underground water sources are being utilized in
many areas of the State today, much of this activity is not providing the max-
imum benefits that are possible from conjunctive ground and surface water
management. Use of storage capacity of ground water basins has a great
potential to increase the dependability of presently developed surface water
supplies if the two supplies are used conjunctively.

A recent decision of the California Supreme Court has significantly modified
legal doctrines relating to ground water. The revised ground water law which
resulted will enable more effective use of existing ground water resources.

We must be prepared to use imaginative new approaches to ground water

management.

/W//<^L>

Ronald B. Robie, Director
Department of Water Resources
The Resources Agency
State of California

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

FOREWORD iii

ORGANIZATION viii

CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION ix

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. CONCLUSIONS. AND

RECOMMENDATIONS 1

Purpose of Report 1

Scope of Report 2

Conclusions 3

Recomnnendations 4

Glossary 4

CHAPTER II. THE RESOURCE 7

Origin of Ground Water 7

Nature and Occurrence of Ground Water 11

Movennent of Ground Water 17

Quality of Ground Water 19

The Role of Ground Water in California's Developnnent 20

Domestic and Stock Water 20

Artesian Well Irrigation 23

Centrifugal Pumps 23

Deep Well Turbines 23

Economy to Support Water Importation 24

CHAPTER III. INVENTORY OF CALIFORNIA'S GROUND WATER

RESOURCES 27

Hydrologic Study Areas (HSA) 29

North Coastal 29

San Francisco Bay 35

Central Coastal 41

South Coastal 47

Sacramento Basin 57

San Joaquin Basin 65

North Lahontan 69

South Lahontan 73

Colorado River 85

County Listing of Ground Water Basins

(Listing by Counties in Alphabetical Order) 95

Bibliographies 103

Selected References for Statewide Coverage 103

Selected References for Inventory Summaries 104

CHAPTER IV. GROUND WATER BASIN PROTECTION AND

UTILIZATION 115

Protection of Basins 115

Excessive Pump Lifts 115

Salt Water Intrusion 115

Quality Degradation 118

Buildup of Salt in Ground Water 118

High Water Tables 1 18

Land Subsidence 1 18

Water Well Standards 119

Page

Management of Ground Water Resources 119

Recharge 120

Control of Pumping 120

Conjunctive Use with Surface Water 121

Maintenance of Water Quality 121

Ground Water Law 124

CHAPTER V. OPPORTUNITIES FOR BASIN MANAGEMENT

AND DESIRABLE STUDIES 127

New Concepts in Basin Management 127

Storage of State Water Project Water 127

Cyclic Storage of Water 128

Conjunctive Operation of Surface Supplies with Ground Water Basins 128

Advantages and Problems in Conjunctive Use of Ground Water 129

Pump Taxes 129

Mining Ground Water 129

Unused Bodies of Ground Water 131

Ground Water in Bedrock Areas 132

Ground Water Basin Studies 132

Tables

Number Title Page

1 Empty Ground Water Storage Capacity 129

2 Metric Conversion Factors 135

FIGURES

Number Title Page

1 Annual Runoff, American River 1

2 Mathematical Model Nodal Diagram. Los Angeles Area 2

3 Ground Water Mathematical Models 2

4 Ground Water Basins 6

5 The Hydrologic Cycle 7

6 Major Aqueducts 9

7 Ground Water in Sediments and Rocks 10

8 Ground Water in Unconsolidated Sediments 13

9 Ground Water in Older Alluvium 13

10 Ground Water In Volcanics 15

11 Unconfined and Confined Ground Water 18

12 Effects of Faulting on Water Table 18

13 Basins Monitored by Department of Water Resources for Quality 19

14 Springs 21

15 Ground Water Basins with Moderate or Intensive Development 23

16 Basins with Overdraft 115

17 Sea Water Intrusion in Ground Water Basins 116

18 Sea Water Intruding a Coastal Basin 117

Number Title Page

19 Dump Site in Ground Water Basin 118

20 Land Subsidence Due to Ground Water Overdraft 119

21 Basins with Artificial Recharge Projects 120

22 Basins Under Intensive Ground Water Management 121

23 Sea Water Intrusion Protective Measures 122

24 Sea Water Intrusion Barriers 123

25 Adjudicated Ground Water Basins 124

26 Rights to Ground Water 125

27 Mining Ground Water 129

28 Offshore Aquifers 130

29 Fresh Water in Offshore Aquifers 131

30 Degree of Geologic Knowledge 132

31 Degree of Hydrologic Knowledge 133

32 Degree of Water Quality Knowledge 133

33 Conference of Ground Water Basin Management 134

State of California
The Resources Agency

Department of Water Resources

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor

CLAIRE T. DEDRICK, Secretary for Resources

RONALD B. ROBIE, Director

ROBIN R. REYNOLDS. Deputy Director

DIVISION OF PLANNING

Herbert W. Greydanus. Chief

This Bulletin was prepared by a Task Force

Charles A. McCullough Principal Engineer, W.R., Chairnnan

Raymond C. Richter Supervising Engineering Geologist

Joseph F. LoBue Associate Engineering Geologist, Southern District

Larry Chee Associate Engineer, W.R., Central District

Assisted by

Verne L. Cline Staff Counsel III

Helen J. Peters Senior Engineer, W.R.

Louis R. Mitchell Senior Engineer, W.R.

Earl G. Bingham Research Writer

James M. Wardlow Associate Land and Water Use Analyst

William G. McKane Senior Delineator

Paulyne D. Joe Delineator

William L. Wilson Audio-Visual Specialist

Assistance Was Provided by the District Offices of the

Department of Water Resources

Under the Direction of

Albert J. Dolcini * District Chief, Northern District

Wayne MacRostie District Chief, Central District

Carl L. Stetson District Chief, San Joaquin District

Jack J. Coe District Chief, Southern District

• Consultant to the Task Force

State of California
Department of Water Resources

CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION

IRA J. CHRISMAN, Chairman. Visalia
CLAIR A. HILL. Vice-Chairman. Redding

Mai Coombs Garberville

Ray W. Ferguson Ontario

Ralph E. Graham San Diego

Clare Wm. Jones Firebaugh

William P. Moses San Pablo

Samuel B. Nelson Northridge

Ernest R. Nichols Ventura

Orville L. Abbott
Executive Officer and Chief Engineer

Tom Y. Fujimoto
Assistant Executive Officer

6 fr

Copies of this bulletin ol 73.00 each may be

Stale of California

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

P.O. Box 388

Sacramento, California 95802

Make checks payable to STATE OF CALIFORNIA
California residents add sales tax.

-^aftsW

The Ccntrol Valley, California's Largest Ground Wa

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION, CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Water has long been a key factor in California's so-
cial and economic development. The water has come
about equally from ground water (water stored under-
ground in permeable rock or soil formations) and from
surface water. Although many reports describing the
statewide surface water resource have been pub-
lished, very few reports have been devoted to a state-
wide ground water appraisal.

This report provides a summary of the vast amount
of information available on individual ground water
basins. It also describes past, present, and possible
future management of the ground water resource.

Purpose of Report

There is steadily increasing concern for protection
of the State's ground water basins and for more effec-
tive use of their storage capacity. Legislation has been

suggested that would require legal rights to be ob-
tained for use of ground water much like those for the
use of surface water. Administrative adjudication, as
with surface water, has also been suggested. The re-
cently enacted national "Safe Drinking Water Act" in-
volves regulation of the quality of ground water
supplies. There is also widespread interest in the use
of underground storage capacity instead of additional
large surface reservoirs to regulate the erratic flows of
rivers and streams.

The Department of Water Resources and other
agencies, particularly the United States Geological
Survey, have a wealth of information in reports of stud-
ies of individual ground water basins. However, the
information has not previously been summarized on a
statewide basis for a nontechnical audience.

-1

n-|

UJ
LU
LL

-j

-n

1-1

MILLION AC

._ .- _

MEAN ANNUA

L RUNOFF = 2,7

67,000 ;

iiCRE

-FEE

T (1900 . 19741

~ u

- L

u y

WATER YEAR (October through September)
Figure 1. Annual RunofF, American River

^ ^/f"^"

^ ""■■''

UERCECs. ^-— ■>y^r»*>C^Ei^EVfIi{

.^^

v/^*^ J^ . f ■• r^^\

1 >J J

l.'^sVA!^. • -V-'.'^-' •'■ ■ '.sfe

y^^-f'

^'i^'^^^^^^.'^'S'"'-^ J

* »' "s'**! * A'--*"- 'V-'"- (5

/ J P ^^'^SSr

* ■ • "\ • ' . *^ ' »J

I r '

^"^\ INOLEWOOO • '"a *"! ?' ' ^l

X. ^^^^^^^^ •'

■*• *"^^^*^^^^^i^'*~— ^0

•' •■*. ^^g^

/^ ' "^-.-v

^*''^, * *"■ l/m^

^^ nrw

° V'''f«r5rT«DTvi^^r

POLYGONiL ZONES

\ ^^^^^^^^

ANO NODE POINTS

Figure 2. Mathematical Model Nodal Diagram, los Angeles Area

This report will help those who must make decisions
affecting the protection, additional use, and manage-
ment of the State's ground water resources.

Mathematical models of the hydrology and quality
of water in the ground water basins have been devel-
oped during the past 20 years, in parallel with the avail-
ability of large capacity electronic computers. These
models make it possible ( 1 ) to understand the relation-
ships among recharge, storage, extraction, and water
quality in ground water basins, and (2) to evaluate
quantitatively the physical and economic effects of
alternative management measures.

Scope of Report

Conclusions and recommendations are presented in
this chapter. Chapter II describes the resource. Chap-
ter III contains tabular summaries of information for
248 of the more important ground water basins, along
with maps showing their locations. It provides refer-
ences to 194 of the Department of Water Resources'
reports on these basins and to 185 reports of other
agencies. Chapter IV discusses ground water basin
protection and utilization, and Chapter V describes op-
portunities for basin management and desirable future
studies.

A new California ground water basin map has been
prepared and is available separately. It is at a scale of
1:750,000 and is printed on two sheets. The important
water-bearing formations are shown, and the ground
water basin boundaries are taken from an excellent
base geologic map of the State provided by the Cali-
fornia Division of Mines and Geology.'

' "Slate of California Preliminary Fault and Geologic Map Scale 1:750.000" Preliminary
Report No. 13 1973. California Division of Mines and Geology.

Conclusions

1. About 40 percent of California is underlain by
ground water basins. The total storage capacity of all
basins is sonne 1.3 billion acre-feet. The usable storage
capacity, excluding that of a large number of the small-
er basins where it has not been determined, is 143
million acre-feet.

2. About 40 percent (15 million acre-feet per year)
of California's applied water need is obtained from
ground water basins. Annual ground water pumping
exceeds recharge in some basins and results in an
overdraft of 2.2 million acre-feet per year.

3. All ground water contains some dissolved salts. In
some parts of California, the quality of the ground wa-
ter is naturally poor or has been impaired by excessive
salts and other solubles, including organic materials
and gases. For the most part, however, water quality
in the State's ground water basins is suitable for all
beneficial uses.

4. Large capacity, high-speed electronic computers
capable of solving many equations simultaneously.
have made practical the use of mathematical models
of the hydrology of ground water basins. This has ena-
bled the Department of Water Resources, in coopera-
tion with local and other agencies, to evaluate the
physical and economic consequences of various
proposed management plans for a number of impor-
tant ground water basins.

5. Water could be pumped from some basins with-
out replenishment to support certain industries with an
economic life short enough to be supplied by the avail-
able water supplies. One such industry is the produc-
tion of thermal electric power involving the use of
brackish ground water for cooling.

6. A recent California Supreme Court decision in
City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando will facili-
tate operation of the ground water basins in conjunc-
tion with surface water supplies. In that case the Court
held that an agency importing water into a basin has
a right to recapture the imported water that percolates
into the ground water and can prevent such water
from being taken by overlying landowners or appro-
priators. The Court also held that water rights held by
public agencies and public utilities cannot be lost
through prescription.

7. California water agencies are completing an era
of extensive development of the State's surface water
facilities. This presents an opportunity to equally de-
velop ground water resources and assign them an
equivalent role in the State's water management plans.

8. Water from California's ground water basins has
been the most important single resource contributing
to the present development of the State's economy,
because water was readily available with low incre-
mental development costs.

9. Use of storage capacity of ground water basins
offers the largest potential benefit from the manage-
ment of the State's resources.

10. Some basins with large supplies of inexpensive
surface water require well fields to prevent drainage
problems due to rising ground water levels: operating
procedures must be developed for such basins to ena-
ble the most effective combined use of surface and
ground water supplies.

11. The Sacramento Basm Hydrologic Study Area
contains 24 significant ground water basins with a total
area of 6.400 square miles. The area of one basm alone,
Sacramento Valley, is 5.000 square miles; its usable
storage capacity is 22 million acre-feet of good-quality
water. The basins offer significant potential for man-
agement of ground and surface water supplies to help
meet statewide water needs.

12. The San Joaquin Basin Hydrologic Study Area
contains nine ground water basins, one of which — the
San Joaquin Valley — is the largest basin in California.
The San Joaquin Valley covers 13.500 square miles,
and Its ground water basin contains more than 80 mil-
lion acre-feet of usable storage capacity. In some parts
of the basin, annual ground water withdrawal exceeds
recharge and the net overdraft is 1.5 million acre-feet.
However, water levels in other parts of the basin are
rising rapidly as imported surface water replaces
ground water as a source of supply. Large areas in the
northeast part of the Valley contain well-regulated sur-
face supplies and offer good potential for conjunctive
operation of surface and ground water supplies.

13. The South Coastal Hydrologic Study Area con-
tains the most extensively developed and most studied
ground water basins in the State. Usable storage
capacity of 29 of the 42 basins has been estimated at
10.4 million acre-feet. A part of this storage capacity is
being used to store imported surface water, and there
is further opportunity for such storage.

14. The Colorado Desert Hydrologic Study Area
contains 46 ground water basins. A few. in particular
Coachella Valley, are highly developed: most, howev-
er, remain unused and several contain brackish water.
Most of these basins, and nearby basins m the adjacent
South Lahontan Hydrologic Study Area, receive very
little annual natural recharge in comparison to existing
uses. The Owens Valley ground water basin is one
notable exception.

15. a) The California State Water Project facilities
should be used for conjunctive operation with ground
water basins in Southern California and the San Joa-
quin Valley at the earliest possible opportunity.
Capacity in project aqueducts not required during
years of adequate water supply would be used.

b) The operation should be designed for minimum
physical, institutional, and economic impact on the
ground water basins and their present users.

c) Advance analyses of hydrologic and economic
effects of proposed operations can be made for basins
for which mathematical models are available.

d) The basins should be those with some storage
capacity so that filling the basins will benefit overlying

ground water users by decreasing pumping lifts and
energy requirements. The alternative would be to use

water from a basin during a dry period and then refil'
It.

Recommendations

1. Reconnaissance level studies of large ground wa-
ter basins m the Central Valley should be undertaken
to examine possible benefits, costs, and problems that
could result from use of storage capacity in conjunc-
tion with surface supplies to meet statewide water
requirements during periods of severe drought.

2. Since there are many opportunities in the State
for more comprehensive conjunctive use programs for
surface and ground water, federal, state, and local
agencies which transport, sell, or distribute surface wa-
ter supplies should examine their service areas and
take meaningful steps to develop programs to use sur-
face and ground water supplies conjunctively.

Glossary

Alluvium — a geologic term describing beds of sand,
gravel, silt, and clay deposited by flowing water.

Alluvium (younger) — sand, gravel, silt, and clay
deposits of recent geologic age.

Alluvium (older) — sand, gravel, silt, and clay depos-
its with an age range of lOO's of thousands to more
than 1 million years.

Aquifer — a geologic formation that stores, trans-
mits, and yields significant quantities of water to wells
and springs.

Artesian Well — a well tapping a confined or artesian
aquifer in which the static water level stands above the
top of the aquifer.

Conjunctive operation — a term used to describe op-
eration of a ground water basin in coordination with a
surface water reservoir system. The purpose is to artifi-
cially recharge the basin during years of above-average
precipitation so that the water can be withdrawn dur-
ing years of below-average precipitation, when surface
supplies are below normal. Conjunctive operation will
provide more water at a lower cost than would other-
wise be possible.

Consumptive use — ^the water that evaporates during
its use for urban or agricultural purposes.

Dry period — an historic period of years when water
supply IS much below normal. An example was 1929-34
when the water in Northern California streams aver-
aged only about 38 percent of normal. It has been used
as the reference drought situation in much water re-
source planning. Its statistical period of recurrence is
under study.

Economic life — ^the period needed to repay the in-
vestment of money in a facility. Frequently 50 years for
water supply projects

Electrical conductivity (EC) — ^the measure of the
ability of water to conduct an electrical current, the
magnitude of which depends on the concentration of
minerals in the water. Related to total dissolved solids.
Fault — a fracture in the earth's crust, with displace-
ment of one side of the fracture with respect to the

other. Frequently acts as a barrier to movement of
ground water.

Formation — a geologic term that designates a spe-
cific group of underground beds or strata which have
been deposited in sequence one above the other and
during the same period of geologic time.

Hydraulic gradient — slope of the water table.

Hydrology — ^the origin, distribution, and circulation
of water of the earth — precipitation, streamflow, infil-
tration, ground water storage, and evaporation.

Hydrology, ground water^ihe branch of hydrology
that deals with ground water — occurrence, movement,
replenishment, and depletion.

Injection well—weW used for introducing water into
an aquifer. Technique used to stop sea water intrusion,
replenish an aquifer, or dispose of cooling water.

Lava tube — an underground opening formed during
volcanic eruptions.

Locally— a term used to describe a small area within
a basin, usually less than one square mile.

Marine sediments — sediments originally laid down
in an ancient salt-water body and now above sea level.

Mining — pumping from ground water bodies greatly
in excess of replenishment.

Overdraft — ^the temporary condition of a ground wa-
ter basin where the amount of water withdrawn by
pumping exceeds the amount of water replenishing
the basin over a period of time.

Percolation — ^the flow or trickling of water through
the soil or alluvium to the ground water table.

Permeability— \he capability of soil or other geologic
formation to transmit water.

Porosity — voids or open spaces in alluvium and
rocks that can be filled with water.

Potentiometric surface — the surface to which the
water in a confined aquifer will rise in tightly cased
wells.

Pumping lift— the distance water must be lifted in a
well from the well pumping level to ground surface.

Recharge — ^flow to ground water storage from
precipitation, infiltration from streams, and other
sources of water.

Safe yield — ^the maximum quantity of water that can
be continuously withdrawn from a ground water basin
without adverse effect.

Saline — consisting of or containing salts, the most
common of which are potassium, sodium, or magne-
sium in combination with chloride, nitrate, or carbon-
ate.

Surface supply — water in reservoirs, lakes, or
streams; expressed either in terms of rate of flow (cu-
bic feet per second) or volume (acre-feet).

Total dissolved solids (TDS) — ^the quantity of miner-

als (salts) in solution in water, usually expressed in
milligrams per liter or parts per million.

Transmlsslvlty — rate of flow of water through an
aquifer

Tree mold — vertical tube formed by lava solidifying
around a tree which decays with time, leaving a hollow
hole in the shape of the tree.

Usable storage capacity — ^the quantity of ground
water of acceptable quality that can be economically
withdrawn from storage.

Volcanlcs — material of volcanic origin, such as ash,
cinder, lava, or basalt.

Water table — ^the surface where ground water is en-
countered in a well in an unconfined aquifer.

Figure 4. Ground Wafer Basins

CHAPTER II. THE RESOURCE

About 40 percent of the area of California is under-
lain by ground water basins. The total storage capacity
of the basins has been estinnated to be about 1 .3 billion
acre-feet of water. Many of the basins are full of water
or nearly so. A conservative estimate of the usable
portion of the storage capacity is 143 million acre-feet,
more than three times the total surface reservoir stor-
age capacity in the State. These ground water basins
presently provide about 40 percent (15 million acre-
feet per year) of the applied water needs of the State.
However, the annual withdrawal exceeds recharge by
about 2.2 million acre-feet. This is the present measure
of annual overdraft of the basins.

Origin of Ground Water

Many ground water basins in California are nearly

full and always have been. Until a basin is used by man,
the amount of water that enters through any recharge
area of the basin is equalled by the quantity of water
discharged in some manner from the basin.

Since most of California's ground water basins are in
relatively and valleys and most of the precipitation oc-
curs at the higher elevations in the mountains, natural
recharge of the ground water basins occurs mainly by
percolation from the streams flowing across the val-
leys. In many basins, this recharge tends to occur in the
area where the streams leave the mountains, since this
is where the coarser sedimentary material was depos-
ited. The amount of recharge has been increased in
many areas by construction of shallow basins to broad-
en the area of permeable material covered by the wa-
ter.

Figure 5. The Hydrologic Cycle

Precipitation falling on the valley floors in most parts
of the southern half of the State remains withm the
depth of soil penetrated by the roots of native plants
and is withdrawn and consumed by the plants. Only in
years with periods of exceptionally heavy precipitation
is there enough moisture in the soil for penetration
below the root zone and on into the ground water
basin. In the northern part of the State, some percola-
tion from direct precipitation on the valleys usually
occurs annually.

When water is used to irrigate crops or for landscap-
ing in urban areas, the amount applied is usually sev-
eral times as much as natural rainfall. Although the
plants grown consume much more water than native
vegetation, part of the water usually penetrates below
the root zone and on into the ground water basin. Dur-
ing years of above normal precipitation, water in ex-
cess of crop requirements is applied in some areas
specifically for recharge of underlying ground water
basins. Reservoirs have been built in a number of areas
of the State to regulate streamflow to increase ground
water basin recharge.

Water is imported from great distances to some
areas for recharge of ground water basins. The Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power has stored
large quantities of water from the Owens River under-
ground in the San Fernando Valley. Santa Clara Valley
Water District is recharging the Santa Clara Valley
ground water basin with water from the South Bay
Aqueduct of the California State Water Project. Mem-
ber agencies of The Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California have used large quantities of Colo-
rado River water in their service areas for ground water
recharge.

Bulletin No. 160-74, "The California Water Plan-
Outlook in 1974", indicated that (1) the ground water
basins presently supply about 5.2 million acre-feet an-
nually from natural or deliberate recharge of the ba-
sins, and (2) about 7.6 million acre-feet of water that
enters the basins due to percolation from canals and
distribution systems and excess surface applications.
These two sources, plus about 2.2 million acre-feet of
average annual overdraft of ground water basins, total
15 million acre-feet per year, or about 40 percent of the
total applied water use of California in 1972.

Recharge Basins

Figurr. 6. Major Aqueducts

HIGH POROSITY

Sediments with uniform grain size

MODERATE POROSITY

Sediments with variable grain size

MINIMAL USABLE POROSITY

Cemented sediments of variable grain size

MINIMAL USABLE POROSITY

Fine Sediments

LOW POROSITY

Fractured crystalline rock

LOW TO HIGH POROSITY

Fractured volcanic rocks

Figure 7. Ground Water in Sediments and Rocks

About 1.5 million acre-feet of the annual overdraft
occurs in the San Joaquin Valley. This is 0.5 million
acre-feet less than the annual overdraft in the Valley in
1967 as reported m Bulletin No. 160-70. "Water for Cali-
fornia, The California Water Plan, Outlook in 1970".
Water imported by the Central Valley Project to the
San Luis Unit and to the Arvin-Edison area of the Friant
Division and to the service area of the California State
Water Project caused the decrease in overdraft.

Nature and Occurrence of Ground Water

Most of California's ground water occurs in alluvial
material deposited by the existing streams. These allu-
vial materials, defined as younger alluvium for this re-
port, constitute the alluvial fill in more than 250 valley
areas of California. The water in this alluvial material is
usually contained in deposits of sand and gravel. These
deposits can be compared to a bucket filled with sand,
gravel, or a mixture of the two, with water added until
the material in the bucket is saturated. The water occu-
pies the very small spaces between the particles. If a
dram is opened in the bottom of the bucket, the
amount of water flowing out will range from 10 to 25
percent of the volume of the bucket.

Yields will be smaller if the bucket contains fine sand
and silt, and larger if most of the material is gravel or
medium to coarse sand. Not all of the water will dram
from the bucket because some remains on the surface
of the particles and in the smallest spaces.

■0:

'^^^

'^^^4

t'\>v:

^^l^terl*':

Older Alluvium

Clay and fine silt layers are usually intermingled with
the sand and gravel and also are saturated with water
but the spaces between the grains are so small that
these layers form effective barriers to movement of
water. There is a common misconception that ground
water occurs in open pools or underground rivers. In
fact, if there were such a pool or river in California, it
would be filled with sand and gravel in addition to
water.

Adjacent to and underlying the younger alluvial
materials are extensive areas of older alluvium ranging
in age from hundreds of thousands to more than one
million years. For the most part these formations are
less permeable than the younger alluvium, but some of
them yield large quantities of water. They also provide
significant recharge areas where they occur in areas of
heavy rainfall, or where crossed by streams.

iVvi^l-

:^Sa

^^iHi

I I -^ >~

/a'bl

Figure 8. Ground Water in Unconsolidated Sediments

.v^^^

'' ^ /

>^' \- ^ - I

-f=s?^

fCROP

oCDER^LLUVm

/
I

Figure 9. Ground Water in Older Alluvium

i::'W-

Water-bearing Volcanics, Burney Falls

In the northeast corner of the State, northeast of San
Francisco Bay. and along the east side of the Central
Valley there are extensive areas of volcanics made up
of a wide variety of volcanic materials, much of it per-
meable and able to store ground water and transmit it
to wells. Volcanics also occur in the northern portion
of Owens Valley, in the desert areas and along coastal
Ventura and Los Angeles Counties; however, their po-
tential for ground water development is not clearly
defined.

In a few areas in the higher mountains, glacial mo-
raines are sufficiently permeable to provide usable
supplies of ground water. In a few coastal areas, thin
marine terraces provide usable supplies of ground wa-
ter.

Limestone in California is insignificant as a water-
bearing formation. However, limestone is an important
water-bearing formation in some parts of the United
States. The State also lacks extensive sedimentary
rock formations such as those underlying many thou-
sands of square miles in the~area between the Rocky
Mountains and the Mississippi River and yielding large
quantities of ground water.

In much of the upland areas of the State, fractures

and other spaces in harder rock formations yield small
quantities of water sufficient for a domestic supply for
an individual home or for stock water. Where the hard-
er rock formations are deeply weathered, as in San
Diego County, these weathered areas commonly re-
ferred to as "residuum", frequently provide usable sup-
plies of ground water for domestic use. Availability of
water in such formations can vary widely between
areas, even if only a few feet apart. Presence of springs
or seeps indicates good locations for wells. Advice of
a geologist can greatly decrease the probability of drill-
ing a dry hole in search of water in these rock forma-
tions.

Some of the deeper lying sediments in California's
ground water basins, especially in the Central Valley,
were deposited m sea water. These marine sediments
often contain salt water, in some areas 1.000 feet or
more below the surface. In other areas, however, such
as the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the salt water is
as little as 100 feet below the surface. Where these
marine sediments have been lifted by geologic forces
and the salt water has been flushed out by percolating
fresh water, the sediments have become fresh water
aquifers supplying local water needs in such areas as
coastal Sonoma and Santa Cruz Counties.

VESiaES
(Cavities)

TREE MOLD

COOLIIMG
JOINT

PYROaASTIC BLOCKS

BURIED STREAM GRAVEL
LAVA TUBE (Rare)

Figure 10. Ground Water in Volcanics

Highly Fractured Water-bearing Volcanics

Windmill ond Water Storage Tank

Movement of Ground Water

Water moves underground in response to the same
gravitational forces as does water on the surface. It
moves toward the point of lowest water surface in the
basin unless confined by some overlying material it
cannot penetrate. The movement is very slow, usually
less than 1,000 feet per year, because of the great
amount of friction resulting from movement through
the spaces between grams of sand or gravel. The low
point is created by escape of water from the basin. The
water may be entering an ocean, lake, or stream or may
be appearing on the surface as a spring or seep. In
California, the low point is most often created by
pumping water from the basin through wells.

There is common exception to freedom of move-
ment of water from the highest water surface to the
lowest water surface in the basin (which sometimes
differ from the highest and lowest land surface in the
basin). This occurs when water becomes trapped un-
der extensive clay layers that effectively prevent its
upward movement. These layers often act much like a
pipe in which water enters at a high point and is under
pressure at the low end of the pipe. If the pressure is
great enough toward the low end for water to rise
above the ground surface, artesian flow occurs when
the clay layers are penetrated by wells. Artesian flow
IS usually a short-lived situation. It doesn't take a great
number of wells to decrease the pressure so that
pumping is required to obtain desirable production.

RECHARGE AREA

PUMPED WELL

-WATER LEVEL

OMETRIC SURFACE
d Aquifer)

CHARGE (Precipitotion & Irrigotion)
PUMPED WELL

FLOWING WELL

NON WATER BEARING ROCK

Figure 1 1. Unconfined and Confined Ground Water

In some ground water basins, bedrock lies at shallow
depths and in some places faults cut through the ba-
sins. The shallow subsurface bedrock or the faults act
as barriers to impede the movement of ground water.
Commonly, where this occurs, the barrier acts as a
dam. and water levels on the upstream side of the
barriers are considerably closer to the land surface
than are water levels on the downstream side.

The velocity of water in surface streams is measured
in feet per second. Velocity of water moving in ground
water basins is usually measured in feet per year. The
cross-sectional area through which the water moves
ranges from hundreds to thousands of feet in depth.
The width is usually measured in miles. Therefore, de-
spite the very low velocity, quite large quantities of
water can move from one area of a ground water basin
to another because the cross-section is so large. Be-
cause of this water movement, many ground water
basins serve a very important role in distribution of
water. The water flows underground from the loca-
tions where the basins can be recharged to the loca-
tions in the basin where the water is extracted. The
ground water basin provides an economical natural
substitute for extensive canal and pipeline surface dis-
tribution facilities.

In addition to the horizontal flow of ground water,
vertical flow can occur, depending on the difference in
hydraulic gradients between ground water bodies.
Vertical flows become critical when poor-quality water
can move upward or downward into fresh ground wa-
ter bodies.

^,^DEEP WELL*
WATER TABLt-'3^-«.--- 'II' •Jj- '•••'•■'"• i * '■ '"'J-'

'■'.•'pII' • ••.••.••J »

>-^

CONFINING BED

N ••

Figure 12. Effects of Faulting on Wafer Table

Quality of Ground Water

Water is one of the most effective solvents. It can
hold in solution very large concentrations of some
compounds and small concentrations of an exhaustive
list of substances. These substances are generally clas-
sified as mineral compounds, such as sodium chloride
(common table salt) or organic compounds such as
oils or other plant or animal substances. Gases such as
oxygen and nitrogen are also dissolved in water and
have great importance to fish and plant life.

Rainfall contains very little dissolved material but be-
gins to dissolve mineral and organic compounds as it
flows across the surface of the earth. That portion that
percolates through the soil to ground water basins dis-
solves materials even more rapidly, since it comes in
contact with much greater surfaces of the soil and
aquifer particles through which it percolates.

Water in ground water basins usually has a fairly low
mineral content in the recharge areas and an increased
content toward the point of discharge from the basin.
Most mineral increases occur naturally or because of
use and evaporation of water by plants. The unused
water that returns to the ground water basin after an
irrigation carries with it nearly all the salt contained in
the original quantity of water. Most of the organic
materials are added to the ground water through the
use of water and disposal of wastes containing organic
material. Water that has been in swamps, however,
sometimes picks up large quantities of organic materi-
al from plants.

Common Minerols In Water

Basins Monitored by Department of Water
Resources for Quality

Windmill— Stock Water Well

In some basins, poor quality or high temperature
water, or both, occurs where faults cut through the
water-bearing sediments.

Ground water basins frequently overlie or adjoin for-
mations that contain salt water or sometimes dis-
charge into the ocean or other salt water bodies below
the surface of the salt water body. Salt water from such
sources usually intrudes the fresh water aquifers when
large quantities of the fresh water are pumped. Con-
versely, some of the confined fresh water aquifers in
coastal regions extend seaward under the ocean floor
for considerable distances without any evidence that
sea water has intruded the aquifers.

Correction of water quality problems, or prevention
of their occurrence, is a major portion of the task of
managing ground water basins. This has led to realiza-
tion that management of basins is as much concerned
with maintenance of suitable quality as with develop-
ment of the desired quantities of ground water. Fortu-
nately, for the most part, the quality of the water in
California's ground water basins is suitable for all bene-
ficial uses.

The Role of Ground Water in California's
Development

The first major influence of ground water on the

development of California was to allow settlement at
almost any location throughout the State where
people wished to carry on mining, agriculture, or other
enterprise. This was because of the wide-spread avail-
ability of sufficient ground water near the surface to
supply a family and its livestock by simply digging a
well or developing a spring.

Its second major influence was on irrigation early in
this century, with the development of tools to bore
large-capacity wells and the provision of electric pow-
er and efficient motors and pumps.

Domestic and Stock Water

The availability of ground water in dug wells or
springs for domestic use also provided a health benefit
for early California settlers. Purification of water as it
percolates through soil and the granular media of
aquifers minimizes the transfer of water-borne dis-
eases. This is in marked contrast with the transmittal of
diseases from one population to the next downstream
users where people use untreated water from surface
streams and return much of their wastes to such
streams. These wastes in turn contaminate the water
for the next downstream users. Polluted surface water
was a major health problem for many early cultures
and IS still of major significance in undeveloped coun-
tries.

WATER TABLE

SPRING

, .^ ^""^v' N IMPERMEABLE ROCK N. /-. v

GEOLOGIC CONTACT SPRING

WATER TABLE

SPRING

FAULT BARRIER SPRING

Tliii \\y \vn 111"

-*-r- BASALT M

IMPERMEA

VBLE ROCK-vT- 'x.>

VESICULAR LAVA BED^^

"If IMPERMEABLE ROCK v < \ \ \ N^ * \ \\

VOLCANIC ROCK SPRING

WATER TABLE

T~),^5;— 7- INFILTRATION OF RAINWATE

SUBSURFACE GEOLOGIC BARRIER SPRING

CRYSTALLINE ROCK FRACTURE SPRING

Figure 1 4. Springs

Flowing Artesian Well— Stock and irrigation Woter Supply

Centrifugal Pump and Motor

Wells are often the most economic means of obtain-
ing good quality water for domestic and municipal pur-
poses in communities overlying ground water basins.
Ground water is frequently used even when an alterna-
tive surface supply is available that could be treated
and distributed. Stock water for large areas of range-
land IS available from ground water through develop-
ment of springs and from wells. The pumps at the wells
are often powered by windmills.

Artesian Well Irrigation

Many ground water basins in California have aqui-
fers that contain water under pressure. The pressure
was sufficient to cause the water to rise to the surface
of the ground and flow freely when wells first penetrat-
ed the aquifers. The pressure results from presence of
overlying clay layers, some of which are very extensive.
Water percolating in the upper portions of the basins
flows under the relatively impermeable clay layers and
creates substantial pressure in the lower portions of
the basin. Development of motorized well-digging
equipment around the turn of the century enabled
wells to be drilled sufficiently deep to penetrate these
aquifers and to make available substantial quantities of
flowing artesian water for irrigation.

Centrifugal Pumps

During the early 1900s. the availability of both gaso-
line engines and electric power, as well as centrifugal
pumps, enabled large quantities of water to be
pumped from wells. There are still centrifugal pumps
operating in pits, some. 20 feet or more in depth, in
some areas in California. Such installations were fairly
numerous in the early 1950s.

Deep Well Turbines

Development of deep-well turbine pumps and the
increased availability of electrical power in agricultural
areas m the 1920s led to widespread use of ground
water for agriculture, even in areas where the water
had to be pumped from depths of several hundred
feet. In some instances, water was lifted as much as
1,000 feet. Use of ground water in the agricultural areas
enabled individual farmers to irrigate large areas of
land with relatively small capital outlay for water.

Use of similar wells by municipalities overlying
ground water basins provided dependable supplies of
municipal and industrial water for relatively large
populations in areas with little or no summer stream-
flow.

Figure 15. Ground Water Basins with Moderate or Inten-
sive Development

Economy to Support Water Importation charge of the basin. Water levels fall, causing several

, , , problems for water users. Pumping costs increase.

Ground water development helped establish strong ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^ deepened, and poor quality water

urban and agricultural economies. These economies sometimes enters wells

were able to meet the large financial requirements to j^^^^ ^^^^^^5 gl^^g ^,^^ ^^^ ^^5,^^ ^or a dependa-

develop and import water from surface sources, often ^,g ^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^3,,^^ ^^^^^ p^o^p^ ^^^

far distant from the ground water basin. ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ i^p^^^ ^ supplemental supply.

When the land area overlying a ground water basin One of the early import projects was the Los Ange-
ls fully urbanized or fully devoted to irrigated agricul- las Aqueduct to bring water from the Owens Valley to
ture. the water requirements usually exceed the re- Los Angeles.

^i?>^ ^^

y- '"^ "Jf '-..T-v

Urbon Areo Overlying a Ground Woter Bosln

CHAPTER III.

INVENTORY OF CALIFORNIA'S GROUND WATER
RESOURCES

A small part of the information available on individ-
ual ground water basins in California is given in the
following tabulations. Brief reference is made in the
tabulations to the most informative reports on each
basin. The complete reference is given in the bibliogra-
phy at the end of this chapter.

For this inventory, the State has been divided into
nine hydrologic study areas (HSA). A basin location

map and brief summary of ground water conditions, in
addition to data in the tabulation, are provided for
each HSA.

Many of the definitions given in the glossary in Chap-
ter II are used in the tabulation. Terms as defined in the
following material are used in the tabulations to indi-
cate the present level of knowledge for the basin in
regard to geology, ground water hydrology, and water
quality.

Evaluation

Degree of knowledge

Geolosic Criteria

Intensive

Detailed identification (names) and description
of aquifers and detailed data on transmissivity
(model)*

Hish

Detailed identification and description of
aquifers but minimum data on transmissivity.

Moderate

Moderate subsurface data available enabling the
general description of aquifers and occasional
naming.

Limited

Limited subsurface data on free and confined
water bodies.

Superficial

Limited to knowledge that ground water
occurs.

Hydrologic Criteria

Intensive.

High

Moderate.
Limited. . .

Superficial.

Intensive. .

High

Moderate

Limited . . .
SuperRcidl.

Detailed information on recharge, occurrence,
movement, disposal, and changes in storage (can
model).

General information on recharge, occurrence,
movement, and disposal.

Moderate information on occurrence and
movement and recharge and disposal.

Limited information on occurrence and move-
ment based mainly on water level data.

Limited to knowledge that ground water
occurs.

Water Quality Criteria

Detailed information on quantity and quality of
all waters areally and analytical (model).

General information on ground and surface
water. Not enough data to show boundaries
of different qualities of ground waters areally
and/or vertically.

Moderate information on ground and surface
water. Data either highly clustered and/or
spread out areally.

Limited information on ground and surface
water areally and analytically.

Only that ground water is used for a particular
purpose.

iildbic lo dcvcloc and verify a mathondliu! model ot

STUDY AREA KEY

GROUND WATER BASINS - NORTH COASTAL HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA

North Coastal Hydrologic Study Area

Ground Water Basins

No.

Old No.

Name

County

1-1

Smith River Plain

Klamath River Valley

Butte Valley

Shasta Valley

Scott River Valley

Hayfork Valley

Del Norte

1-2

1-3

Siskiyou
Siskiyou
Siskiyou

1-4
1-5

1-6

Trinity

1-7

1-8

Mad River Valley

Eureka Plain

Eel River Valley

Round Valley

Laytonville Valley

Little Lake Valley

Lower Klamath River

Valley
Happy Camp Town Area

1-9

1-10

1-11

1-12

1-13

1-14

1-15

Siskiyou
Siskiyou
Siskiyou
Siskiyou

1-16

1-17

Bray Town Area

Red Rock Valley

Anderson Valley

Garcia River Valley

Fort Bragg Terrace Area. .

Fairchild Swamp Valley. .

Modoc Plateau Recent
Volcanic Areas

Modoc Plateau Pleisto-
cene Volcanic Areas

Prairie Creek Area

Redwood Creek Valley .

Big Lagoon Area

Mattole River Valley. . . .

Honeydew Town Area . .

Pepperwood Town Area .

Weolt Town Area

Garberville Town Area . .

Larabee Valley

Dinsmores Town Area

Hyampom Valley

Hettenshaw Valley. .

Cottoneva Creek Valley, ,

Lower Laytonville Valley

Branscomb Town Area. . .

Ten Mile River Valley. . .

Little Valley

Sherwood Valley

Williams Valley

Eden Valley

Big River Valley

Navarro River Valley

Gualala River Valley

Gravelly Valley

Anapolis Ohison Ranch
Formation Highlands

1-18

1-19

1-20

1-21

1-22

1-23

1-24

Siskiyou

1-25

Siskiyou

1-26

1-27

1-28

1-29

1-30

1-31

1-32

1-33

1-34

1-35

Trinity

1-36

1-37

1-38

1-39

1-40

1-41

1-42

1-43

1-44

1-45

1-46

1-47

1-48

Lake

1-49

Summary

The North Coastal Hydrologic Study Area (HSA)
comprises the coastal drainage basins of California
north of the Russian River basin to the Oregon border.
Principal streams are the Smith River. Klamath River,
Trinity River. Redwood Creek. Mad River. Eel River,
and Mattole River. The mean annual runoff from the

HSA IS about 28 million acre-feet. In some basins flow-
ing wells and springs exist; notably. Big Springs near
Granada in Siskiyou County flows at a perennial rate of
18,000 gallons per minute.

In this HSA. 49 ground water basins and areas of
potential ground water storage have been identified.
The inventory covers 14 ground water basins. These 14
basins, with a total area of about 2,000 square miles,
have been identified as significant sources of ground
water. The water-bearing deposits range in thickness
up to slightly more than 2.000 feet. Estimated storage
capacity for nine of the 14 basins is about 1.3 million
acre-feet computed with varying thickness of water-
bearing material from 25 to over 200 feet. Usable stor-
age capacity for all nine basins has been estimated at
about 800.000 acre-feet; the limiting factors are sea-
water intrusion, aquifer materials of low permeability,
thin alluvial deposits, and quality of water.

Ground water temperature ranges from about 48° to
about 62° F, Total dissolved solids (TDS) content of the
water is generally less than 500 mg/l. but in one loca-
tion TDS exceeds 4.800 mg/l. The predominant water
type IS calcium bicarbonate, but magnesium, sodium,
sulfate, and chloride are also found in some basins.

Properly constructed wells in the volcanic deposits
in the Klamath River, Butte, and Shasta Valleys can
yield as much as 4,000 gallons per minute.

Butte Valley is the most highly developed ground
water basin in the HSA, In 1972 ground water pumpage
was 63.000 acre-feet, which accounted for about 75
percent of the water supply. The basin is not m an
overdraft condition.

Round Valley is not as well developed as Butte Val-
ley; however, water users depend on the ground water
basin for almost 100 percent of their water needs.

In the North Coastal HSA, which is an area of water
surplus, ground water supplied about 140,000 acre-feet
in 1972, or about 15 percent of the net annual demand
of 940,000 acre-feet. The projected 2020 net annual
demand for the HSA is about 1 million acre-feet, of
which ground water is expected to supply 180,000 acre-
feet, or about 18 percent of the total. Most of the
increased pumping is expected in Butte Valley.

Recent (1970-71) data from Bulletin No, 63-5 indi-
cate evidence of sea-water intrusion along the coast of
the Eel River Valley, These data show chloride concen-
trations exceeding 100 mg/l m Redwood Creek Basin.
Mad River Valley, and the Eureka Plain, However, all
four areas are within the zone of tidal influence and are
therefore subject to periodic intrusion. The main wa-
ter-producing zones in the Mad River Valley. Eureka
Plain and Eel River Valley are in the older alluvium
(Hookton and Carlotta Formations), These formations
are confined aquifers and show no evidence of sea-
water intrusion.

INVENTORY OF GROUND

NORTH

HYDROLOGiC

Basin name, county

Basin description:

size, major stream,

water bearing material

Well yields
in gpm

Depth
zone
in feet

Storage
capacity

in
acre-feet

Usable
capacity

Bdsin
number

Max.

Aver.

in
acre-feet

1-1

Smith River Plain, Del Norte
County

A 70-square-mile coastal ba-
sin drained by the Smith River.
Younger alluvium.

500

10-35

100,000

75,000

1-2

Klamath River Valley, Modoc
and Siskiyou Counties

A 720-square-mile basin
drained by the Klamath River.
Extends into Oregon. Younger
alluvium and younger volcanics.

4000

1000

Unknown

1-3

Butte Valley, Siskiyou County

A 480-square-mile internal
drained basin with outlet to
Klamath River. Younger allu-
vium and older volcanics.

4000

2000

Unknown

1-4

Shasta Valley, Siskiyou
County

A 340-square-mile basin
drained by Shasta River. Young-
er alluvium and younger vol-
canics.

4000

1000

Unknown

1-5

Scott River Valley, Siskiyou
County

A 80-squdre-mile basin
drained by Scott River. Younger

alluvium.

2500

1750

5-100

400,000

300,000

1-6

Hayfork Valley, Trinity
County

A6-square-mile basin drained
by Hayfork Creek. Younger
alluvium.

200

Unknown

0-25

3,500

1,500

1-7

Hoopa Valley, Humboldt
County

A 5-square-mile basin drained
by Trinity River. Younger allu-
vium

300

Unknown

10-40

19,000

9,500

1-8

Mad River Valley, Humboldt
County

A 60-square-mile coastal ba-
sin drained by Mad River,
Younger alluvium.

1,200

400

10-150

60,000

1-9

Eureka Plain, Humboldt
County

A 60-square-mile coastal ba-
sin drained by several coastal
streams. Younger alluvium.

1,200

400

Unknown

1-10

Eel River Valley, Humboldt
County

A 120-square-mile coastal
basin drained by the Eel and
Van Duzen Rivers. Younger and
older alluvium.

1,200

400

10-40

1 36,000

100,000

1-11

Round Valley, Mendocino
County

A 23-square-mi 1 e basin
drained by Mill Creek. Younger
and older alluvium.

1,300

400

10-200

430,000

150,000

1-12

Laytonville Valley, Mendo-
cino County

A 1 2-square-mile basin
drained by Ten Mile and Out-
let Creeks. Younger alluvium.

700

250

10-120

27,000

21,000

WATER RESOURCES
COASTAL
STUDY AREA

Development

Degree of knowledse

Problems

Moderate for irrigation, domestic, municipal,
and stock use. Estimated 1968 pumpage 4,200
AF. Estimated safe yield 39,000 AFY. A poten-
tial for limited additional development in the
soutfi area and moderate development in the
north area.

Minor for domestic, irrigation and stock use.
Estimated 1972 pumpage 13,000 AF. Estimated
safe yield 24,000 AFY. A potential for limited
additional development.

Intensive for irrigation, domestic, and stock
use. Estimated 1972 pumpage 63,000 AF.
Sufficient ground water to meet projected 2020
water requirements of 92,000 AFY. A poten-
tial for limited additional development.

Minor for irrigation — mostly for domestic and
stock use. Estimated 1972 pumpage 9,000 AF.
Estimated potential yield over 40,000 AFY. A
potential for moderate to high additional
development.

Minor for irrigation — mostly for domestic and
stock use. Estimated 1975 pumpage 5,000 AF.
Estimate potential yield over 36,000 AFY. A
potential for moderate to high additional devel-
opment.

Minor for domestic and industrial use. Esti-
mated 1960 pumpage was about 300 AF. No
potential for additional development.

Minor for domestic use — yields generally less
than 10 gallons per minute. A potential for
limited additional development.

Moderate lor domestic, irrigation, industrial,
and municipal use: mainly domestic. Estimated
1972 pumpage 9,000 AF. A potential for
limited additional development.

Moderate for domestic, irrigation, industrial,
and municipal. Estimated 1972 pumpage 15,000
AF. A potential for limited additional develop-
ment.

Moderate for domestic, irrigation, industrial,
and municipal use. Estimated 1972 pumpage
10,000 AF. A potential for moderate additional
development inland, limited near the coast.

Moderate for domestic, irrigation, industrial,
and stock use. Ground water is essentially the
only source of water for the valley. Estimated
1972 pumpage 5,000 AF. Estimated safe yield is
about 30,000 AFY. A potential tor moderate
additional development.

Moderate for domestic, irrigation, municipal,
industrial, and stock use. Estimated 1972 pump-
age 1 ,000 AF. Estimated safe yield about 10,000
AFY. A potential for moderate to high addi-
tional development.

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR61,110;USGS4

Limited for geology, eastern irea, super-
ficial for geology, western ATe.a. Limited in
hydrology and water quality.
References:

DWR45, 140; uses 52

Moderate for geology. Limited for hydroL
ogy and water quality.
References:
DWR70, 111;USGS 131

Limited for geology, hydrology, and w/ater
quality.

References:
DWR72, 140; USGS77

Moderate for geology, limited for hydrol-
ogy and water quality.
References:
DWR 45, 70, 140; USGS76

Limited for geology, superficial for hydrol-
ogy and water quality.
References:
DWR 45, 129

Limited for geology, hydrology and water
quality.

References:
DWR129;USGS107

Limited for geology, hydrology and water
quality.

References:
DWR 129, 140, 188; USGS 38

Limited for geology, hydrology and water
quality.

References:
DWR 129, 140, 188; USGS 38

Limited for geology, hydrology and water
quality.

References:
DWR 129, 140, 188; USGS 38

Limited for geology, hydrology and water
quality.

References:
DWR 47, 129, 140; USBR 3; USGS 18

Moderate for geology, limited for hydrol-
ogy, and water quality.
References:
DWR 47, 129; USGS 18

Low well yield in the south led to importa-
tion of water from the Smith River. Due to the
shallow aquifer, danger of contamination with
septic tank effluent exists. FHigh iron content
in some areas. Danger of seawater intrusion
in northern part of basin.

Ground water in the Klamath Lake area is
generally high in sodium and nitrate content.
Waters of poor quality are reported to occur
in the upper water-bearing zones in the
Tule Lake area.

FHigh sodium content in western portion
of valley in the vicinity of Meiss Lake. Arsenic
in shallow water in vicinity of Davis Creek.
Temporary summer pumping overdraft caused
by too many wells pumping at the same time.

Some wells in north and central portion
of valley yield high concentration of sodium,
chloride, and boron. Wells near Lake Dwin-
nell produce water with high boron.

Scattered shallow wells have high nitrates.
Moffet Creek area has high sulfates.

Thin alluvium and tight sediments — low
yield. One deep well yielded water with
high concentrations of sodium chloride. No
other water quality problems are known.

Very thin alluvium — usually in the late
summer and fall saturated thickness of alluvium
is less than 5 feet — small yield. No known
water quality problems.

Sea-water intrusion along the coast. Sand-
ing of wells is a problem from the older
FHookton Formation.

Sea-water intrusion along the coast. Sand-
ing of wells is a problem from the older
Hookton Formation. Scattered wells contain
excessive iron. One deep well (375') pro-
duced high concentrations of boron and high
percent sodium.

Sea-water intrusion along the coast. FHigh
concentrations of Iron baslnwide generally.

Locally high in iron.

Locally high in iron, sodium, and boron.

INVENTORY OF GROUND

NORTH

HYDROLOGIC

Bdsin name, county

Basin description:

size, major stream,

water bearing material

Well yields
in gpm

Depth
zone
in feet

Storage
capacity

in
acre-feet

Usable
capacity

Basin
number

Max.

Aver.

in
acre-feet

1-13

1-14

Little Lake Valley, Mendo-
cino County

Lower Klamath River Valley,
Del Norte County

A 1 7-square-mi le basin
drained by Outlet Creek.
Younger and older alluvium.

A 12-square-mile coastal ba-
sin drained by Klamath River.
Younger alluvium.

1,000
250

300

Unknown

10-200

Unknown

92,000

Unknown

92,000

Unknown

WATER RESOURCES

COASTAL

STUDY AREA— Continued

Development

Degree of knowledge

Problems

Moderate for domestic, irrigation, industrial,
and stock use. Estimated 1972 pumpage 1,000
AF. Estimated safe yield 6,000 AFY. A poten-
tial for moderate additional development.

Minor for domestic and municipal use. A po-
tential for moderate additional development in
tlie gravel areas of the valley.

Moderate for geology, limited for fiydroi-

ogy and water quality.
References:
DWR 47, 129; USBR 12; USGS 18

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 61

Locally high in iron, manganese, and boron.

Thin alluvial deposits.

Legend

I I YOUNGER ALLUVIUM

^ OLDER ALLUVIUM

^ OLDER MARINE SEDIMENTS

r~| OLDER VOLCANICS 8. SEDIMENTS

-I 1 1 I

STUDY AREA KEY

GROUND WATER BASINS - SAN FRANCISCO BAY HYDROLOGIC STUDY ARE/

San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Study Area

Ground Water Basins

2-1
2-2

2-2.02

2-3

2-4

2-5

2-6

2-7

2-8
2-9

Old No.

2-9.02
2-10

2-11

2-12

2-13

2-14

2-15

2-16

2-17

2-17.01

2-17.02

2-18

2-18.01

2-18.02

2-18.03

2-19

2-20

2-21
2-22
2-23

2-24
2-25

2-26
2-27
2-28
2-29
2-30
2-31

2-32

2-33
2-34
2-35

1-22

1-14

1-15

1-16

1-17

1-17.01

1-17.02

1-18

1-18.01

1-18.02

1-18.03

1-23

1-98

Name

Petdluma Valley

Napa-Sonoma Valley .

Napa Valley

Sonoma Valley

Suisun-Fdirfield Valley.
Pittsburg Plain

Clayton Valley. . .
Ygnacio Valley. . .
San Ramon Valley.

County

Castro Valley

Santa Clara Valley

East Bay Area .

South Bay Area.
Livermore Valley. .

Sunol Valley

McDowell Valley

Knights Valley

Potter Valley

Ukiah Valley

Sanel Valley

Alexander Valley

Alexander Area

Cloverdale Area

Santa Rosa Valley

Santa Rosa Plain

Healdsburg Area . . . .

Rincon Valley

Kenwood Valley

Lower Russian River

Valley

Bodega Bay Area

Half Moon Bay Terrace.
Napa-Sonoma Volcanics

Highlands
San Gregorio Valley. . .
Sebastopol Merced For-
mation Highlands

Pescadera Valley

Sand Point Area

Ross Valley

San Rafael Valley

Novate Valley

Arroyo del Hambre

Valley
Visitation Valley

Islais Valley

San Francisco Sand Dune

Area
Merced Valley

San Pedro Valley.

Marin,

Sonoma
Napa,

Solano,

Sonoma
Napa,

Solano
Sonoma
Solano
Contra

Costa
Contra

Costa
Alameda
Alameda,

Contra

Costa,

Santa

Clara,

San Mateo
Alameda,

Contra

Costa
Santa Clara
Alameda,

Contra

Costa
Alameda
Mendocino
Sonoma
Mendocino
Mendocino
Mendocino
Sonoma
Sonoma
Sonoma
Sonoma
Sonoma
Sonoma
Sonoma
Sonoma
Sonoma

Sonoma
San Mateo
Sonoma

San Mateo

Marin,

Sonoma

San Mateo

Marin

Contra

Costa
San

Francisco,

San Mateo
San

Francisco
San

Francisco,

San

Mateo
San Mateo

Summary

The San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Study Area
(HSA) includes basins tributary to the San Francisco
Bay. the Russian River drainage, and some minor ba-
sins along the coast in San Mateo County. In this HSA,
41 ground water basins, sub-basins, and areas of poten-
tial ground water storage have been identified. The
inventory covers 26 ground water basins and sub-ba-
sins. These 26 basins, with a total area of about 1,700
square miles, have been identified as significant
sources of ground water. The water-bearing deposits
range in thickness up to 1,000 feet. There are flowing
wells in several basins.

Estimated storage capacity for 19 of the basins is
about 28.3 million acre-feet. Usable storage capacity of
15 basins has been estimated to be about 1.6 million
acre-feet: factors limiting development are sea-water
intrusion, aquifer materials of low permeability, and
the quality of the water. Ground water temperatures
generally range from about 50° to about 75°. but tem-
peratures as high as 140°F have been recorded at
Boyes Hot Springs in Sonoma Valley. TDS content of
the water is generally less than 500 milligrams per liter,
but a sample collected in Napa Valley had 11,700 milli-
grams per liter. The predominant water type is cal-
cium-magnesium bicarbonate.

Properly constructed wells in some areas yield as
much as 3,000 gallons per minute.

From basin to basin, the development of ground wa-
ter for irrigation, domestic, industrial, and stock varies
from minor to intensive. In 1972, ground water supplied
290.000 acre-feet, or about 24 percent of the HSA's net
annual water demand. Of the projected 2020 water
demand of about 2 million acre-feet, ground water is
expected to supply 350,000 acre-feet, or about 17 per-
cent (from Bulletin 160-74). Most of the increased
pumping will occur in the South Bay area.

Sea-water intrusion in Alameda and Santa Clara
Counties has been arrested by recharge programs. A
well m the Alviso area in Santa Clara County was re-
ported flowing this year (1975) after having stopped
flowing many years ago. This shows the success of the
Counties' program to refill the basin. Sea-water intru-
sion in Napa Valley. Sonoma Valley, and Pittsburg Plain
has been arrested by using imported surface water and
reducing ground water pumpage.

Knowledge of geology, hydrology, and water quality
in many basins is limited. Two basins m which knowl-
edge is adequate are Livermore and Santa Clara Val-
leys. Studies are currently being conducted in
Sonoma, Alameda, and Santa Clara Counties.

INVENTORY OF GROUND
SAN FRANCISCO BAY

Basin name, county

Basin description:

size, major stream,

water bearing material

Well yields in gpm

Depth
zone
in feet

Storage
capacity

in
acre-feet

Usable
capacity

Basin
number

Max.

Aver.

in
acre-feet

2-1

Petaluma Valley, Marin and
Sonoma Counties.

A 41 -square-mi le basin
drained by Petaluma Creek.
Younger and older alluvium.

650

0-900

2,100,000

Unknown

2-2

Napa-Sonoma Valley

2-2.01

Napa Valley, Napa and
Solano Counties.

A 230-square-mile basin
drained by Napa River. Younger
and older alluvium, and older
volcanics and sediments.

3,000

200

10-200

300,000

Unknown

2-2.02

Sonoma Valley, Sonoma
County.

A 50-square-mi le basin
drained by Sonoma Creek.
Younger and older alluvium,
and older volcanics and sedi-
ments.

400

Unknown

0-1,000

2,660,000

Unknown

2-3

Suisun-Fairfield Valley, Sola-
no County.

A 260-square-mile basin
drained by Green Valley, Sui-
sun, Ledgewood and Laurel
Creeks. Younger and older
alluvium, and older volcanics
and sediments.

1,000

150

10-200

226,000

40,000

2-4

Pittsburg Plain, Contra Costa
County.

A 30-square-mi le basi n
drained by New York Slough.
Younger and older alluvium.

Unknown

2-5

Clayton Valley, Contra Costa
County.

A 30-square-mile basin
drained by Walnut Creek.
Younger alluvium.

Unknown

20-200

1 80,000

80,000

2-6

Ygnacio Valley, Contra Costa
County.

A 30-square-mile basin
drained by Walnut Creek.
Younger alluvium.

500

200

20-200

200,000

50,000

2-7

San Ramon Valley, Contra
Costa County.

A 30-square-mi 1 e basin
drained by Ramon Creek.
Younger alluvium.

Unknown

2-8

Castro Valley, Alameda
County.

A 4-squa re-m 1 1 e basin
drained by San Lorenzo Creek.
Younger alluvium.

Unknown

2-9

Santa Clara Valley, Alameda,
Contra Costa, San Mateo and
Santa Clara Counties (Includes
2-9.01 East Bay area and 2-9.02
South Bay dred).

A 580-square-mile basin
drained by Guadalupe River,
and Alameda, Coyote, Red-
wood and San Francisquito
Creeks. Younger and older al-
luvium.

1,650

425

10-1010

12,200,000

Unknown

2-10

Livermore Valley, Alameda
and Contra Costa Counties.

A 170-5quare-mile basin
drained by Arroyo de la La-
guna. Younger and older allu-
vium.

2,800

400

0-500

540,000

200,000

2-11

Sunol Valley, Alameda
County.

A 20-square-mile basin
drained by Alameda Creek.
Younger and older alluvium.

Unknown

WATER RESOURCES
HYDROLOGiC STUDY AREA

Intensive for domestic and moderate for stock
watering, municipal, irrigation, and industrial
use. A potential for moderate additional de-
velopment.

Moderate to intensive for domestic, irrigation,
municipal, and industrial use. Estimated 1970
pumpage for northern Napa Valley 5,700 AF.
Pumpage can be increased to 24,000 AF with-
out significant decline of the water levels. A po-
tential for moderate additional development.

Moderate to intensive for domestic and
limited for municipal, industrial and irrigation
use. Estimated 1950 pumpage 2,400 AF. A
potential for moderate additional development.

Moderate for irrigation, domestic, stock and
industrial use. Estimated 1971 pumpage 3,800
AF. Estimated safe yield about 6,000 AF. A
potential for limited additional development.

Intensive industrial pumpage in 1930's
caused overdraft. Use of Contra Costa Canal
water ceased overdraft. 1969 pumpage 1,200
AF. A potential for limited additional develop-
ment.

Intensive for irrigation, domestic, stock, and
industrial use. A potential for limited additional
development.

Limited for irrigation, domestic, stock, and
industrial use. A potential for limited additional
development.

Intensive for irrigation, domestic, and stock
use. A potential for limited additional develop-
ment.

Limited for irrigation, domestic, and stock use.
A potential for limited additional development.

Intensive for domestic, industrial, and irriga-
tion use. Irrigation pumpage in Santa Clara
County declined since 1965 due to levying of
a ground water pump tax. Artificial recharging
program in Alameda and Santa Clara Counties.
Estimated 1970 pumpage 250,000 AF. A po-
tential for limited additional development.

Intensive for domestic, industrial, and irriga-
tion use. 1970 pumpage 27,000 AF. Estimated
safe yield 27,000 AF. A potential for limited
additional development.

Limited for domestic use. Water collected in
galleries and exported by San Francisco Water
Department. A potential for limited additional
development.

Moderate for geology. Limited for hydrol-
ogy and water quality.
References:
DWR 48, 123, 144, 185,- USGS 16, 17

Moderate for geology north half and
limited south half. Moderate for hydrology.
Limited tor water quality.

References:
DWR 48, 185, USGS 41,62

Moderate for geology. Limited for hydrol-
ogy and water quality.
References:
DWR 48, 123; USGS 62

Moderate for geology. Limited for hydrol-
ogy and water quality.
References:
DWR 179; USBR 6; USGS 84, 116

Moderate for geology. Limited for hydrol-
ogy and water quality.
References:
DWR 55, 179; USGS 3

Limited for geology in coastal irea, super-
ficial inland. Limited for hydrology and water
quality.

References:

DWR55, 145, 179;USGS3

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 55, 179, 185; Misc. 10

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 179; USGS 10

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 60, 179; USGS 10

High to intensive for geology in most of
basin. Moderate for hydrology and water
quality.

References:

DWR 4, 10, 69, 116, 117, 118, 119;
USBR 1, 9; USGS 105

High for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 10, 120, 121, 153

Moderate for geology. Limited for hydrol-
ogy and water quality.
References:
DWR 120, 121, 177, 179

Hard water, high chloride and TDS. Any
appreciable increase in ground water draft
in the bayward segment will result in sea-
water intrusion.

Sea-water intrusion arrested by imported
water via Putah South Canal and North Bay
Aqueduct. Presence of connate water in
deeper aquifers. Locally high iron, chloride,
and boron.

High TDS and hard water
portion.

bayward

High boron and hard water. Heavy pump-
ing in the southern part of basin may cause
brackish water to move inland degrading the
ground water quality.

Sea-water intrusion was a problem from
1930 until the 1950's when the Contra
Costa Canal was operating. In 1955 an
apparent bayward hydraulic gradient was
established and flushing of the saline water
began. The exact location and extent of de-
graded ground water in this basin was not
known in 1971.

Sea-water intrusion same as described in
Pittsburg Plain, Basin 2-4.

Sea-water intrusion same as described in
Pittsburg Plain, Basin 2-4. High ground water
table.

None known.

Sea-water intrusion in Fremont and San
Jose areas. Sea-water intrusion arrested by
recharge program. Land subsidence due to
overdraft. Subsidence has been arrested by
the recharge program.

Poor quality water occurs in eastern part
of valley and near Dublin — high TDS,
chloride, and boron. Generally water is hard
requiring softening for domestic use.

Areas with high TDS.

INVENTORY OF GROUND
SAN FRANCISCO BAY

Basin
number

Basin name, county

Basin description:

size, major stream,

water bearing material

Well yields in gpm

Max.

Aver.

Depth
zone
in Feet

Storage
capacity

in
acre-feet

2-13
(1-22)'

2-14
(1-14)

2-15
(1-15)

2-16
(1-16)

2-17
2-17.01
(1-17.01)

2-17.02
(1-17.02)

2-18
2-18.01
(1-18.01)

2-18.02
(1-18.02)

2-18.03
(1-18.03)

2-19
(1-23)

2-20
(1-98)

2-26

Knights Valley, Sonoma County

Potter Valley, Mendocino
County

Ukidh Valley, Mendocino
County

Sanel Valley, Mendocino
County

Alexander Valley
Alexander Area, Sonoma
County

Cloverdale Area, Sonoma
County

Santa Rosa Valley
Santa Rosa Plain, Sonoma
County

Healdsburg Area, Sonoma
County

Rincon Valley, Sonoma
County

Kenwood Valley, Sonoma
County

Lower Russian River Valley,
Sonoma County

Half Moon Bay Terrace, San
Mateo County

San Gregorio Valley, San
Mateo County

Pescadero Valley, San Mateo
County

A 5-square-mi I e basin drained
by Redwood Creek. Younger
alluvium.

A 1 3-square-mi le basin
drained by East Fork of Russian
River. Younger and older allu-
vium.

A 1 6-square-mi I e basin
drained by the Russian River.
Younger and older alluvium.

A 1 1 -square-m J le basin
drained by the Russian River.
Younger alluvium.

A 23-square-mi I e basin
drained by the Russian River.
Younger and older alluvium.

A 9-square-mi I e basin drained
by the Russian River. Younger
alluvium.

A 96-square-mi le basin
drained by Santa Rosa Creek.
Younger and older alluvium,
and older volcanics and sedi-
ments.

A 27-5quare-mi le basin
drained by the Russian River.
Younger and older alluvium.

A 4-square-mile basin drained
by Rincon Creek. Younger and
older alluvium.

A 6-5quare-mile basin drained
by Santa Rosa and Sonoma
Creeks. Younger and older al-
luvium, and older volcanics and
sediments.

A 9-square-mile coastal basin
drained by the Russian River.
Younger alluvium.

A 25-square-mile coastal ba-
sin drained by Pilarcitos Creek.
Younger alluvium including an
extensive marine terrace.

A 10-square mile coastal ba-
sin drained by San Gregorio
Creek. Younger alluvium.

A 8-squdre-mile coastal ba-
sin drained by Pescadero Creek.
Younger alluvium.

Unknown

1,600

1,500

1,000

Unknown

0-200

17,000

71,000

369,000

51,700

445,000

50,000

0-1000 7,100,000

0-470

0-250

Unknown

930,000 67,000

290,000

460,000

160,000

Unknown

Old number

WATER RESOURCES

HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA Continued

Development

Limited for domestic and stock use. A poten-
tial For moderate additional development.

Limited for irrigation — generdlly for domestic
and stock use. A potential for limited additional
development.

Intensive for domestic, irrigation, industrial,
and municipal use. Estimated 1954 pumpage
10,000 AF. A potential for limited additional
development.

Moderate for irrigation and domestic use. A
potential for limited additional development.

Degree of knowledge

Problems

Moderate for geology. Limited for fiydrol-
ogy and water quality.
References:
DWR 123, 129

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 47, 129, 185, 189, USGS 16, 18

Limited for geology, tiydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 47, 129, 185, 189; USGS 16, 18

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 47, 129, 185, 189, USGS 16, 18

Moderate for irrigation, domestic, industrial. Moderate for geology. Limited for hydrol-

and stock use. Estimated 1954 pumpage 3,000 ' ogy and water quality.

AF. A potential for moderate additional devel- ' References:

opment } DWR 1 23, 1 29, 1 89, USGS 1 6, 1 8

Moderate for irrigation, domestic, industrial. Moderate for geology. Limited for hydrol-

and stock use. A potential for limited additional ogy and water quality.

development.

Intensive for municipal, industrial and irriga-
tion use. A potential for moderate additional
development.

Moderate for irrigation, domestic, industrial,
and stock use. A potential for moderate addi-
tional development.

Moderate for irrigation, domestic and stock
use. A potential for limited additional develop-
ment.

Limited for domestic and stock use. A poten-
tial for moderate additional development.

Limited for domestic use. A potential for
imited additional development.

Limited for domestic use and irrigation of
parks, golf courses and cemeteries. Standby for
municipal and a few industrial wells. A poten-
tial for limited additional development.

Moderate for domestic, irrigation and stock
use. Small ground water pumpage in the order
of 300 Ay per year. A potential for limited
additional development.

Moderate for irrigation, domestic and stock
use. A potential for limited additional develop-
ment.

References:
DWR 123, 129; USGS 18

Moderate for geology. Limited for hydrol-
ogy and water quality.
References:
DWR 123, 129, 132, 144; USGS 17

Moderate for geology. Limited for hydrol-
ogy and water quality.
References:
DWR 123, 129; USGS 17

Moderate for geology. Limited for hydrol-
ogy and water quality.
References:
DWR 123, 129

Moderate for geology. Limited for hydrol-
ogy and water quality.
References:
DWR 123, 129; USGS 18

Moderate for geology north area, limited
south area. Limited for hydrology and water
quality.

References:

DWR 55, 128, 179; Misc. 6

Superficial for geology, hydrology and
water quality.

References:
DWR 55, 129, 179

Superficial for geology, hydrology and
water quality.

References:
DWR 55, 128

None known.

Low yields. Fairly hard for domestic use
and often contains objectionable concentra-
tions of iron.

Generally good quality. Some with poor
quality— high boron.

High boron and iron.

Water hard for domestic use.

Moderately hard water for domestic use.

Areas with TDS greater than 500 mg/1,
and hard water.

Moderately hard water.

Areas of high TDS and hardness.

Moderately hard water.

Hard water, high chloride and TDS.
Sea-water intrusion near the coast.

Poor quality water along the coast, may be
local ground water condition of the marine
terrace deposits rather than seawater intru-
sion. Moderate to high TDS.

Poor quality water along the coast, may be
local ground water condition of the alluvium
rather than sea-water intrusion. High TDS.

Tidal area showed seawater intrusion from
sample taken in 1970.

Legend

rn YOUNGER ALLUVIUM
OLDER ALLUVIUM
OLDER MARINE SEDIMENTS

a ivr ttSacfigpo"-

GROUND WATER BASINS - CENTRAL COASTAL HYDROLOGIC STUDY ARE^J

CENTRAL COASTAL HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA

Ground Water Basinc

No.

Old No.

3-1
3-2

3-4
3-4.06

3-4.08
3-4.09
3-4.10
3-5

3-6
3-7
3-8

3-9

3-10

3-11

3-12

3-14
3-15
3-16
3-17
3-18
3-19

Name

Soquel Valley

Pajaro Valley

Gilroy-Hollister Valley.

Salinas Valley

Paso Robles Basin

Seaside Area

Langley Area

Corral de Tierra Area. . .
Cholame Valley

Lockwood Valley

Carmel Valley

Los Osos Valley

San Luis Obispo Valley.

Pismo Creek Valley

Arroyo Grande Valley-

Nipoma Mesa Area
Santa Maria River Valley

Cuyama Valley.

San Antonio Creek

Valley
Santa Ynez River Valley

Goleta Basin

Santa Barbara Basin.

Carpinteria Basin

Carrizo Plain

County

Santa Cruz
Monterey,

Santa Cruz
San Benito,
Santa Clara
Monterey
Monterey,

San Luis

Obispo
Monterey
Monterey
Monterey
Monterey,

San Luis

Obispo
Monterey
Monterey
San Luis

Obispo
San Luis

Obispo,

Santa

Barbara
Kern, San

Luis

Obispo,

Santa

Barbara,

Ventura
Santa

Barbara
Santa

Barbara
San Luis

Obispo

No.

3-20
3-21

3-22
3-23
3-24
3-25
3-26
3-27
3-28
3-29
3-30
3-31
3-32
3-33

3-34

3-35

3-36

3-37

3-38

3-39

3-40

3-41

3-42

3-43

3-44

3-45

3-46

3-47

3-48
3-49

Old No.

Name

Ano Nuevo Area

Santa Cruz Purisima For-
mation Highlands

Santa Ana Valley

Upper Santa Ana Valley

Quien Sabe Valley

Tres Pinos Creek Valley.
West Santa Cruz Terrace

Scotts Valley

San Benito River Valley.

Dry Lake Valley

Bitter Water Valley

Hernandez Valley

Peach Tree Valley

San Carpoforo Valley. . .

Arroyo de la Cruz Valley

San Simeon Valley

Santa Rosa Valley

Villa Valley

Cayucos Valley

Old Valley

Toro Valley

Morro Valley

Chorro Valley

Rinconada Valley

Pozo Valley

, Huasna Valley

Rafael Valley

Big Spring Area

Careaga Sand Highlands.
Montecito Area

County

San Mateo
Santa Cruz

San Benito
San Benito
San Benito
San Benito
Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz
San Benito
San Benito
San Benito
San Benito
San Benito
San Luis

Obispo
San Luis

Obispo
Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara

Summary

The Central Coastal Hydrologic Study Area (HSA)
comprises the coastal drainage basins between the
western end of Ventura County on the south and the
southern end of San Mateo County on the north. In this
HSA. 53 ground water basins, sub-basins and areas of
potential ground water storage have been identified.
The inventory covers 22 ground water basins and sub-
basins. These 22 basins, with a total area of about 3,300
square miles, have been identified as significant
sources of ground water. Water-bearing deposits ex-

ceed 2,300 feet in thickness in Santa Maria River Valley.
There are flowing wells in several basins.

Estimated storage capacity for 18 valleys is about
25.2 million acre-feet. Usable storage capacity of 16
valleys is estimated to be about 6.9 million acre-feet.
The principal factor limiting development of ground
water in the HSA is sea-water intrusion.

Ground water temperature ranges from about 55° to
about 75° F. The TDS content of the water is generally
less than 800 milligrams per liter, but locally is more
than 11, 000 milligrams per liter. The predominant water
type is calcium bicarbonate; however, sodium, magne-

INVENTORY OF GROUND
CENTRAL COASTAL

Basin name, county

Basin description;

size, major stream,

water bearing material

Well yields in gpm

Depth
zone
in feet

Storage
capacity

in
acre-feet

Usable
capacity

Basin
number

Max.

Aver.

in
acre-feet

3-1

Soquel Valley, Santa Cruz
County

A 7-square-mile coastal ba-
sin drained by Soquel Creek.
Younger alluvium and older
marine sediments.

800

350

Unknown

800,000

Unknown

3-2

Pajaro Valley, Monterey and
Santa Cruz Counties

A 120-square-mile coastal
basin drained by the Pajaro
River. Younger alluvium.

1,200

500

Unknown

3-3

Gilroy-Hollister Valley, San
Benito and Santa Clara Counties

A 350-square-mile basin
drained by the Pajaro River.
Younger and older alluvium.

1,700

400

20-200

932,000

800,000

3-4

Salinas Valley, Monterey
County

A 620-squdre-mile coastal
basin drained by the Salinas
River. Younger and older allu-
vium.

3,750

750

20-200

3,500,000

1,300,000

3-4.06

Paso Robles Basin (Upper
Salinas Valley), Monterey and
San Luis Obispo Counties

A 860-square-mile basin
drained by the Salinas River.
Younger and older alluvium.

3,300

500

50-250

6,800,000

1,700,000

3-5

Cholame Valley, Monterey
and San Luis Obispo Counties

A 20-square-mi le basin
drained by Cholame Creek.
Younger and older alluvium.

3,300

1,000

Unknown

3-6

Lockwood Valley, Monterey
County

A 90-square-mi 1 e basin
drained by the San Antonio
River. Younger and older allu-
vium.

3,300

1,000

20-230

1,000,000

500,000

3-7

Carmel Valley, Monterey
County

A 10-square-mile coastal
basin drained by the Carmel
River. Younger alluvium.

Unknown

600

0-160

60,000

Unknown

3-8

Los Osos Valley, San Luis
Obispo County

A 20-square-mile coastal ba-
sin drained by Los Osos, Chor-
ro, and Morro Creeks. Younger
alluvium.

700

230

10-200

112,200

14,700

sium, sulfate, and chloride are present locally in signifi-
cant quantities.

Properly constructed wells in some areas can yield
as nnuch as 4.400 gallons per minute.

About 90 percent of the water supply m the HSA
comes from ground water. There is potential for lim-
ited additional development in most of the ground wa-
ter basins.

The most intensively developed ground water basm
is the lower Salinas Valley in Monterey County, where
about 95 percent of the water supply is ground water.
Sea-water intrusion was first noticed in the late 1930s
and early 1940s when several wells in a shallow 180-

foot-aquifer were abandoned because of high salt con-
tent. Degradation of the 180-foot aquifer led to devel-
opment of a deeper 400-foot aquifer, and subsequent
degradation of the coastal portion of this deep aquifer.
As of 1973 both aquifers showed evidence of intru-
sion. During that year, water with a chloride concentra-
tion of 100 milligrams per liter was found 4 miles inland
in the 180-foot aquifer and 2 miles inland in the 400-foot
aquifer. Since 1950, the intrusion rate in the 180-foot
aquifer has been about 0.1 mile per year. Intrusion in
the Salinas Valley can be controlled by reducing
ground water pumping in the pressure area, roughly
from Spreckels to Monterey Bay.

WATER RESOURCES
HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA

Development

Degree oF knowledse

Proble

Moderate for irrigation, domestic, and mu-
nicipal use. 1966 pumpage about 3,300 AF. A
potential for limited additional development.

Intensive for irrigation, domestic, stock, indus-
trial, and municipal use. Estimated 1971 pump-
age 62,000 AF. Estimated safe yield is 44,000
AFV. No further development potential.

Intensive for irrigation, domestic, stock and
industrial use. Estimated 1972 pumpage 1 28,000
AF. No further development potential.

Intensive for irrigation, domestic, stock and
industrial use. Estimated 1972 pumpage 336,000
AF. No further development potential.

Intensive for irrigation use and moderate for
municipal use. Limited for industrial, domestic
and stock use. Recharge estimated at 47,000
AFV. 1967 extractions about 48,000 AF. A
potential for moderate additional development.

Limited for domestic, irrigation, and stock use.
A potential for limited additional development.

Limited for irrigation, domestic and stock use.
A potential for moderate additional develop-
ment.

Moderate for geology, limited for hydrol-
ogy and water quality.
References:
DWR 2, 55; USGS 2, 8, 49

FHigh for geology. Moderate for hydrol-
ogy and water quality.
References:
DWR 2, 1 51 , 1 52, USBR 1 ; USGS 92, 93

Moderate for geology except in San Juan
Valley area. Moderate for hydrology and
water quality.

References:

DWR 1 40, 1 77, 1 78, USBR 1 ,- USGS 42, 58

Moderate for geology in coastal area,
limited inland. Moderate for hydrology and
water quality.

References:

DWR 14, 55, 140, 151, 152, 172, 176,
USGS 45

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 13, 140, 157, 162, 167; USGS 28

Superficial for geology, hydrology and
water quality.

References:
DWR 13, 185

Superficial for geology, hydrology and
water quality.

References:
DWR 148

Moderate for geology, hydrology and
water quality.

References:
DWR 171

Moderate for domestic, irrigation, and stock
use. Estimated 1973 pumpage 6,200 AF. Esti-
mated sustained annual yield is about 15,000
AF. A potential for moderate additional devel-
opment.

Moderate for irrigation and municipal use. Moderate for geology, hydrology and

Limited for industrial and domestic use. A poten- : water quality,
tial for limited additional development. I References:

DWR 13, 56, 167, 169

No apparent sea-water intrusion in 1955.
Sea-water intrusion reported by USGS in
1969. High TDS, iron, and hardness.

Sea-water intrusion area had increased 1
mile inland by 1947, 1.4 mile by 1962 and
1.6 mile inland by 1970. Water quality
usually poor with high TDS, nitrates, and
hardness.

FHigh TDS and boron. Overdraft condition
exists.

Sea-water intrusion area increasing. Both
the "180-foot" and "400-foot" aquifers
intruded. In the "180-foot" aquifer, chlor-'
ide concentration of 500 mg T and 100 mg/l
extend inland 3.5 and 4 miles, respectively.
The intrusion rate of 0.1 mile per year has
occurred since 1950. Intrusion in the "400-
foot" aquifer is about 2 miles inland fairly
stationary since 1954. High TDS and hard-
ness.

Locally boron high for irrigation use.

None known.

Hard water.

Moderate TDS and hard water, high iron
and manganese.

Locally chloride high for domestic and
irrigation uses. Sea-water intrusion.

INVENTORY OF

CENTRAL

HYDROLOGIC STUDY

Basin name, county

Basin description:

size, major stream,

water bearing material

Well yields
in gpm

Depth
zone
in feet

Storage
capacity

in
acre-feet

Usable
capacity

Basin
number

Max.

Aver.

in
acre-feet

3-9

San Luis Obispo Valley, San
Luis Obispo County

A 1 5-square-mi le basin
drained by San Luis Obispo
Creek. Younger alluvium.

600

300

20-160

67,000

22,000

3-10

Pismo Creek Valley, San Luis
Obispo County

A 10-square-mile coastal ba-
sin drained by Pismo Creek.
Younger alluvium.

500

350

10-110

30,000

10,000

3-11

Arroyo Grande Valley-Ni-
pomo Mesa Area, San Luis
Obispo County

A 40-square-mile coastal
basin drained by Arroyo Grande
Creek. Younger and older allu-
vium.

2,500

300

100-800

1,700,000

40,000
(Arroyo
Grande
Valley
only')

3-12

Santa Maria River Valley, San
Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara
Counties

A 200-square-mile coastal
basin drained by the Santa
Maria River. Younger and older

alluvium.

2,200

1,000

20-200

2,000,000

1,000,000

3-13

Cuyama Valley, Kern, San
Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and
Ventura Counties

A 230-square-mile basin
drained by the Cuyama River.
Younger and older alluvium.

4,400

1,100

100-300

2,100,000

400,000

3-14

San Antonio Creek Valley,
Santa Barbara County

A 90-square-mile coastal ba-
sin drained by San Antonio
Creek. Younger and older allu-
vium, and older marine sedi-
ments.

Unknown

400

50-250

2,100,000

300,000

3-15

Santa Ynez River Valley,
Santa Barbara County

A 260-square-mile coastal
basin drained by the Santa Ynez
River. Younger and older allu-
vium, and older marine sedi-
ments.

1,300

750

20-250

2,700,000

362,000

3-16

Goleta Basin, Santa Barbara
County

A 16-square-mile coastal ba-
sin drained by Atascadero
Creek. Younger alluvium.

800

500

50-250

180,000

1 7,000

3-17

Santa Barbara Basin, Santa
Barbara County

A 15-square-mile coastal ba-
sin drained by Sycamore Creek.
Younger alluvium.

1,000

500

50-250

550,000

281,000

3-18

Carpinteria Basin, Santa Bar-
bara County

A 12-square-mile coastal ba-
sins drained by Santa Monica,
Steer and Rincon Creeks.
Younger alluvium.

500

300

50-250

1 40,000

19,000

3-19

Carrizo Plain, San Luis Obis-
po County

A 270-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger and
older alluvium.

1,000

500

30-230

400,000

100,000

3-26

West Santa Cruz Terrace,
Santa Cruz County

A 6-square-mile coastal area
west oF Santa Cruz. Extensive
marine terrace.

Unknown

3-27

Scotts Valley, Santa Cruz
County

A 8-square-mile basin drained
by Carbonera Creek. Younger
alluvium and older marine sedi-
ments.

1,100

200

Unknown

GROUND WATER RESOURCES

COASTAL

AREA — Continued

Development

Intensive for irrisation use and limited to
moderate for industrial and domestic use. Re-
charge is estimated at about 2,250 AFY. A po-
tential for limited additional development.

Moderate for irrigation and limited for
domestic use. Natural recfiarge is estimated at
about 2,000 AFY. A potential for limited addi-
tional development.

Intensive for irrigation and limited for indus-
trial and domestic use. Recharge is estimated at
about 12,000 AFY. A potential for limited
additional development.

Intensive for irrigation, moderate for munici-
pal and industrial use, and limited for domestic
use. Extractions about 100,000 AFY. Safe yield
60,000 AFY. No potential lor further develop-
ment.

Intensive for irrigation and limited for domes-
tic, municipal and stock use. Safe yield 6600
AFY. a potential for limited to moderate addi-
tional development.

Moderate for irrigation and limited for domes-
tic use. A potential for limited additional devel-
opment.

Degree of knowledge

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR13, 167

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 13, 167

High for geology in coastal area, limited
inland. Moderate for hydrology and water
quality.

References:

DWR 13, 53, 65, 157, 167

High for geology in coastal area, moderate
inland. Moderate for hydrology and water
quality.

References;

DWR 13, 53, 168; USGS 82, 133

Moderate for geology central area and
limited at ends. Moderate for hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:

DWR 13; USGS 11 3, 115, 124

Moderate for geology, hydrology and
water quality.

References:
DWR 170; USGS60, 68, 90

Problems

None known.

Along coastal margin, TDS, chloride and
sulfate high for domestic use. Locally, TDS
and nitrate high for domestic use.

Commonly nitrates high for domestic use in
lower Arroyo Grande Valley. Along coastal
margin TDS, chloride, and sulfate high for
domestic use.

Locally TDS high for domestic use. Over-
draft.

Locally unsuitable tor domestic and irriga-
tion uses.

Locally TDS high for domestic and irriga-
tion use.

Intensive for irrigation, moderate for municipal
and limited for domestic use. Extractions about
52,000 AF in 1960. Sale yield 40,000 AFY. A
potential for limited additional development.

Intensive for irrigation and limited for mu-
nicipal and domestic use. A potential for limited
additional development.

Limited for municipal, irrigation, industrial,
domestic, and stock use. A potential for limited
additional development.

Intensive for irrigation and limited for munici-
pal and domestic use. A potential for limited
additional development.

Limited for irrigation, municipal and domestic
use. 1967 extractions about 600 AF. A poten-
tial for limited to moderate additional develop-
ment.

Limited for domestic use. Potential for further
development unknown.

Moderate tor irrigation and domestic use.
1969 pumpage did not lower water levels. A
potential tor limited additional development.

Moderate for geology, hydrology and
water quality.

References:

DWR 165; USBR 10; USGS 40, 69, 122,
129

Moderate for geology, hydrology and
water quality.

References:
USGS 39, 68, 123

Moderate for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 55, USGS 91, 123

Moderate for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 55; USGS 39, 68, 123

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 13

Superficial tor geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 2

Moderate for geology. Limited for hydrol-
ogy and water quality.
References:
DWR 130: USGS 1

Locally TDS high for domestic and irriga-
tion use.

Locally TDS manganese and iron high for
domestic use.

TDS high for domestic use. Boron and
chloride high. Potential sea-water intrusion.

Possible sea-water intrusion.

Near Soda Lake and areas to the north
and south generally unsuitable for domestic
and irrigation uses.

Small well yields.

None known.

^^SP

STUDY AREA KEY

Legend

I I YOUNGER AauVIUM

r~] OLDER ALLUVIUM

I I OLDER VOLCANICS& SEDIMENTS

MILES

4(
I I I

M £ ^^

C 0

GROUND WATER BASINS - SOUTH COASTAL HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA

SOUTH COASTAL HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA

Ground Water Basins

No.

Old No.

4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-4.07

4-5

4-6

4-7

4-8

4-9

4-10

4-11

4-12
4-13
4-14
4-15
4-16
4-17
4-18

4-19
4-20

4-21

4-22
8-1

8-4
8-5
8-6

8-9

9-1

9-2

9-3

9-4

9-5

9-6

9-7

9-8

9-9

9-10

9-11

9-12

9-13

9-14

9-15

9-16

9-17

9-18

9-19

9-20

9-21

9-22

9-23

9-24

Name

Upper Ojai Valley

Ojai Valley

Ventura River Valley. . . .
Santa Clara River Valley .
Santa Clara River Valley

Eastern Basin

Acton Valley

Pleasant Valley

Arroyo Santa Rosa Valley.

Los Posas Valley

Simi Valley

Conejo Valley

Coastal Plain-Los Angeles

Co.

San Fernando Valley

San Gabriel Valley

Upper Santa Ana Valley.

Tierra Rejada Valley

Hidden Valley

Lockwood Valley

Hungry Valley

County

No.

Thousand Oaks Area.
Russell Valley

Conejo-Tierra Rejada

Volcanic Areas

Malibu Valley

Coastal Plain — Orange

Co.
Upper Santa Ana Valley .

Cajaico Valley (Inun-
dated by Lake Mathews)

Elsinore Basin

San Jacinto Basin

Hemet Lake Valley
(Garner Valley)
Big Meadows Valley. . . .

Seven Oaks Valley

Bear Valley

San Juan Valley

San Mateo Valley

San Onofre Valley

Santa Margarita Valley. . .

Temecula Valley

Coahuila Valley

San Luis Rey Valley

Warner Valley

Escondido Valley

San Pasqual Valley

Santa Maria Valley

San Dieguito Valley

Poway Valley

Mission Valley

San Diego River Valley. . .

El Cajon Valley

Sweetwater Valley

Otay Valley

Tia Juana Basin

Jamul Valley

Las Pulgas Valley

Batiauitos Lagoon Valley.

San Elijo Valley

Pamo Valley

Ventura
Ventura
Ventura
Ventura
Los Angeles

Los Angeles

Ventura

Los Angeles

Los Angeles
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
Ventura
Ventura
Ventura
Los Angeles,

Ventura
Ventura
Los Angeles,

Ventura
Los Angeles,

Ventura
Los Angeles
Orange

Riverside,

San

Bernardino
Riverside

Riverside
Riverside
Riverside

San

Bernar-
dino

San Bernar-
dino

Orange

San D
San D
San Di
Rivers
Rivers'
San Di
San Di
San Di
San Di
San Di
San D
San D
San D
San D
San D
San D
San D^
San Di
San Di
San Di
San Di
San Di
San Di

ego

9-25
9-26
9-27
9-28
9-29
9-30

Old No.

Name

Ranchita Town Area

Pine Valley

Cottonwood Valley

Campo Valley

Potrero Valley

Tecate Valley

County

San Diego
San Diego
San Diego
San Diego
San Diego
San Diego

Summary

The South Coastal Hydrologic Study Area (MSA)
comprises the coastal drainage basins of California
north of the Tia Juana River basin to the Ventura River
drainage basin in western Ventura County.

In this HSA. 62 ground water basins and areas of
potential ground water storage have been identified.
The inventory covers 42 ground water basins. These 42
basins, with a total area of about 3,200 square miles,
have been identified as significant sources of ground
water. The water-bearing deposits vary in thickness up
to about 4,000 feet.

Total storage capacity of 35 basins at selected depth
intervals is about 146.7 million acre-feet. The estimated
usable storage capacity of 29 of the basins is about 10.4
million acre-feet. One limiting factor considered in es-
timating usable storage capacity of the coastal basins
is sea-water intrusion. Sea-water intrusion occurs in
one or more of these basins in each of the coastal
counties and is a potential threat in all basins whose
ground water levels are drawn down below sea level.
Sea-water intrusion is being controlled artificially in
Los Angeles and Orange counties only.

Ground water temperatures generally vary from
about 55° to about 90°F. TDS content of the water var-
ies considerably from basin to basin.

In most basins the ground water is suitable for all
beneficial uses. In basins where Colorado River water
is being used for recharge, the ground water has begun
to take on the qualities of the recharge water and is
inferior to the natural water in the HSA. Hardness is
another common water quality problem in many ba-
sins.

Almost all of the basins are highly developed except
in San Diego County, where the basins are not as ex-
tensive and, in some cases, contain water of inferior
quality, not suitable for domestic use.

Ground water extractions m the HSA are estimated
in excess of 1.7 million acre-feet.

INVENTORY OF

SOUTH

HYDROLOGIC

Basin
number

4-2

4-3

4-9

Basin name, county

Basin description;

size, major stream,

water bearing material

Upper Ojai Valley, Ventura
County

Ojai Valley, Ventura County

Ventura River Valley, Ven-
tura County

Santa Clara River Valley,

Ventura and Los Angeles

Counties. (Includes 4-4.07,

Eastern Basin, Los Angeles
County)

Acton Valley, Los Angeles
County

Pleasant Valley, Ventura
County

Arroyo Santa Rosa Valley,
Ventura County

Los Posas Valley, Ventura
County

Simi Valley, Ventura County

A 3-square-mi I e basin drained
by Lion and Sisar Creeks.
Younger alluvium.

A 1 3-square-mi le basin
drained by San Antonio Creek.
Younger alluvium.

A 10-square-mile coastal ba-
sin drained by the Ventura
River. Younger alluvium.

A 336-square-mile river val-
ley and coastal plain drained by
Santa Clara River and Revolon
Slough. Younger and older allu-
vium.

A 10-square-mile basin
drained by the Santa Clara
River. Younger alluvium.

A 47-square-m i I e basin
drained by Calleguas Creek.
Younger and older alluvium,
and older volcanics and sedi-
ments.

A9-square-milebasindrained
by Conejo Creek and Arroyo
Santa Rosa. Younger and older
alluvium, and older volcanics
and sediments.

A 79-square-mi le basin
drained by Beardsley Wash and
Arroyo Los Posas. Younger and
older alluvium.

A 25-square-mi I e basin
drained by Arroyo Simi. Young-
er alluvium.

Well yields
in spm

Max

1,000-t-

3,000

1,000

2,400

1,200

Aver.

Depth
zone
in feet

1,000

Storage
capacity

in
acre-feet

Average

ground

surface

elevation

to base of

fresh

water

Average

ground

surface

elevation

to base of

fresh

water

Average

ground

surface

elevation

to base of

fresh

water.

Average

ground

surface

elevation

to base of

fresh

water

10-60

Average

ground

surface

elevation

to base of

fresh

water

Average

ground

surface

elevation

to base of

fresh

water

Average

ground

surface

elevation

to base of

fresh

water

Average

ground

surface

elevation

to base of

fresh

water

6,000

Usable
capacity

in
acre-feet

1,000

85,000 25,000

35,000

30,000,000

40,000

1,886,000

4,250,000

1 80,000

3,500

Unknown

16,000

Unknown

3,100

950,000

4,700

GROUND WATER RESOURCES

COASTAL

STUDY AREA

Development

Desree oF knowledge

Problems

Moderate for irrigation and municipal use.
Limited for domestic and industrial uses. Natural
recfiarge estimated at about 400 AFY. A poten-
tial for limited additional development.

Intensive for irrigation use. Moderate for
municipal use. Limited for industrial use. Natural
recharge estimated at about 1,500 AFV. 1970
extractions 2,500 AF. A potential for limited
development.

Moderate for municipal use. Limited for irri-
gation, industrial and domestic use. Natural re-
charge greater than 3,500 AFV. 1970 extrac-
tions 7,500 AF. A potential for limited addi-
tional development.

Moderate to intensive for irrigation and mu-
nicipal use. Limited for domestic and industrial
use. Natural recharge is estimated at about
100,000 AFY. 1970 extractions about 175,000
AF. A potential for limited additional develop-
ment.

Intensive for municipal and agricultural use.
Natural recharge is estimated at about 650 AFY.
1970 extractions about 1,000 AF. A potential
for limited additional development.

Intensive for irrigation, moderate for munici-
pal, and limited for industrial and domestic uses.
Natural recharge estimated at about 11,000
AFY. 1970 extractions about 24,000 AF. A
potential for limited additional development.

Intensive for irrigation, moderate for munici-
pal, limited for industrial and domestic uses.
Natural recharge estimated at about 3,000 AFY.
1970 extractions about 2,300 AF. A potential
for limited additional development.

Intensive for irrigation, moderate for munici-
pal, limited for industrial and domestic use.
Natural recharge estimated at about 10,800
AFY. 1970 extractions about 18,700 AF. A po-
tential for limited additional development.

Limited for irrigation, municipal, industrial
and domestic use. Natural recharge estimated at
about 4,700 AFY. 1970 extractions about 3,500
AF. A potential for limited additional devel-
opment.

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References;
DWR 9, 19, 37, 68, Misc. 16

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DNX/R 9, 19, 37, 67, 68, USBR 1 1 ; Misc. 1 6

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 9, 19, 49, 68; USBR 11; Misc. 16

Moderate to intensive for geology, hydrol-
ogy, and water quality.
References:

DWR 9, 19, 28, 51, 54, 67, 68, 109, 138,
147, 160, 183; SWRCB 4; USBR 7; USGS 96,
111

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 147; USGS 13

Moderate for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 9, 19, 67, 68, 109; USBR 7

Moderate for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 9, 19, 67, 68, 109; USBR 7

Moderate for geology, hydrology and
water quality.

References:
DWR 9, 19,67,68, 109, 160

Moderate for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 9, 19, 67, 68

Locally, TDS high for domestic use; mar-
ginal for irrigation use.

Locally, nitrate high and TDS marginal for
domestic use. Overdraft. Adverse salt
balance.

Locally, TDS and sulfate high for domestic
use and marginal for irrigation and marginal
boron. In the lower River Valley, locally,
sulfate, TDS, and chloride high for domestic
use; TDS, chloride and percent sodium high
for irrigation use.

Locally, magnesium, sulfate, chloride, ni-
trate and TDS high for domestic use; TDS
chloride and boron high for irrigation use.
Overdraft. Seawater intrusion. Failing septic
tanks in unincorporated areas of Piru.

None known.

Locally, magnesium, sulfate, chloride,

nitrate, and TDS high for domestic use,

chloride and TDS high for irrigation use.
Overdraft.

Locally, nitrate high for domestic use;
water, derived from older volcanics and
sediments.

Locally, high chloride and TDS for
domestic use; TDS, boron, and chloride high
for irrigation use.

Locally, sulfate, and TDS high for domestic
use, boron high for irrigation use. hHigh
ground water table. Failing septic tank and
leach field systems.

INVENTORY OF
SOUTH COASTAL

Well yields in qpm 1

Storage

Usable

Basin description:
size, major stream,

Depth
zone

capacity
in

capacity

Basin

number

Basin name, county

water bearing material

Max.

Aver.

in feet

acre-feet

4-10

Conejo Valley, Ventura
County

A 4-square-mile basin drained
by tfie South Branch Arroyo
Conejo. Younger alluvium and
older volcanics and sediments.

1,000

Average

ground

surface

elevation

to base of

fresh

water.

Unknown

2,600

4-11

Coastal Plain of Los Angeles,
Los Angeles County

A 500-squdre-mile coastal
plain drained mainly by the Los
Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers.
Younger alluvium.

2,000

600

1960

water

levels to

2000 feet

below

ground

surface.

31,730,000

2,363,000

4-12

San Fernando Valley, Los
Angeles County

A 200-square-mile basin
drained by the Los Angeles
River. Younger and older allu-
vium.

3,240

1,220

1960
water
levels to
base of
water-
bearing
unit.

3,400,000

3,200,000

4-13

San Gabriel Valley, Los An-
geles County

A 200-square-mile basin
drained by the Rio Hondo and
San Gabriel Rivers. Younger
alluvium.

4,850

1,000

Average

ground

surface

elevation

to base

of fresh

water.

10,438,000

Unknown

4-14

Upper Santa Ana Valley,
Los Angeles County

A 30-square-mi 1 e basin
drained by Live Oak and
Thompson Washes. Younger al-
luvium.

750

100

1960
water
levels to
base of
fresh
water.

750,000

Unknown

8-1

Coastal Plain of Orange
County, Orange County

A 360-square-mile coastal
plain drained primarily by the
Santa Ana River. Younger al-
luvium.

1,000

600

1960
water
levels
to base
of fresh
water

40,000,000

Unknown

8-2

Upper Santa Ana Valley,
Riverside and San Bernardino
Counties

A 620-square-mile basin
drained primarily by the Santa
Ana River. Younger and older
alluvium.

4,500

800

1960
water
levels to
base of
fresh
water

16,000,000

2,000,000-

8-4

Elsinore Basin, Riverside
County

A 26-square-mile basin with
drainage to Elsinore Lake.
Younger alluvium.

4,400

200

Between

15 feet

below

ground

surface

and

1948-49

winter

water

levels.

27,000

Unknown

8-5

San Jacinto Basin, Riverside
County

A 235-squdre-mile basin
drained by the San Jacinto
River. Younger and older allu-
vium.

1,000

100

Between
1960

water
table and
2,000 ft.
below
ground
surface.

6,100,000

1,300,000

GROUND WATER RESOURCES
HyDROLOGIC STUDY AREA— Continued

Limited for all uses. Natural recharge esti-
mated at about 2,600 AFY. 1970 extractions
about 300 AF. A potential for limited additional
development.

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 9, 19, 68

Problems

Locally, sulfate, chloride, and TDS high
or domestic use.

Intensive for municipal, moderate for indus-
trial, and limited for irrigation uses. 1973-74
extractions about 280,000 AFY. A potential for
limited additional development.

Intensive for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:

DWR 5, 29, 44, 48, 50, 62, 99, 100, 101,
102, 114; SWRCB 5; USGS 102, 103; Misc.
8

Locally, chloride, sulfate, TDS, iron, and
manganese high for domestic use; TDS and
chloride high for irrigation use. Overdraft.
Sea water intrusion controlled by injection
barrier.

Intensive for municipal, domestic and indus-
trial use. Safe yield about 57,000 AFY. 1973-
74 extractions about 106,400 AF. A potential
for limited additional development conjunctively
with the State Water Project.

High to intensive for geology, hydrology
and water quality.
References:
DWR 381; SWRCB 1, Misc. 18

Locally, poor quality water. Poor quality
water is moving into the well fields from the
southwest portion of the basin.

Moderate to intensive for municipal and in-
dustrial use. Limited for irrigation and domestic
use. Recharge under 1960 cultural conditions
166,000 AF. 1974 extractions about 250,000
AF. A potential for limited additional develop-
ment.

hiigh to intensive for geology, hydrology,
and water quality.
References:
DWR 26, 33, 103, 107, 146, 173

Locally, TDS marginal and nitrate high for
domestic use. Overdraft.

Moderate to intensive for irrigation and mu-
nicipal use. Limited for industrial and domestic
use. A potential for limited additional develop-
ment.

hiigh for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 104, 105, 175

Locally, nitrate and TDS high for domestic
use.

Intensive for irrigation, municipal and
industrial use. Moderate for domestic use. Re-
charge estimated at 221,000 AFY. 1956 extrac-
tions about 200,000 AF. A potential for limited
additional development.

Moderate to intensive for irrigation, municipal
and industrial uses. Limited for domestic use.
Safe yield about 230,000 AFY. 1970 ground
water extractions about 460,000 AF. A poten-
tial for limited additional development.

Moderate for irrigation and municipal use.
Limited for domestic use. Natural recharge esti-
mated at about 4,000 AFY. A potential for
limited additional development.

Moderate to intensive for irrigation use.
Moderate for municipal and military uses.
Limited for domestic and industrial use. Recharge
estimated at about 26,000 AFY (includes Hemet
Valley). 1970 extractions about 100,000 AF. A
potential for limited additional development.

Intensive for geology, and hydrology. High
for water quality.
References:

DWR 5, 52, 137, 190; USGS 20, 46, 85,
102, 104, 114

High to intensive for geology, hydrology,
and water quality.
References:

DWR 104, 105, 106, 174, 175; USGS 29,
30, 33, 34, 43, 86, 108, 128; Misc. 13

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 6, 12, 17; USGS 119

Moderate for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 12, 24, 31

TDS marginal for domestic use. Sea water
intrusion. Overdraft.

Locally, nitrate and TDS high for domestic
use. Overdraft.

Locally, fluoride and TDS high for domestic
use; percent sodium high for irrigation use.
Overdraft.

Locally, nitrate, chloride, and TDS high for
domestic use; boron, chloride, TDS and per-
cent sodium high for irrigation use.

INVENTORY OF
SOUTH COASTAL

Basin name, county

Basin description:

size, major stream,

water bearing material

Weil yields in gpm

Depth
zone
in feet

Storage
capacity

in
acre-feet

Usable
capacity

Basin
number

Max.

Aver.

in
acre-feet

8-6

Hemet Lake Valley, (Garner
Valley) Riverside County

A 1 6-square-mi le basin
drained by the South Fork of the
San Jacinto River. Younger and
older diluvium.

820

270

Unknown

Included
in Basin
No. 8-5

Unknown

8-7

Big Meadows Valley, San
Bernardino County

A 7-square-mile basin drained
by the Santa Ana River. Younger
alluvium.

Unknown

10-60

10,000

3,500

8-8

Seven Oaks Valley, San Ber-
nardino County

A 1 0-square-mi le basi n
drained by the Santa Ana
River. Younger alluvium.

Unknown

10-60

1 4,000

4,700

8-9

Bear Valley, San Bernardino
County

A 30-square-mi 1 e basi n
drained by Bear Creek. Young-
er alluvium.

1,000

500

10-60

42,000

14,000

9-1

San Juan Valley, Orange
County

An 18-square-mile coastal
basin drained by San Juan
and Aliso Creeks. Younger al-
luvium.

1,600

500

Ground
surface to
base of
fresh
water-
bearing
aquifer.

90,000

9,000

9-2

San Mateo Valley, San Diego
County

A 4-square-mile coastal ba-
sin drained by San Mateo Creek.
Younger alluvium.

1,800

700

5-55

14,000

9-3

San Onofre Valley, San
Diego County

A 2-square-mile coastal basin
drained by San Onofre Creek.
Younger alluvium.

150

5-55

6,500

9-4

Santa Margarita Valley, San
Diego County

A 13-square-mile coastal ba-
sin drained by the Santa Mar-
garita River. Younger alluvium.

2,000

1,250

5-100

61,600

24,000

9-5

Temeculd Valley, Riverside
County

A 150-square-mile basin
drained by Murrieta Creek and
the Santa Margarita River.
Younger alluvium

1,750

750

1953
water
level to
25 feet
above
base of
younger
alluvium

253,000

206,000

9-6

Coahuila Valley, Riverside
County

A 25 -square-mi 1 e basin
drained by Coahuila Creek.
Younger and older alluvium.

900

200

1953
water
level to
25 feet
above
base of
younger
alluvium.

75,000

34,000

9-7

San Luis Rey Valley, San
Diego County

A 40-square-mile coastal ba-
sin drained by the San Luis Rey
River. Younger alluvium and
residuum.

2,180

500

20-120

240,000

50,000

9-8

Warner Valley, San Diego
County

A 40-square-mi 1 e basin
drained by the San Luis River.
Younger alluvium.

1,800

800

20-220

550,000

55,000

GROUND WATER RESOURCES
HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA— Continued

Development

Degree of knowledge

Problems

Limited for irrigation and domestic use. Nat-
ural recfiarge is included in Basin No. 8-5. A
potential for limited additional development.

Limited for domestic use. A potential for
imited additional development.

Limited for domestic use. A potential for
limited additional development.

Limited for domestic use. A potential for
imited additional development.

Moderate for irrigation and municipal use and
limited for domestic and industrial use. Natural
recfiarge is estimated to be greater tfian 10,500
AFY. Extractions about 5,000 AFY. A potential
for limited additional development.

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DMG6, USGS126

SuperRcial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References;
DWR 18,DMG 7

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 18; DMG 7

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 18, DMG 7

High for geology and hydrology. Moderate
for water quality.
References:
DWR 108, 113, 150, SWRCB 3

Locally, TDS and nitrate high for domestic

None known.

Lower portion sulfate, chloride, magne-
sium and TDS high for domestic use, TDS,
chloride, and boron high for irrigation use.
Rising ground water and ponding.

Moderate for irrigation use and limited for
municipal, industrial, and military use. A poten-
tial for limited additional development.

Moderate for irrigation use and limited for
domestic and military use. A potential for limited
additional development.

Intensive for military use, moderate for irriga-
tion, and limited for municipal and industrial use.
Natural recharge is estimated at about 6,000
AFY. 1972-73 extractions 9,500 AF. A poten-
tial for limited additional development.

Moderate for irrigation and limited for mu-
nicipal, industrial and domestic uses. 1953 ex-
tractions about 12,000 AF. A potential for
limited additional development.

Moderate for irrigation use and limited for
domestic use. 1953 extractions about 1,600 AF.
A potential for limited additional development.

Moderate for irrigation and municipal use
and limited for industrial and domestic use. A
potential for limited to moderate additional de-
velopment.

Limited for irrigation, municipal, domestic,
industrial, and stock watering uses. A potential
for limited to moderate additional development.

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 49, 113

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 49, 113

Moderate for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 23, 49, 113, 182; USGS 57, 87

Moderate for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 23, 32,93, 182

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 23, 32, 95; USGS 57, 87

None known.

Lower portion, magnesium, sulfate, chlo-
ride, nitrate, and TDS high for domestic use;
chloride, boron and TDS high for irrigation
use. Potential for sea water intrusion. Con-
nate waters.

Locally, sulfate, chloride, magnesium, ni-
trate, and TDS high for domestic use; TDS
high for irrigation use.

Locally, sulfate,
domestic use.

and nitrate high for

Moderate to intensive for geology, hydrol- Generally southwest portion magnesium,

ogy, and water quality. sulfate, chloride, nitrate, iron, and TDS high

References: for domestic use; chloride and TDS high for

DWR 21, 48, 91,113, 159; USGS 57, 87, irrigation use. Sea water intrusion and con-
nate water intrusion.

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR91, 113;USGS57, 87

Locally, fluoride high for domestic use;
percent sodium high for irrigation use.

INVENTORY OF

SOUTH

HYDROLOGIC STUDY

Basin
number

Basin name, county

Basin description:

size, major stream,

water bearing material

Well yields
in 3pm

Max.

Aver.

Depth
zone
in feet

Storage
capacity

in
acre-feet

Usable
capacity

in
acre-feet

9-9

9-10

9-11

9-13

9-14

9-18

9-19

9-20

Escondido Valley, San Diego
County

San Pasqual Valley, San Diego
County

Santa Maria Valley, San
Diego County

San Dieguito Valley, San
Diego County

Poway Valley, San Diego
County

Mission Valley, San Diego
County

San Diego River Valley, San
Diego County

El Cajon Valley, San Diego
County

Sweetwater Valley, San Di
ego County

Otay Valley, San Diego
County

Tia Juana Basin, San Diego
County

Jamul Valley, San Diego
County

A 20-square-mile basin
drained by Escondido Creek.
Younger alluvium and residuum.

A 1 2-square-mi le basin
drained by Santa Ysabel Creek.
Younger alluvium and residuum.

A 24-square-mi le basin
drained by Santa Maria Creek.
Younger alluvium and residuum.

A 6-square-mile coastal basin
drained by the San Dieguito
River. Younger alluvium.

A 4-square-mi I e basin drained
by Los Penasquitos Creek.
Younger alluvium and residuum.

A 11-square-mile coastal ba-
sin drained by the San Diego
River. Younger alluvium.

A 1 5-square-mi le basin
drained by the San Diego River.
Younger alluvium and residuum.

A 8-square-mi I e basin drained
by Forrester Creek. Younger
alluvium and residuum.

A 3-square-mile coastal basin
drained by the Sweetwater
River. Younger alluvium.

A 4-square-mile coastal basin
drained by the Otay River.
Younger alluvium.

A 8-square-mile coastal basin
drained by the Tia Juana River.
Younger alluvium.

A 5 -square-mile basin drained
by the Sweetwater River.
Younger alluvium and residuum.

190

1,700

20-70

1,000

300 50

Unknown

0-195

Unknown

Unknown Unkno

Unknown

24,000

73,000

77,000

63,000

12,000

37,000

50,000

8,000

Unknown Unknown

42,000

97,000

Unknown

10,500

24,200

Unknown

GROUND WATER RESOURCES

COASTAL

AREA — Continued

Moderate for irrigation and limited for indus-
trial, domestic, and stock watering uses. Extrac-
tions about 6,000 AF in 1968. A potential for
limited additional development.

Moderate for industrial and limited for domes-
tic and stock watering uses. Natural recharge
estimated at about 5,000 AFY. A potential for
limited additional development.

Limited for irrigation, industrial, domestic, and
stock watering uses. Natural recharge is esti-
mated to be greater than 2,000 AFY. A poten-
tial tor limited to moderate additional develop-
ment.

Moderate for irrigation and limited for indus-
trial and domestic uses. A potential for limited
additional development.

Moderate for irrigation and limited for domes-
tic and stock uses. A potential for limited addi-
tional development.

Moderate for irrigation use. Limited for mu-
nicipal, industrial, and domestic use. A potential
for limited additional development.

Moderate for irrigation use and limited for
domestic, municipal, industrial and stock water-
ing use. A potential for limited to moderate
additional development.

Moderate for irrigation use and limited for
industrial and domestic use. A potential for
limited additional development.

Moderate for irrigation use and limited for
industrial and domestic use. Natural recharge is
estimated at about 1,100 AFY. A potential for
limited additional development.

Limited for municipal, irrigation, domestic
and industrial uses. A potential for limited addi-
tional development.

Extensive for irrigation and limited for indus-
trial, domestic and military uses. Natural recharge
is estimated at about 8,000 AFY. 1952-53 ex-
tractions about 18,000 AF. A potential for
limited additional development.

Moderate for irrigation use. Limited for in-
dustrial, domestic and stock watering use. A po-
tential for limited additional development.

Superficial for geology and limited for
hydrology and water quality.
References:
DWR 59, 113, 166

Moderate for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 22, 59; SWRCB 3, USGS 37

Moderate for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 22, 59, 186

Moderate for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 22, 49, 59, 113, 186,- USGS 37

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 11 3, USGS 37

Moderate for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:

DWR 21, 49, 113, 141; SWRCB 3; USGS
37

Moderate for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 21, 113, 141; USGS 37

Moderate for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 41, 113; USGS 37

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 49, 113

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 49, 113, 149

High for geology. Moderate for hydrology
and water quality.
References:
DWR 25, 35, 36, 49, 113

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 113; DMG 9

Proble

Commonly marginal to unsuitable for
domestic use, nitrate, TDS, chloride high for
irrigation use.

Locally, nitrate and TDS high for domestic
use; chloride high for irrigation use. h-ligh
ground water table and ponding.

Locally, sulfate, nitrate and TDS high for
domestic use,- chloride high for irrigation use.

Commonly unsuitable for domestic use, high
sulfate and TDS. Commonly unsuitable for ir-
rigation use, high TDS, chloride and boron
potential. Potential sea-water and connate
intrusion. High ground water table and
ponding.

Commonly marginal to unsuitable for
domestic use. Locally, TDS, boron, and chlo-
ride high for irrigation use.

Upper portion of valley, magnesium, sul-
fate, chloride, and TDS high for domestic use;
TDS and chloride high for irrigation use. High
ground water table and ponding. Suspected
sea-water intrusion.

Lower portion of valley, magnesium, sul-
fate, chloride, nitrate, manganese, iron and
TDS high for domestic use; chloride high for
irrigation use.

Largely unsuitable for domestic use, high
nitrate. Chloride high for irrigation use.

Unsuitable for domestic use, high TDS.
Unsuitable for irrigation use, high chloride
and TDS. Connate intrusion.

Lower portion unsuitable for domestic use,
high TDS. Unsuitable for irrigation use, high
chloride and TDS.

Unsuitable for domestic use, high sulfate
and TDS. Unsuitable for irrigation use, high
chloride and TDS.

Locally marginal to unsuitable for domestic
use, high nitrate and TDS. Generally marginal
to inferior for irrigation use, high chloride.

Legend

I I YOUNGER ALLUVIUM

H OLDER AaUVIUM

H OLDER MARINE SEDIMENTS

H YOUNGER VOLCANICS

■I OLDER VOLCANICS

B~] OLDER VOLCANICS& SEDIMENTS

GROUND WATER BASINS - SACRAMENTO BASIN HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA

SACRAMENTO BASIN HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA

Ground Waier Basins

No.

Old No.

5-1
5-2
5-2.01

5-2.02
5-3

5-4

5-7
5-8

5-9
5-10
5-11
5-12

5-13
5-14
5-15

5-16
5-17
5-18
5-19
5-20
5-21

5-30
5-31
5-32

5-33

Name

Goose Lake Valley

Alturas Basin

South Fork Pit River and

Alturas Area

Warm Springs Valley. .

Jess Valley

Big Valley

Fall River Valley

Redding Basin

Lake Almanor Valley. . .
Mountain Meadows
Valley

Indian Valley

American Valley

Mohawk Valley

Sierra Valley

Upper Lake Valley

Scott Valley

Kelseyville Valley (Big
Valley)

High Valley

Burns Valley

Coyote Valley

Coilayomi Valley

Berryessa Valley

Sacramento Valley

Lower Lake Valley . . . .

Long Valley

Modoc Plateau Recent
Volcanic Areas

Modoc Plateau Pleisto-
cene Volcanic Areas

County

No.

Modoc
Modoc
Modoc

Modoc
Modoc
Lassen,

Modoc
Lassen,

Shasta
Shasta,

Tehama
Plumas
Lassen

Plumas
Plumas
Plumas
Plumas,
Sierra
Lake
Lake
Lake

Lake

Napa

Butte,
Colusa,
Glenn,
Placer,
Sacra-
mento,
Solano,
Sutter,
Tehama,
Yolo,
Yuba

Lake

Lassen,
Modoc,
Shasta,
Siskiyou

Lassen,
Modoc,
Plumas,
Shasta,
Siskiyou,
Tehama

5-34
5-35
5-36
5-37
5-38

5-39
5-40

5-41
5-42
5-43
5-44

5-45
5-46
5-47
5-48
5-49
5-50

5-51
5-52
5-53
5-54
5-55

5-56
5-57
5-58
5-59
5-60
5-61
5-62
5-63

5-64
5-65
5-66

5-67

5-68

Old No.

Name

MountShasta Area

McCloud Area

Round Valley

Toad Well Area

Pondosa Town Area

Fandango Valley

Hot Spring Valley

Egg Lake Valley

Bucher Swamp Valley. . . .

Rocky Prairie Valley

Long Valley

Cayton Valley

Lake Britton Area

Goose Valley

Burney Creek Valley. . . .

Dry Burney Creek Valley.

North Fork Battle Creek
Valley

Butte Creek Valley

Gray Valley

Dixie Valley

Ash Valley

Sacramento Valley
Eastside Tuscan
Formation Highlands

Yellow Creek Valley. . . .

Last Chance Creek Valley

Clover Valley

Grizzly Valley

Humbug Valley

Chrome Town Area

Elk Creek Area

Stonyford Town Area . . . .

Bear Valley

Little Indian Valley

Clear Lake Cache

Formation Highlands
Clear Lake Pleistocene

Volcanics
Pope Valley

County

Siskiyou
Siskiyou
Modoc
Siskiyou
Shasta,

Siskiyou
Modoc
Lassen,

Modoc,

Shasta
Modoc
Modoc
Modoc
Lassen,

Modoc
Shasta
Shasta
Shasta
Shasta
Shasta
Shasta

Lassen

Butte,
Plumas,
Tehama

Plumas

Glenn

Colusa,
Glenn

Colusa

Lake

Lake
Lake

Summary

The Sacramento Basin Hydrologic Study Area
(HSA) generally includes the northern third of the
Great Central Valley and the upper Sacramento River
drainage area. In this HSA. 61 ground water basins,
subareas. and areas of potential ground water storage
have been identified. The inventory covers 24 ground
water basins and sub-basins. These 24 basins, with a
total area of about 6,400 square miles, have been identi-
fied as significant sources of ground water. Sacra-
mento Valley alone occupies 5,000 square miles. The
southern portion of the Sacramento Valley ground wa-
ter basin. Basin No. 5-21. is in the San Joaquin Basin

HSA, and Sacramento Valley is only listed and de-
scribed in the Sacramento Basin HSA.

Water bearing deposits range in thickness up to
about 3,000 feet, and several basins contain flowing
wells.

The estimated storage capacity of 22 basins is about
139.3 million acre-feet. Usable storage capacity of 8
basins is estimated to be about 22.1 million acre-feet,
22 million of which are in the Sacramento Valley. The
principal factors limiting development are the low
permeability of the aquifer material, water quality, and
economic considerations such as the costs of well drill-
ing and pumping energy.

Ground water temperature ranges from about 55° to

INVENTORY OF
SACRAMENTO
HYDROLOGIC

Basin name, county

Basin description:

size, major stream,

water bearing material

Well yields
in gpm

Depth
zone
in feet

Storage
capacity

in
acre-feet

Usable
capacity

Bdsin
number

Max.

Aver.

in
acre-feet

5-1

Goose Lake Valley, Modoc
County

A 75-square-mi le basin
drained by the North Fork Pit
River. Younger alluvium and
older volcanics.

2,500

1,500

0-500

1,000,000

Unknown

5-2

Alturas Basin

5-2.01

Alturas Basin — South Fork
Pit River and Alturas area

A 140-square-mile basin
drained by the South Fork Pit
River. Younger and older allu-
vium and older volcanics.

1,000

400

0-800

6,700,000

Unknown

5-2.02

Alturas Basin — Warm Springs
Valley, Modoc County

A 100-square-mile basin
drained by the Pit River. Older
alluvium and older volcanics.

1,000

400

0-800

1,600,000

Unknown

5-3

Jess Valley, Modoc County

A9-square-mile basin drained
by the South Fork Pit River.
Younger alluvium.

Unknown

5-4

Big Valley, Lassen and Mo-
doc Counties.

A 160-squdre-mile basin
drained by the Pit River. Young-
er and older alluvium, and
older volcanics.

900

300

0-1000

3,700,000

Unknown

5-5

Fall River Valley, Lassen and
Shasta Counties

A 120-square-mile basin
drained by the Pit River. Young-
er alluvium and younger and
older volcanics.

2,500

450

0-400

1,000,000

Unknown

5-6

Redding Basin, Shasta and
Tehama Counties

A 510-square-mile basin
drained by the Sacramento
River. Younger and older allu-
vium.

2,150

640

0-300

3,500,000

Unknown

5-7

Lake Almanor Valley, Plumas
County

A 7-square-mile basin drained
by the Feather River. Younger
alluvium.

300

100

10-210

45,000

Unknown

about 75°F. TDS content varies from less than 55 milli-
grams per liter (mg/1) to as high as 2,790 mg/1. The
predominant water type is calcium bicarbonate, but
sodium and magnesium bicarbonate water are also
found in certain areas.

Properly constructed wells in some areas can yield
over 3,000 gallons per minute. Ground water pumping
has caused land subsidence m the Sacramento Valley
in an area between Zamora and Davis of about 0.2 to
0.9 feet from 1935 to 1964, and as much as 2 feet m two
areas east of Zamora and west of Arbuckle. Total
ground water pumpage m the HSA during 1970 is es-
timated at 2.0 million acre-feet.

Saline water at shallow depths has been encoun-

tered in a number of locations in the Sacramento Val-
ley, principally in the Sutter Basin and the Sacramento
Delta. High boron concentrations are found in certain
locations in the following valleys; Goose Lake Valley,
Alturas Basin, Sierra Valley, Upper Lake Valley, Kelsey-
ville Valley. High Valley, Coyote Valley, and Lower
Lake Areas.

The Sacramento Basin is an area of abundant and
inexpensive surface water supplies. This is the mam
reason why ground water levels for the most part are
at or near the historical high. Essentially, the basin is
filled to Its maximum storage capacity, and the poten-
tial for further development of ground water is very
high.

GROUND WATER RESOURCES

BASIN

STUDY AREA

Development

Desree of knowledge

Problems

Limited for domestic, stock and irrigation use.
Estimated 1974 pumpage 4,000 AF. Estimated
safe yield 10,000 AFY. A potential for mod-
erate additional development.

Limited for geology, hydrology and water
quality.

References:
DWR96, 97, 187

Northeastern portion has zones of high
concentrations of fluoride, boron, and per-
cent sodium. Thermal water at depth.

Moderate for domestic, irrigation, munici-
pal, and stock use. For the entire Alturas Basin,
estimated 1974 pumpage 9,000 AF: estimated
safe yield 17,000 AFY. A potential for mod-
erate additional development.

Moderate for domestic, irrigation, municipal
and stock use. A potential for moderate addi-
tional development

Limited for domestic and stock use. Addition-
al potential unknown.

Moderate for domestic, industrial, and stock
use. Estimated 1974 pumpage 5,000 AF and
estimated 1970 safe yield 10,000 AFY. Addi-
tional development for irrigation supply may be
restricted due to tight sediments or low yielding
sediments. A potential for limited additional
development.

Limited for irrigation and domestic use. 1970
pumpage 13,000 AF. Safe yield 39,000 AFY.
Supplemental supply for irrigation appears
promising. A potential for moderate additional
development.

Moderate for domestic, irrigation, municipal, f
stock and industrial use. Estimated 1970 pump- j
age 40,000 AF. Safe yield is greater than i
46,000 AFY. Essentially, the ground water j
basin is full. A potential for high additional I
development except in northern part of basin.

Limited for domestic and irrigation use. A
potential for limited additional development.

Limited for geology, hydrology and water
quality.

References:
DWR96, 97, 187

Limited for geology, hydrology and water
quality.

References:
DWR 96, 97

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 45, 185

Limited for geology, hydrology and water
quality.

References:
DWR96, 97, 187, USBR 5

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 66, 96, 97, 187

Moderate for geology in central area,
limited in outer area. Limited for hydrology,
and water quality.
References:

DWR 16,66, 139, 187

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 45.

Localized zones of high nitrate, iron,
boron, and percent sodium. One well pro-
duced water having 310 mg, I nitrates.

High percent sodium.

None known.

Poor quality thermal waters from hot
springs — unsuitable for beneficial uses. High
iron and manganese concentrations areawide.
High nitrate concentrations locally. High
sodium sulfate concentration in water in
South Central part of basin.

High iron, nitrate and excessive sodium
locally.

Saline water containing sodium and boron
at shallow depth along the north half of
basin.

None known.

INVENTORY OF

SACRAMENTO

HYDROLOGIC STUDY

Basin
number

5-9

5-10

5-16

5-18

Basin name, county

Mountain Meadows Valley,
Lassen County

Indian Valley, Plumas County

American Valley, Plumas
County

Mohawk Valley, Plumas
County

Sierra Valley, Plumas and
Sierra Counties.

Upper Lake Valley, Lake
County

Scott Valley, Lake County

Kelseyville Valley, (Big Val-
ley) Lake County

High Valley, Lake County

Burns Valley, Lake County

Coyote Valley, Lake County

Collayomi Valley, Lake
County

Sacramento Valley, Butte,
Colusa, Glenn, Placer, Sacra-
mento, Solano, Sutter, Tehama,
Yolo and Yuba Counties

Basin description:

size, major stream,

water bearing material

A 1 0-square-mi I e basin
drained by the Feather River.
Younger alluvium and older
volcanics.

A 20-square-mi le basin
drained by the Feather River.
Younger alluvium.

A 7-square-mi I e basin drained
by the Feather River. Younger
alluvium.

A 8-squa re-mile basin drained
by the North Fork of the Feather
River. Younger alluvium.

A 140-square-mile basin
drained by the North Fork of
the Feather River. Younger allu-

A 1 5-square-mi le basin
drained by Cold Creek. Young-
er alluvium.

A 4-square-mi I e basin drained
by Scott Creek. Younger allu-
vium.

A 30-square-mi I e basin
drained by Adobe Creek.
Younger alluvium and older vol-
canics.

A 3-square-mile basin drained
by the North Fork of Cache
Creek. Younger alluvium.

A 2-square-mile basin drain-
ing into Clear Lake. Younger
alluvium.

A6-square-mile basin drained
by Putah Creek. Younger allu-
vium.

A 7-square-mi le basin drained
by Putah Creek. Younger allu-
vium.

A 5,000-square-mile basin
drained by the Sacramento
River. Younger and older al-
luvium and older volcanics and
sediments.

Well yields
in gpm

Max.

Unknown

1,000

Unknown

1,350

1,000

1,200

4,000

Depth
zone
in feet

Unknown

300 10-100 10,900 5,000

500

Storage
capacity

in
acre-feet

Unknown

90,000

7,500,000

Usable
capacity

in
acre-feet

Unknown

10-100

5,900

1 1 5,600

9,000

27,000

29,000

113,650,000

4,500

60,000

1,400

7,000

22,000,000

GROUND WATER RESOURCES

BASIN

AREA — Continued

Development

Limited for domestic and stock use. A poten-
tial for limited additional development.

Limited for domestic, irrigation and stock use.
A potential for limited additional development.

Limited for irrigation, domestic, and stock
use. A potential for limited additional develop-
ment.

Limited for irrigation, domestic, and stock
use. Potential for developing additional irriga-
tion water is restricted due to low permeability
material underlying the valley floor. A potential
for limited additional development.

Limited for irrigation, domestic, and stock use.
Ground water pumpage below safe yield. A po-
tential for moderate to fiigfi additional develop-
ment.

Moderate for irrigation, domestic, and stock
use. Estimated 1966 pumpage 3,500 AF. Esti-
mated safe yield 4,400 AFY. A potential for
limited additional development.

Moderate for irrigation, domestic, and stock
use. Estimated safe yield 2,300 AFY. A poten-
tial for limited additional development.

Intensive for irrigation, domestic, and indus-
trial use. Estimated 1966 pumpage 14,500 AF.
Estimated safe yield 15,000 AFY. A potential
for limited additional development.

Moderate for domestic, irrigation, and stock
use. Estimated 1966 pumpage 400 AF. Esti-
mated safe yield 300 AFY. A potential for
limited additional development.

Limited for domestic, irrigation, and stock use.
Estimated safe yield 600 AFY. A potential for
limited additional development.

Moderate for domestic, irrigation, and stock
use. Estimated 1966 pumpage 2,330 AF. Esti-
mated safe yield 5,000 AFY. A potential for
moderate additional development.

Moderate for domestic, irrigation and stock
use. A potential for moderate additional devel-
opment.

Moderate to intensive for irrigation, domes-
tic, stock and industrial use. Estimated 1970
pumpage 1,850,000 AF. A potential for high
additional development in many locations in this
basin, mainly near the Sacramento River and
northern half of the basin.

Degree of knowledge

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 45

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 45

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 45

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 96, 97

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 96, 97, 184

Moderate for geology. Limited for hydrol-
ogy and water quality.
References:
DWR 11, 45; USBR 12

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 45; USBR 12; USGS 125

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 45; USBR 12; USGS 125

Moderate for geology. Limited for hydrol-
ogy and water quality.
References:
DWR 98; USBR 6, 12; USGS 125

Limited for geology, hydrology and water
quality.

References:
DWR 98; USBR 12; USGS 125

Limited in geology, hydrology, and water
quality except for several isolated areas of
moderate, high and intensive.
References:

DWR 1, 3, 7, 1 5, 122, 124, 126, 193, 194;
USBR 6; USGS 9, 11, 75, 94, 116; Misc. 15

Problems

None known.

In local areas ground water is unsuitable
for beneficial uses.

Warm to hot ground waters high in
fluoride and boron occur in the central por-
tion of valley.

High boron — west and southern portions
of the valley.

None known.

High boron eastern, southern, and north-
ern perimeters of the valley.

Local problems with high iron and boron
content.

Minor boron problems. Localized nitrate
problems.

High boron.

None known.

Land subsidence— as much as 2 feet, east of
Zamora and west of Arbuckle, possibly
caused by overdraft. Saline water at shallow
depth south and west of Sutter Buttes. Mod-
erately high boron in the Arbuckle and
Woodland areas. Shallow poor quality water
in Sacramento Delta area.

INVENTORY OF
SACRAMENTO
HYDROLOGIC

Basin name, county

Basin description:

size, major stream,

water bearing material

Well yields
in gpm

Depth
zone
in feet

Storage
capacity

in
acre-feet

Usable
capacity

Bdsin
number

Max. Aver.

in
acre-feet

5-30

Lower Lake Valley, Lake
County

A 5-square-mile basin drained
by Seigler Creek. Younger allu-
vium.

300

Unknown

0-75

4,000

Unknown

5-36

Round Valley, Modoc
County

A 1 5-square-mi 1 e basin
drained by the Pit River. Young-
er and older alluvium.

400

150

0-200

120,000

Unknown

5-60

Humbug Valley, Plumas
County

A 1 4-square-mi le basin
drained by the North Fork
Feather River. Younger allu-
vium.

Unknown

0-100

76,000

Unknown

GROUND WATER RESOURCES

COASTAL

AREA — Continued

Development

Limited for domestic, and minor irrigation use.
Estimated 1966 pumpage 270 AF. Estimated safe
yield 800 AFV. A potential for limited to mod-
erate additional development.

Limited for domestic, irrigation, and stock
use. Additional development for irrigation sup-
ply may be restricted due to low yielding sedi-
ments. A potential for limited additional devel-
opment.

Limited for irriqation, domestic, and stock use.
Additional development for irrigation water is
restricted due to low permeability material
underlying the valley floor. A potential for
limited additional development.

Degree of knowledge

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
USBR 12, USGS 125

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 96, 97

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 96, 97

Problems

High boron. Some waters unsatisfactory
for domestic use.

Low yielding sediments.

None known.

Legend

I I YOUNGER ALLUVIUM
OLDER ALLUVIUM

r~l OLDER V0LCANICS8. SEDIMENTS

GROUND WATER BASINS - SAN JOAQUIN BASIN HYDR^L^ STUDY AREA

SAN JOAQUIN BASIN HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA

Ground Water Basins

No.

Old No.

Name

County

5-21

Sacramento Valley

Sacramento,

Solano,

Yolo

5-22

San Joaquin Valley

Alameda,

Contra

Costa,

Fresno,

Kern,

Kings,

Madera,

Merced,

Sacra-

mento, San

Joaquin,

Stanislaus,

Tulare

5-23

Panoche Valley.

San Benito

5-24

Squaw Valley

Fresno

5-25

Kern

5-26

Walker Basin Creek

Kern

Valley

5-27

Cummings Valley

Kern

5-28

Tehachapi Valley West .

Kern

5-29

Castaic Lake Valley

Yosemite Valley

5-69

Mariposa

5-70

Los Banos Creek Valley. .

Merced

5-71

Vallecitos Creek Valley. .

Cedar Grove Area

Three Rivers Area

Springville Area

5-72

Fresno

5-73

5-74

Tulare

5-75

Templeton Mountain Area

Tulare

5-76

Tulare

5-77

5-78

Rockhouse Meadow
Valley

Tulare

5-79

Inns Valley

Tulare

5-80

Brite Valley

Bear Valley

5-81

5-82

Cuddy Canyon Valley. . . .

Kern

5-83

Ventura

5-84

Cuddy Valley

Mill Potrera Area

Kern

5-85

Kern

Summary

The San Joaquin Basin Hydrologic Study Area
(HSA) includes roughly the southern two-thirds of the
Great Central Valley of California. The HSA is bordered
onihe north by the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, on
the east by the Sierra Nevada, on the south by the
Tehachapi Mountains, and on the west by the Coast
Ranges. The San Joaquin River drams a large part of
the HSA, but the southern part of the HSA is an interior
drainage area, tributary to evaporation sumps, chiefly
Tulare and Buena Vista lakebeds. The northern part of
the San Joaquin Basin HSA includes the southern por-
tion of the Sacramento Valley ground water basin. Ba-
sin No. 5-21. Sacramento Valley Basin No. 5-21 is listed
and described only in Sacramento Basin HSA.

In the HSA, 26 ground water basins and areas of
potential ground water storage have been identified.
The inventory covers nine ground water basins. These
nine basins have been identified as significant sources
of ground water. The total area of these nine basins is
about 13,700 square miles, of which the San Joaquin
Valley alone occupies 13,500 square miles, the largest
ground water basin in the State.

The maximum thickness of fresh water-bearing
deposits (4,400 feet) occurs at the southern end of the
San Joaquin Valley just north of Wheeler Ridge. Es-
timated storage capacity between depths of 0 and 1,-
000 feet IS over 570 million acre-feet. The estimated
usable storage capacity exceeds 80 million acre-feet;
the principal factors limiting development are water
quality and the high cost of pumping. Estimated stor-
age capacity in three small basins is about 475,000 acre-
feet.

Ground water temperatures range from about 45° to
about 105° F. TDS content of the water vanes from 64
to more than 10,000 milligrams per liter. The predomi-
nant water type vanes from aquifer to aquifer and the
source of recharge. The character of the water on the
east side of the valley is predominantly sodium-cal-
cium bicarbonate; water on the west sid.e principally
contains sodium sulfate. Properly constructed wells in
some areas yield over 3,000 gallons per minute.

Subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley due to ground
water extraction began m the mid-1920s. In 1942, 3 mil-
lion acre-feet were pumped for irrigation, but by 1970,
pumping for irrigation exceeded 10 million acre-feet
As a result, water levels in the western and southern
portions of the valley declined at an increased rate
during the 1950s and 1960s. By 1970, 5,200 square miles
of valley land had been affected, and maximum subsid-
ence exceeded 28 feet in an area west of Mendota.

Much of the Los Banos-Kettleman City subsidence
area is now served by the San Luis Unit of the Central
Valley Project. Since 1968, as more state and federal
water has been used for irrigation, water levels have
been recovering. In one instance, the rise in piezomet-
ric level exceeded 200 feet, and m about three-fourths
of the area the rise has been over 100 feet. In the future,
when the full contractual Project deliveries are made,
subsidence in this area is expected to cease. Since
1971, State Water deliveries to some parts of the
Wheeler Ridge-Mancopa Water Storage District m
Kern County have resulted in a ground water level re-
covery of as much as 75 feet.

Artificial recharge is the intentional replenishment of
ground water. Extensive use of natural stream chan-
nels and man-made basins allows large volumes of sur-
face water to percolate into the ground water basin. In
1973, for this HSA. 1.6 million acre-feet were artificially
recharged or stored in the San Joaquin Valley ground
water basin for future use.

INVENTORY OF

SAN JOAQUIN

HYDROLOGIC

Basin
number

5-22

Basin name, county

Basin description:

size, major stream,

water bearing material

Well yields
in gpm

Max.

Aver.

Depth
zone
in feet

Storage
capacity

in
acre-feet

Usable
capacity

in
acre-feet

5-26

5-27

San Joaquin Valley, Ala-
meda, Contra Costa, Fresno,
Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced,
Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stan-
islaus, and Tulare Counties

A 13,500-square-mile basin
drained by the San Joaquin
River. Younger and older allu-
vium.

3,200

Panoche Valley, San Benito
County

Squaw Valley, Fresno County

Kern River Valley, Kern
County

Walker Basin Creek Valley,
Kern County

Cummings Valley, Kern
County

Tehachapi Valley — West,
Kern County

Castaic Lake Valley, Kern
County

5-80 Brite Valley, Kern County

A 50-square-mi le basin
drained by Panoche Creek.
Younger and older alluvium.

A 8-square-mile basin drained
by Wahtoke Creek. Younger

A 70-square-mi le basin
drained by the Kern River.
Younger alluvium.

A 1 6-square-mi le basin
drained by Walker Basin Creek.
Younger alluvium.

A 1 3-square-mi le basin
drained by Cummings Creek.
Younger alluvium.

A 37-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger and
older alluvium.

A 2-square-mile basin drained
by Grapevine Creek. Younger
alluvium.

A 3-square-mi I e basin drained
by Brite Creek. Younger allu-
vium.

Unknown

1,100

570,000,000

80,000,000

Unknown

Unkn

Unknown

350,000

Unknown

15,000

Unknown

GROUND WATER RESOURCES

BASIN

STUDY AREA

Development

Intensive for irrigation, domestic, industrial,
municipal, and stock use. Estimated 1970 pump-
age 10 million acre-feet. A potential for high
additional development in northern portion of
valley, and a limited potential for additional
development in the southern portion of the
valley.

Degree of knowledge

Limited for irrigation and domestic use. Po-
tential for additional development is unknown.

Moderate for irrigation use. Limited for do-
mestic use. A potential for limited to moderate
additional development.

Limited for irrigation and domestic use. Po-
tential for additional development is unknown.

Intensive for irrigation and domestic use.
Estimated 1960 pumpage 4,200 AF. No poten-
tial for additional development.

Intensive for irrigation, industrial, municipal
and domestic use. Estimated 1960 pumpage
9,500 AF. No potential for additional develop-
ment.

Limited for irrigation and domestic use. Po-
tential for additional development is unknown.

Intensive for irrigation and domestic use. Esti-
mated 1960 pumpage 600 AF. No potential for
additional development.

High for geology, hydrology, and water
quality in most of valley, isolated areas of
moderate and limited.
References:

DWR 8, 15, 63, 64, 73, 122, 124, 127,
131, 133, 134, 136, 142, 143, 154, 158;
USBR 2, 4, 8; USGS 12, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 50, 53, 54, 73, 74, 83, 97, 98, 99, 100,
106, 130, 132; Misc. 7

Superficial for geology. Limited for hydrol-
ogy and water quality.
References:
DWR 46; DMG 1

Superficial for geology. Limited for hydrol-
ogy and water quality.
References:
DMG 5

Superficial for geology. Limited for hydrol-
ogy and water quality.
References:
DWR 38

Superficial for geology, hydrology and
water quality.

References:
DMG 8

Limited for geology, hydrology and water
quality.

References:
DWR 30; Misc. 9

Limited for geology, hydrology and water
quality.

References:
DWR 34; Misc. 9

Superficial for geology, hydrology and
water quality.

References:
DWR 84

Limited for geology, hydrology and water
quality.

References:
Misc. 9

Problems

Much of the Valley is in overdraft condi-
tion, which has caused excessive land
subsidence along the west side and southern
partof the Valley — maximum subsidence of 28
feet southwest of Mendota and extensive
dewdtering of unconfined aquifers east of the
valley trough from Merced Irrigation District
to the extreme southern part of the basin. A
major water quality problem is the rising
saline connate waters in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta from Stockton to Tracy. Shal-
low poor quality water on west side of
Valley. High sodium, chloride and sulfate
water occur in scattered areas throughout
trough of the Valley north of Fresno. High
boron concentrations in areas in the Tulare
Lake Basin. High nitrates around the Delano
area.

None known.

Annual overdraft, 1,700 AF (1960). In
February 1974, Tehachapi-Cummings Water
Storage District started to receive State Water
Project water.

Annual overdraft, 5,800 AF (1960). In
February 1974, Tehachapi-Cummings Water
Storage District started to receive State Water
Project water

None known.

Annual overdraft of 500 AF (1960).

?TuDY AREA KEY

Legend

I I YOUNGER ALLUVIUM

OLDER ALLUVIUM
I I YOUNGER VOLCANICS
I I OLDER VOLCANICS

GROUND WATER BASINS - NORTH LAHONTAN HYDROLOGIC STUDY ARE

NORTH LAHONTAN HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA

Ground Water Basins

Old No.

No.

6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5

6-5.01
6-5.02
6-6
6-7

6-8
6-67

6-91
6-92
6-93
6-94
6-95
6-96
-■-97
- -Cn

0-102
6-103
6-104

6-105

-•-10"

Name

Surprise Valley.

Madeline Plains

Willow Creek Valley.
Honey Lake Valley. . .
Tahoe Valley

Tahoe Valley — South.
Tahoe Valley — North.

Carson Valley

Antelope Valley (Topaz
Valley)

Bridgeport Valley

Martis Valley (Truckee
Valley)

Cow Head Lake Valley.

Pine Creek Valley

Harvey Valley

Grasshopper Valley. . .

Dry Valley

Eagle Lake Area

Horse Lake Valley

Tuleddd Canyon Area . .

Painters Flat

Secret Valley

Bull Flat

Modoc Plateau Recent
Volcanic Areas

Modoc Plateau Pleisto-
cene Volcanic Areas

Long Valley

Slinkard Valley

Little Antelope Valley.
Sweetwater Flat

County

Lassen,

Modoc
Lassen
Lassen
Lassen
El Dorado,

Placer
El Dorado
Placer
Alpine
Mono

Mono
Nevada,
Placer
Modoc
Lassen
Lassen
Lassen
Lassen
Lassen
Lassen
Lassen
Lassen
Lassen
Lassen
Lassen

Lassen

Lassen,
Sierra
Mono
Mono
Mono

Summary

The North Lahontan Hydrologic Study Area (MSA)
ccupies the northeastern portion of California. A part
' the Great Basin, a large region of interior drainage,
^e MSA lies east of the drainage divide between the

Central Valley and the streams flowing either into Ne-
vada or into closed intermittent lakes near the Califor-
nia-Nevada border. The HSA is bounded on the east by
Nevada and on the west by the crests of the Sierra
Nevada and the Warner Range. From north to south,
the HSA extends from the Oregon border to the south-
ern edge of the Walker River Basin in Mono County.

In the HSA, 27 ground water basins, sub-basins and
areas of potenti&l, ground water storage have been
identified. The inventory covers 10 valleys with a total
area of about 1.340 square miles which have been iden-
tified as significant sources of ground water. The es-
timated storage capacity of eight of the valleys is
about 23.8 million acre-feet. Only one basin, Truckee
Valley, has been analyzed to determine its usable stor-
age capacity, which was estimated at 50,000 acre-feet.
The maximum yield from an individual well, measured
in the Madeline Plains, is about 3,800 gpm; however,
the highest average yield of wells, measured in Sur-
prise Valley and Honey Lake Valley, is about 900 gpm.

Minor development of ground water has taken place
in most of the basins, and the potential for further
development appears promising. Limiting factors in-
clude (1) economic considerations, such as the costs
of drilling a well and pumping energy, and (2) quality
considerations, such as the high mineral concentra-
tions in ground water in parts of the HSA.

Although ground water temperatures normally
range from about 50° F to 80°F, temperatures as high as
182°F have been measured in thermal springs in Sur-
prise Valley. TDS is generally lower than 500 mg/1, but
in some areas concentrations up to 2,030 mg/1 have
been measured. The predominant mineral in the
ground water is calcium carbonate; however, sodium,
magnesium, chloride, and sulfate are also found locally
in significant quantities. Thermal water in Surprise Val-
ley contains significant concentrations of sodium sul-
fate and sodium chloride.

INVENTORY OF

NORTH

HYDROLOGIC

Basin name, county

Basin description:

size, major stream,

water bearing material

Well yields
in gpm

Depth
zone
in feet

Storage
capacity

in
acre-feet

Usable
capacity

Basin
number

Max.

Aver.

in
acre-feet

■/6-1

Surprise Valley, Lassen and
Modoc Counties

A 350-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Youngerallu-
vium.

2,800

900

0-400

4,000,000

Unknown

' 6-2

Madeline Plains, Lassen
County

A 270-square-mile basin with
interna 1 drainage. Younger allu-
vium and older volcanics.

3,800

350

0-600

2,000,000

Unknown

6-3

Willow Creek Valley, Las-
sen County

A 20-squa re-mi 1 e basin
drained by Willow Creek.
Younger alluvium and younger
and older volcanics.

1,200

Unknown

6-4

Honey Lake Valley, Lassen
County

A 490-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Extends into
Nevada. Younger alluvium and
older volcanics.

2,100

900

0-750

16,000,000

Unknown

6-5

Tahoe Valley

6-5.01

Tahoe Valley — South, El
Dorado County

A 21 -square-mi 1 e basin
drained by the Upper Truckee
River. Younger alluvium.

130

20-100

84,000

Unknown

6-5.02

Tahoe Valley — North, Pla-
cer County

A 4-squdre-mile basin drained
by the Truckee River. Younger
alluvium

Unknown

Estimate
included
in 6-5.01

Unknown

6-6

Carson Valley, Alpine
County

A 20-square-mi le basin
drained by the Carson River.
Younger and older alluvium.

Unknown

20-120

100,000

Unknown

6-7

Antelope Valley, (Topaz
Valley) Mono County

A 36-squa re-mi 1 e basin
drained by West Walker River.
Younger alluvium.

Unknown

20-120

340,000

Unknown

6-8

Bridseport Valley, Mono
County

A 100-square-mile basin
drained by Robinson Creek and
the East Walker River. Younger
alluvium.

Unknown

20-120

280,000

Unknown

6-67

Martis Valley (Truckee Val-
ley), Nevada and Placer
Counties

A 25-square-mile basin
drained by the Truckee River.
Younger alluvium.

3,300

600

10-400

1,000,000

50,000

GROUND WATER RESOURCES

LAHONTAN

STUDY AREA

Development

Limited for irrigation, domestic, and stock use.
1974 pumpage has no long-term lowering effect
on the ground water levels. A potential for
moderate additional development.

Limited for irrigation, domestic, and stock use.
A potential for limited additional development.

Limited for irrigation, domestic and stock use.
A potential for moderate additional develop-
ment.

Moderate for irrigation, domestic, and stock
use. A potential for high additional develop-
ment.

Degree of knowledge

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water

quality.

References:
DWR 96, 97, 163; USGS 7

Limited for geology, hydrology and water
quality.

References:
DWR 96, 97, 156

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 96, 164

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 96, 97, 164; USGS 52

Problems

Poor quality waters in thermal artesian
wells and hot springs.

High TDS, excessive iron and boron
concentration. Two wells between Termo
and Madeline have excessively high chlo-
ride, sulfate and nitrate concentration.

None known.

High boron, TDS, fluoride arsenic, sulfate,
and percent sodium. Accumulation of salts
in basin most serious problem.

Limited for domestic use and irrigation of the
recreation areas (golf courses). A potential for
high additional development.

Limited for domestic use. A potential for
limited additional development.

Limited for irrigation and domestic use. A
potential for limited additional development.

Limited for irrigation and domestic use. A
potential for moderate additional development.

Limited for irrigation, domestic, and stock use.
A potential for moderate additional develop-
ment.

Moderate for municipal and domestic use.
Estimate safe yield 20,000 AFV. A potential for
moderate additional development.

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 161; USGS 21

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
USGS 21; Misc. 3

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 58

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 57; Misc. 1,2

Limited for geology, in north half, super-
ficial in south half. Superficial for hydrology
and water quality.
References:

DWR 145; Misc. 1, 2

Moderate in geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
Misc. 3, 14

None knovj^n.

None known.

Artesian wells in central portion of the
valley contain high boron and fluoride con-
centrations.

None known.

I I YOUNGER ALLUVIUM
HI OLDER ALLUVIUM

GROUND WATER BASINS - SOUTH LAHONTAN HYDROLOGIC STUDY ARE^

SOUTH LAHONTAN HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA

Ground Water Basins

No.

Old No.

6-9

6-10

6-11

6-12

6-13

6-14

6-15

6-16

6-17

6-18

6-19

6-20

6-21

6-22

6-23

6-24

6-25

6-26

6-27

6-28
6-29

6-30

6-31

6-32

6-33

6-34

6-35

6-36

6-37

6-38

6-39

6-40

6-41

6-42

6-43

6-44

Name

Mono Valley

Adobe Lake Valley. . . .

Long Valley

Owens Valley

Black Springs Valley. . . .

Fish Lake Valley

Deep Springs Valley

Eureka Valley

Saline Valley

Death Valley

Wingate Valley

Middle Amargosa Valley

Lower Kingston Valley. .

Upper Kingston Valley. . ,

Riggs Valley

Red Pass Valley

Bicycle Valley

Avawatz Valley

Leach Valley

Pahrump Valley

Mesquite Valley

Ivanpah Valley

Kelso Valley

Broadwell Valley

Soda Lake Valley

Silver Lake Valley

Cronise Valley

Langford Valley

Coyote Lake Valley

Caves Canyon Valley. . .

Troy Valley

Lower Mojave River

Valley
Middle Mojave River

Valley
Upper Mojave River

Valley
El Mirage Valley

Antelope Valley

County

No.

Mono

6-45

Mono

6-46

Mono

6-47

Inyo, Mono

Inyo

6-48

Inyo, Mono

Inyo

6-49

Inyo

6-50

Inyo, San

Bernardino

6-51

Inyo, San

Bernardino

6-52

Inyo, San

Bernardino

San

6-53

Bernardino

San

6-54

Bernardino

San

Bernardino

6-55

San

6-56

Bernardino

6-57

San

6-58

Bernardino

6-59

San

6-60

Bernardino

6-61

San

6-62

Bernardino

6-63

Inyo

6-64

Inyo, San

6-65

Bernardino

6-66

San

6-68

Bernardino

6-69

San

6-70

Bernardino

6-71

San

Bernardino

6-72

San

6-73

Bernardino

6-74

San

6-75

Bernardino

6-76

San

Bernardino

6-77

San

Bernardino

6-78

San

Bernardino

6-79

San

Bernardino

6-80

San

6-81

Bernardino

6-82

San

6-83

Bernardino

6-84

San

6-85

Bernardino

6-86

San

6-87

Bernardino

San

6-88

Bernardino

Kern, Los

6-89

Angeles,

San

6-90

Bernardino

Old No.

Name

Tehachapi Valley East. . . .

Fremont Valley

Harper Valley

Goldstone Valley

Superior Valley

Cuddeback Valley

Pilot Knob Valley

Searles Valley

Salt Wells Valley

Indian Wells Valley. ...

Coso Valley

Rose Valley

Darwin Valley

Panamint Valley

Granite Mountain Area.

Fish Slough Valley

Cameo Area

Race Track Valley

h-lidden Valley

Marble Canyon Area . . .
Cottonwood Spring Area

Lee Flat

Santa Rosa Flat

Kelso Lander Valley. . . .

Cactus Flat

Lost Lake Valley

Coles Flat

Wild Horse Mesa Area

Harrisburg Flats

Wildrose Canyon

Brown Mountain Valley

Grass Valley

Denning Spring Valley. .

California Valley

Middle Park Canyon . . .

Butte Valley

Spring Canyon Valley. .

Furnace Creek Area

Greenwater Valley

Gold Valley

Rhodes Hill Area

Butterbread Canyon

Valley
Owl Lake Valley

Kane Wash Area

Cady Fault Area

County

Kern
Kern
Kern, San

Bernardino
San

Bernardino
Inyo, Kern,

San

Bernardino
San

Bernardino
Inyo, Kern,

San

Bernardino
Inyo
Inyo
Inyo
Inyo
Mono
Inyo, Mono
Inyo
Inyo
Inyo
Inyo
Inyo
Inyo
Inyo
Kern
Inyo
San

Bernardino
Inyo
Inyo
Inyo
Inyo
San

Bernardino
San

Bernardino
Inyo, San

Bernardino
Inyo
Inyo
Inyo
Inyo
Inyo
Inyo
Inyo
Kern

San

Bernardino
San

Bernardino

Summary

The South Lahontan Hydrologic Study Area (HSA),
which IS primarily desert, is drained internally with no
outlet to the ocean. Three important rivers which flow
throughout the year, at least m their upper reaches, are
the Owens, Mojave, and Amargosa.

In the South Lahontan HSA, 81 ground water basins
and areas of potential ground water storage have been

identified. The inventory covers 55 ground water ba-
sins. These 55 basins, with a total area of about 13,600
square miles have been identified as significant
sources of ground water. The water-bearing deposits
range in thickness up to 2,000 feet.

Total storage capacity for 50 of the basins, within
selected depth intervals, is about 246.8 million acre-
feet. Usable storage capacity of two basins is estimat-
ed to be about 11.2 million acre-feet. One major limiting

INVENTORY OF

SOUTH

HYDROLOGIC

Basin name, county

Basin description;

size, major stream,

water bearing material

Well yields
in gpm

Depth
zone
in feet

Storage
capacity

in
acre-feet

Usable
capacity

Basin
number

Max.

Aver.

in
acre-feet

6-9

Mono Valley, Mono County

A 250-square-mile basin with
with internal drainage. Younger
alluvium and glacial deposits.

20-220

3,400,000

Unknown

6-10

Adobe Lake Valley, Mono
County

A 60-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger al-
luvium.

Unknown

20-120

320,000

Unknown

6-11

Long Valley, Mono County

A 120-square-mile basin con-
taining the head-waters of the
Owens River. Younger alluvium
and glacial deposits.

250

20-120

160,000

Unknown

6-12

Owens Valley, Inyo and
Mono Counties

A 1,030-square-mile basin
drained by the Owens River.
Younger and older alluvium,
and glacial deposits.

9,000

1,500-L

20-1,000

30,000,000

Unknown

6-13

Black Springs Valley, Inyo
County

A 50-square-mile basin trib-
utary to Owens Valley. Young-
er alluvium.

Unknown

20-120

230,000

Unknown

6-14

Fish Lake Valley, Inyo and
Mono Counties

A 70-square-mi 1 e basin
drained by Cottonwood Creek.
Extends into Nevada. Younger
and older alluvium.

Unknown

50-150

320,000

Unknown

6-15

Deep Springs Valley, Inyo
County

A 40-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger al-
luvium.

700

390

20-220

740,000

Unknown

6-16

Eureka Valley, Inyo County

A 160-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger and
older alluvium.

Unknown

100-300

2,070,000

Unknown

6-17

Saline Valley, Inyo County

A 210-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Waucoba
Wash main drainage channel.
Younger alluvium.

Unknown

20-220

2,430,000

Unknown

6-18

Death Valley, Inyo and San
Bernardino Counties

A 1,320-square-mile basin
with internal drainage. Major
drainage channels are Salt
Creek, Wingate Wash and
Amargosa River. Younger and
older alluvium.

Unknown

20-220

11,000,000

Unknown

factor affecting usable storage capacity is the occur-
rence of saline deposits within the sediments in nnany
of the ground water basins.

Ground water temperatures generally range from
about 50° to 86° F, but temperatures as high as 240°F
have been recorded in Coso Hot Springs. Although the
TDS content of the water varies considerably from
basin to basin and within some basins, much of the
water contains less than 600 mg/l. In Searles dry lake.
a soft playa. TDS of the brine is in excess of 400,000
mg/l. The fresh water supply for the valley is obtained

from springs flanking the valley and from imported
water.

Ground water in Owens Valley is pumped to meet
local water demands and for export to Los Angeles. An
environmental impact report is being processed on a
proposal to increase the long-term average pumping
yield to 130,000 acre-feet per year.

Valleys m which large volumes of ground water are
used are Antelope, Indian Wells, Fremont, and Upper.
Middle and Lower Moiave River.

GROUND WATER RESOURCES

LAHONTAN

STUDY AREA

Development

Desree of knowledge

Problems

Limited for domestic, industrial, and livestock
use. A limited potential for additional develop-
ment.

Limited for irrigation and domestic use. A
potential for limited additional development.

Limited for domestic, industrial, and irrigation
use. A potential for limited additional develop-
ment.

Limited for ground water export, irrigation,
industrial, livestock, and domestic use. A fiigh
potential for additional development.

Limited for livestock use. Insignificant use of
oround water. A potential for limited additional
development.

Limited for domestic, irrigation, and livestock
use. A potential for limited additional develop-
ment.

Limited for irrigation, domestic, and livestock
use. A potential for limited additional develop-

None. Althougfi not determined, may fiave a
fiigf> potential for development.

None. Altfiough not determined, may fiave a
high potential for development.

Limited for domestic and irrigation uses. A
potential for moderate to high additional devel-
opment. Major source of water from springs.

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR112, 155;USGS 59

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR112; Misc. 17

Moderate for geology in west and limited
in east. Limited for hydrology and water
quality.

References:

DWR 112, 181, 191

Limited to moderate for geology and water
quality. High for hydrology.
References:
DWR 112, 125, USGS 70; Misc. 20

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 112

Limited for geology, hydrology and water
quality.

References:
DWR 112; Misc. 4, 12

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.

References:
DWR 112

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 112

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 112

Limited for geology, hydrology and water
quality in center and superficial at ends.
References:
DWR 112; USGS 56, 64, 101

Locally, poor quality for domestic and
irrigation use. High TDS, boron and percent
sodium.

None known.

Locally poor quality for domestic and irri-
gation use. High fluoride, boron, percent
sodium, and arsenic from hot springs.

High fluoride, boron, and percent sodium.

None known.

Locally fluoride marginal for domestic use.

None known.

Locally fluoride, chloride, sulfate, and
TDS high for domestic use; boron and per-
cent sodium high for irrigation.

Locally poor quality for domestic and irri-
gation use. High fluoride, boron, chloride,
sulfate, TDS and percent sodium.

INVENTORY OF

SOUTH

HYDROLOGIC STUDY

Basin
number

Basin name, county

Basin description:

size, major stream,

water bearing material

Well yields
in gpm

Max.

Aver.

Depth
zone
in feet

Storase
capacity

in
acre-feet

Usable
capacity

in
acre-feet

6-19

6-20

6-22

6-23

6-24

6-26

6-29

6-30

6-31

6-32

Wingate Valley, Inyo and
San Bernardino Counties

Middle Amargosd Valley,
Inyo and San Bernardino Coun-
ties

Lower Kingston Valley, San
Bernardino County

Upper Kingston Valley, San
Bernardino County

Riggs Valley, San Bernardino
County

Red Pass Valley, San Bernar
dino County

Bicycle Valley, San Bernar-
dino County

Avdwatz Valley, San Bernar
dino County

Leach Valley, San Bernar-
dino County

Pdhrump Valley, Inyo County

Mesquite Valley, Inyo and
San Bernardino Counties.

Ivanpah Valley, San Bernar
dino County

Kelso Valley, San Bernardino
County

Broadwell Valley, San Ber-
nardino County

A 70-square-mi I e basin
drained by Wingate Wash.
Younger and older alluvium.

A 620-squdre-mile basin
drained by the Amargosa River.
Younger and older alluvium.

A 290-square-mi le basin
drained by unnamed streams.
Younger and older alluvium.

A 270-square-mi le basin
drained by Kingston Wash.
Younger alluvium.

A 100-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger al-
luvium.

A 1 50-square-mile basin
drained by unnamed streams.
Younger and older alluvium.

A 120-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger al-
luvium.

A 70-square-m 1 1 e basin
drained by unnamed streams.
Younger alluvium.

A 70-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger and
older alluvium.

A 400-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Extends into
Nevada. Younger alluvium.

A 120-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger al-

A 300-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Extends into
Nevada. Younger alluvium.

A 370-square-mile basin
drained by Kelso Wash. Young-
er and older alluvium.

A 1 20-square-mile basin
drained by unnamed streams.
Younger alluvium.

Unknown

3,000

Unknown

2,500

Unknown

100-300

Unknown

Unknov

1,500

370

Unknown

Unkn

Unknown

150

1,020

870,000

6,800,000

3,390,000

2,130,000

Unknown

1,190,000 Unknown

100-300

Unknown

100-300

20-220

870,000

1,700,000

580,000

650,000

690,000

580,000

Unknown

Unknov

Unknown

3,090,000 Unknown

5,340,000

1,220,000

Unknown

GROUND WATER RESOURCES

tAHONTAN

AREA — Continued

Development

None. May have a potential for limited to
moderate additional development.

Limited for domestic, irrigation, and industrial
use. A potential for moderate to higfi additional
development.

None. A potential for moderate to high addi-
tional development.

Limited for domestic and livestock use. A po-
tential for moderate additional development.

None. A potential for limited additional
development.

None. A potential for limited addition
development.

Limited for military use. A potential for limited
additional development.

None. A limited potential for additional de-
velopment.

None. A potential for limited additional
development.

Limited irrigation and domestic use. A poten-
tial for limited additional development.

Limited for irrigation and domestic use. A
potential for limited additional development.

Limited for industrial, irrigation, domestic, and
stock use. A potential for moderate additional
development.

Limited for domestic, irrigation, and industrial
use. A potential for moderate to high additional
development.

Limited for domestic and irrigation use. A po-
tential for limited additional development.

Degree of knowledge

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 1 1 2

Limited for geology, hydrology, water
quality.

References:
DWR 112; USBR 16; Misc. 19

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 112

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 112

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 112

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 112

Limited for geology and superficial for
hydrology and water quality.
References:
DWR 112; USGS61

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DMG 3;USGS 118

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 112; uses 118

Moderate for geology. Limited for hydrol-
ogy and water quality.
References:
DWR 42, 112; USGS 78, 127

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 42, 112; USGS 127; Misc. 5.

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 94, 112; USGS 127

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 112

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 87, 112

Proble

None known.

Locally poor quality for domestic and irri-
gation use. High fluoride, boron, sulfate, and
percent sodium.

Locally poor quality for domestic and iri-
gation use.

Locally spring water is of poor quality for
irrigation and domestic use. High fluoride,
boron, chloride, TDS, sulfate, and percent
sodium.

None known.

Locally unsuitable for domestic and irriga-
tion use.

Poor quality.

Locally unsuitable for beneficial use.

Locally poor quality for domestic use.

INVENTORY OF

SOUTH

HYDROLOGIC STUDY

Basin name, county

Basin description:

size, major stream,

water bearing material

Well yields
in gpm

Depth
zone
in feet

Storage
capacity

in
acre-feet

Usable
capacity

Basin
number

Max.

Aver.

in
acre-feet

6-33

Soda Lake Valley, San Ber-
nardino County

A 590-square-m i le basin
drained by the Mojave River.
Younger alluvium.

2,100

1,100

20-220

9,300,000

Unknown

6-34

Silver Lake Valley, San Ber-
nardino County

A 40-square-mile basin witfi
internal drainage. Younger al-
luvium.

Unknown

50-250

380,000

Unknown

6-35

Cronise Valley, San Bernar-
dino County

A 150-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger and
older alluvium.

600

340

20-220

1,000,000

Unknown

6-36

Langford Valley, San Bernar-
dino County

A 50-square-mi le basin
drained by unnamed streams.
Younger and older alluvium.

690

410

100-300

760,000

Unknown

6-37

Coyote Lake Valley, San
Bernardino County

A 150-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger and
older alluvium.

1,740

660

1961 water
level to
base of

fresh water-
bearing
unit

7,530,000

Unknown

6-38

Caves Canyon Valley, San
Bernardino County

A 1 00-square-mi le basin
drained by the Mojave River.
Younger and older alluvium.

300

Unknown

1961 water
level to
base of

fresh water-
bearing
unit

4,152,000

Unknown

6-39

Troy Valley, San Bernardino
County

A 130-square-mile basin with
drainage tributary to the Mojave
River. Younger alluvium.

1,700

300

20-220

2,170,000

Unknown

6-40

Lower Mojave River Valley,
San Bernardino County

A SOO-square-mile basin
drained by the Mojave River.
Younger and older alluvium.

1,700

560

20-220

5,100,000

Unknown

6-41

Middle Mojave River Valley,
San Bernardino County

A 430-square-mile basin
drained by the Mojave River.
Younger and older alluvium.

1,500

500

1961
water
level to
base of
water-
bearing
unit.

8,048,000

3,000,000+
(Ground
surface to
1961
water
level)

6-42

Upper Mojave River Valley,
San Bernardino County

A 600-square-mile basin
drained by the Mojave River.
Younger and older alluvium.

3,600

630

1961

water
level to
base of
water-
bearing
unit.

26,532,000

8,200,000 -f
(Ground
surface to
1961
water
level)

6-43

El Mirage Valley, San Ber-
nardino County

A 120-square-mile basin
drained by Sheep Creek.
Younger and older alluvium.

1,000

230

20-220

1,760,000

Unknown

GROUND WATER RESOURCES

LAHONTAN

AREA — Continued

Development

Limited for municipal, irrigation, industrial
and domestic use. A potential for moderate to
high additional development.

Limited for domestic use. A potential for
imited additional development.

None. A potential for limited to moderate
additional development.

Limited for military use. A potential for
limited additional development.

Limited for irrigation and domestic use. A poten-
tial for moderate to high additional develop-
ment.

Limited for domestic use. A potential for
noderate additional development.

Limited for domestic, irrigation and industrial
use. A potential for moderate additional devel-
opment.

Moderate for municipal, and irrigation use.
Limited for domestic and industrial use. Recharge
under 1960-61 cultural conditions, 5,600 AF.
A potential for moderate additional develop-
ment.

Moderate for irrigation use. Limited for
municipal, industrial, and domestic use. Recharge
under 1960-61 cultural conditions 21,900 AF.
1960-61 extractions, 32,000 AF. A potential
for moderate to high additional development.

Moderate for irrigation, military, and munici-
pal use. Limited for domestic and industrial use.
Recharge under 1960-61 cultural conditions.
43.600 AF: extractions 57,000 AF. A poten-
tial for moderate additional development.

Limited for irrigation, industrial, and domestic
use. A potential for moderate additional de-
velopment.

Degree of knowledge

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 86, 1 1 2

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 86, 112

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR112,USGS61

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 71, 83, 112; USGS61

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 71, 83, 112

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality in west, superficial in east.
References:
DWR 71, 83, 112; USGS47

Moderate for geology, hydrology, and
water quality in west and limited in east.
References:

DWR 20, 71, 83, 11 2; USBR 13; USGS 47,
55, 112

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:

DWR 20, 71, 74, 76, 112; USBR 13;
USGS 47

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 20, 71, 74, 112; USBR 13; USGS 47

Superficial for geology and limited for
hydrology, and water quality.
References:
DWR 112; USGS 6

Proble

Locally fluoride and TDS high for domestic
use; percent sodium high for irrigation use.

Locally water quality unsuitable for
domestic and irrigation use.

Poor quality locally for domestic and irri-
gation use.

Locally fluoride and iron high for domestic
use.

Locally fluoride and TDS high for domestic
use. Quality poor for irrigation.

Locally quality poor for domestic use.

Locally quality poor for domestic and irri-
gation use.

Large area downstream of Barstow of poor
quality for domestic use. Overdraft.

Locally quality poor for domestic and
rrigation use. Overdraft.

Locally quality poor for domestic use.
Overdraft.

Locally quality poor for domestic and irri-
gation use.

INVENTORY OF

SOUTH

HVDROLOGIC STUDY

Basin name, county

Basin description:

size, major stream,

water bearing material

Well yields
in gpm

Depth
zone
in feet

Storage
capacity

in
acre-feet

Usable
capacity

Basin
number

Max.

Aver.

in
acre-feet

6-44

Antelope Valley, Kern, Los
Angeles, and San Bernardino
Counties

A 1,620-square-mile basin
with primarily internal drainage.
Major drainage channels are
Littlerock and Big Rock Creeks.
Younger and older alluvium.

3,250

770

Average

ground

surface

elevation

to base of

fresh

water

70,000,000

-f Unknown

6-45

Tehachapi Valley-East, Kern
County

A 20-square-mi le basin
drained by Cache Creek.
Younger alluvium.

2,500

1,500

100-^300

138,000

Unknown

6-46

Fremont Valley, Kern County

A 330-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger and
older alluvium.

2,580

530

20-220

4,800,000

Unknown

6-47

Harper Valley, Kern and San
Bernardino Counties

A 510-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger allu-
vium.

3,000

725

1961
water
level to
base of
fresh
water

6,975,000

Unknown

6-48

Goldstone Valley, San Ber-
nardino County

A 30-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger allu-
vium.

Unknown

100-300

210,000

Unknown

6-49

Superior Valley, San Bernar-
dino County

Al70-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger allu-
vium.

450

100

100-300

1,750,000

Unknown

6-50

Cuddeback Valley, San Ber-
nardino County

A 1 30-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger allu-
vium.

550

300

100-300

1,380,000

Unknown

6-51

Pilot Knob Valley, San Ber-
nardino County

A 200-square-mile basin
drained by unnamed streams.
Younger and older alluvium.

550

300

100-300

2,460,000

Unknown

6-52

Searles Valley, Inyo, Kern,
and San Bernardino Counties

A 250-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger and
older alluvium.

1,000

300

20-220

2,140,000

Unknown

6-53

Salt Wells Valley, San Ber-
nardino County

A 30-square-mile basin
drained by unnamed streams.
Younger alluvium.

Unknown

20-220

320,000

Unknown

6-54

Indian Wells Valley, Inyo,
Kern, and San Bernardino
Counties

A 520-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger and
older alluvium.

3,800

815

20-220

5,120,000

Unknown

6-55

Coso Valley, Inyo County

A 50-square-mi le basin
drained by unnamed streams.
Younger alluvium.

Unknown

20-250

390,000

Unknown

GROUND WATER RESOURCES

LAHONTAN

AREA — Cenlinucd

Development

Degree of knowledge

Problems

Intensive for irrigation and municipal use.
Moderate for military and industrial use. Limited
for domestic and recreation use. Safe yield about
58 000 AFY. 1970 extractions about 200,000
AF^. A potential for moderate to high additional
development.

Moderate to intensive for irrigation use.
Moderate for industrial. Limited for domestic
and municipal use. A potential for limited addi-
tional development.

Moderate for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:

DWR 43, 79, 85, 112; SWRCB 2,- USGS
13, 31, 71

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 112; Misc. 9

Moderate for irrigation use, and limited for 1 Moderate for geology, hydrology, and
domestic and industrial use. A potential for ( water quality,
moderate additional development. I References:

D^X'R 77, 89, 112; USGS 13, 19, 31

Moderate for irrigation use and limited for in-
dustrial and domestic use. A potential for
moderate to high additional development.

Limited for military use. A potential for
moderate additional development.

Limited for domestic and stock use. A poten-
tial for moderate additional development.

Limited for military use. A potential
moderate to high additional development.

for

Limited for military use. A potential for
moderate additional development.

Moderate to high for industrial use (extrac-
tion of salts). Limited for domestic use. Water
imported from Indian Wells Valley. A potential
for limited additional development.

None. A potential for limited additional
development.

Moderate for municipal and irrigation use.
Limited for domestic and industrial use. Natural
recharge about 10,000 AFY. 1968 extractions
about 12,500 AF. A potential for limited addi-
tional development.

None. A potential for limited additional de-
velopment.

Superficial for geology. Limited for hydrol-
ogy and water quality.
References:
DWR 92, 1 1 2

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 92, 1 1 2

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 92, 112

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 92, 1 1 2

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 90, 112

Moderate for geology and hydrology in
center and superficial at ends. Limited for
water quality.

References:

DWR 90, 112; USBR 15; USGS 48

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 90, 112

Moderate for geology, hydrology and
water quality in center and superficial at ends.
References:
DWR 82, 112; USGS 14, 36,65

Superficial for geology, hydrology and
water quality.

References:
DWR 82, 112; USGS 65

Locally quality poor for irrigation and
domestic use. Overdraft. Failing septic tanks.

Locally fluoride high for domestic use.

Locally poor quality for domestic and irri-
gation use.

Locally poor quality for irrigation and
domestic use.

Locally poor quality for domestic and irri-
gation use.

Locally poor quality for domestic and
irrigation use.

Locally poor quality for domestic use.

Locally poor quality for domestic and irri
gation use.

Locally poor quality for domestic and
irrigation use.

Locally poor quality for domestic and irri-
gation use. High chloride, boron, and TDS.

None known.

INVENTORY OF

SOUTH

HYDROLOGIC STUDY

Basin name, county

Basin description:

size, major stream,

water bearing material

Well yields
in gpm

Depth
zone
in feet

Storage
capacity

in
acre-feet

Usable
capacity

Basin
number

Max.

Aver.

in
acre-feet

6-56

Rose Valley, Inyo County

A 60-square-mile basin
drained by unnamed streams.
Younger alluvium.

2,700

Unknown

20-220

820,000

Unknown

6-57

Darwin Valley, Inyo County

A 70-square-mi 1 e basin
drained by Darwin Wash.
Younger alluvium.

130

100-300

400,000

Unknown

6-58

Panamint Valley, Inyo County

A 360-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger and
older alluvium.

20-220

3,400,000

Unknown

6-69

Kelso Lander Valley, Kern
County

A 1 7-square-m 1 1 e basin
drained by Cottonwood Creek.
Younger alluvium.

Unknown

6-71

Lost Lake Valley, San Ber-
nardino County

A 30-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger and
older alluvium.

Unknown

6-76

Brown Mountain Valley, San
Bernardino County

A 30-square-mile basin
drained by unnamed streams.
Younger and older alluvium.

Unknown

6-11

Grass Valley, San Bernardino
County

A 30-square-mile basin
drained by unnamed streams.
Younger alluvium.

Unknown

6-79

California Valley, Inyo and
San Bernardino Counties

A 60-square-mile basin
drained by unnamed streams.
Younger and older alluvium.

Unknown

GROUND WATER RESOURCES

LAHONTAN

AREA — Continued

Development

Moderate for asriculture. Limited for domes-
tic and industrial use. A potential for limited
additional development.

Limited for domestic and mining use. A po-
tential for limited additional development.

Limited for domestic use. A potential for
moderate to high additional development.

Limited for industrial, domestic, and livestock
use. 1963 extractions estimated at 5 AF. A po-
tential for limited additional development.

None. A potential for limited additional de-
velopment.

Limited for livestock use. A potential for
limited additional development.

Limited for domestic, mining and livestock use.
A potential for limited additional development.

Degree of knowledge

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 82, 112;USGS65

Superficial for geology
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 112

Superficial for geology
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 90, 112

Superficial for geology,
water quality.

References:
DWR 112

Superficial for geology,
water quality.

References:
DWR 112

Superficial for geology,
water quality.

References:
DWR 112

Superficial for geology
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 112

Superficial for geology
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR112;DMG 2, 3

and hydrology.

hydrology, and

and hydrology.

Problems

Locally poor quality for domestic use.

None known.

Locally poor quality for domestic and irri
gation use.

Locally fluoride and IDS high for domestic

None known.

Locally fluoride marginal for domestic use.

Lcg,cnd

Q YOUNGER ALLUVIUM
OLDER ALLUVIUM

GROUND WATER BASINS - COLORADO DESERT HYDROLOGIC STUDY ARE)

COLORADO DESERT HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA

Ground Water Basins

No.

Old No.

7-1
7-2
7-3

7-5
7-6

7-8
7-9

7-10

7-11

7-12

7-13

7-14

7-15

7-16

7-17

7-18

7-19

7-20

7-21

7-22
7-23
7-24
7-25

7-26
7-27

Name

Lanfdir Valley

Fenner Valley

Ward Valley

Rice Valley

Chuckwalla Valley

Pinto Valley

Cadiz Valley

Bristol Valley

Dale Valley

Twentynine Palms Valley

Copper Mountain Valley

Warren Valley

Deadman Valley

Lavic Valley

Bessemer Valley

Ames Valley . .

Means Valley

Johnson Valley

Lucerne Valley

Morongo Valley

Coachella Valley

West Salton Sea Basin. . .

Clark Valley

Borrego Valley

Ocotillo Valley

Terwilliger Valley

San Felipe Valley

County

No.

San

Bernardino
San

Bernardino
Riverside,

San

Bernardino
Riverside,

San

Bernardino
Imperial,

Riverside
Riverside,

San

Bernardino
Riverside,

San

Bernardino
San

Bernardino
Riverside,

San

Bernardino
San

Bernardino
Imperial,

Riverside
Imperial
San Diego
San Diego
Imperial,

San Diego
Riverside
San Diego

7-28

7-29

7-30
7-31
7-32
7-33

7-34
7-35
7-36
7-37

7-38

7-39

7-40
7-41

7-42

7-43

7-44

7-45

7-46

7-52
7-53
7-54
7-55

7-56
7-57
7-58
7-59
7-60

7-61

Old No.

Name

County

Vallecito-Carrizo Valley.

Coyote Wells Valley. ...

Imperial Valley

Orcopia Valley

Chocolate Valley

East Salton Sea Basin

Amos Valley

Ogilby Valley

Yuma Valley

Arroyo Seco Valley

Palo Verde Valley

Palo Verde Mesa

Quien Sabe Point Valley.
Calzona Valley

Vidal Valley

Chemehuevi Valley

Needles Valley

Piute Valley

Canebrake Valley

Jacumba Valley

hielendale Fault Valley . .

Pipes Canyon Fault Valley

Iron Ridge Area

Lost FHorse Valley

Pleasant Valley

Hexie Mountain Area. . .
Buck Ridge Fault Valley .
Collins Valley

Yaqui Well Area

Pinyon Wash Area

Whale Peak Area

Mason Valley

Jacumba Valley-East

Davies Valley

Imperial,

San Diego
Imperial,

San Diego
Imperial
Riverside
Riverside
Imperial,

Riverside
Imperial
Imperial
Imperial
Imperial,

Riverside
Imperial,

Riverside
Riverside
Riverside,

San

Bernardino
Riverside,

San

Bernardino
San

Bernardino
San Diego
San Diego
San

Bernardino
San

Bernardino
Riverside,

San

Bernardino
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside,

San Diego
San Diego
San Diego
San Diego
San Diego
Imperial,

San Diego
Imperial

Summary

The Colorado Desert Hydrologic Study Area (HSA),
includes basins tributary to the Colorado and
Whitewater Rivers and numerous smaller drainage
channels, some of which drain internally. The
Whitewater. New. and Alamo Rivers, and San Felipe
Creek are the larger channels draining into the Salton
Sea.

In the HSA, 61 ground water basins and areas of

potential ground water storage have been identified.
The inventory covers 46 ground water basins. These 46
basins, with a total area of about 12,500 square miles,
have been identified as significant sources of ground
water. The water-bearing deposits range m thickness
up to 2,800 feet. In some basins flowing wells have
been recorded.

Total storage capacity of 42 basins at selected depth
intervals is about 162.8 million acre-feet. The estimated
usable storage capacity in 7 basins is about 10.3 million
acre-feet.

INVENTORY OF

COLORADO

HYDROLOGIC

Basin
number

Basin name, county

Basin description:

size, major stream,

water bearing material

Well yields
in gpm

Max

Aver.

Depth
zone
in feet

Storase
capacity

in
acre-feet

Usable
capacity

in
acre-feet

7-1

7-3

7-9

Lanfair Valley, San Bernar-
dino County

Fenner Valley, San Bernar-
dino County

Ward Valley, Riverside and
San Bernardino Counties

Rice Valley, Riverside and
San Bernardino Counties

Chuckwalla Valley, Imperial
and Riverside Counties

Pinto Basin, Riverside and
San Bernardino Counties

Cadiz Valley, Riverside and
San Bernardino Counties

Bristol Valley, San Bernar-
dino County

Dale Valley, San Bernardino
County

A 280-square-mile basin
drained by unnamed streams.
Younger alluvium.

A 720-square-mile basin
drained by unnamed streams.
Younger and older alluvium.

A 770-square-mile basin.
Drainage internal under low
surface water flows. Younger
alluvium.

A 300-square-mile basin
drained by unnamed streams.
Younger alluvium.

A 870-square-mile basin.
Drainage internal under lowsur-
face water flows. Younger allu-
vium.

A 310-square-mile basin
drained by unnamed streams.
Younger alluvium.

A 430-square-mile basin.
Drainage internal under low
surface water flows. Younger
alluvium.

A 710-square-milebasin with
internal drainage. Younger and
older alluvium.

A260-square-milebasin with
internal drainage. Younger allu-
vium.

100-300

150-350

3,000,000 Unknown

3,900

1,480

Unknown

1,800

100-300

20-220

5,600,000

8,700,000

2,280,000

9,100,000

230,000

4,300,000

7,000,000

2,000,000

Unknown

900,030
400-foot
pumplift,
100 feet
of saturated
sediments

1 30,000
400-foot
pumplift,
100 feet of
saturated
sediments.

Unknowti

Unknown

Unknov

Ground water temperatures range fronn about 60° to
about 90°F; however, a temperature in excess of 200°F
has been recorded in a well m Coachella Valley. The
TDS content of the water varies considerably from
basin to basm. In most basins it is less than 600 mg/l.
In other basins the dissolved solids content ranges into
thousands of milligrams per liter. The highest recorded
content is 304.000 mg/l.

The predominant character of the water is sodium
sulfate or sodium chloride, but significant quantities of

calcium and bicarbonate are also present at some
places.

Coachella Valley is one of the most highly developed
ground water basins in the study area. In 1970, applied
ground water for irrigation of 6.600 acres was 41.100
acre-feet. Urban use by the resident population of 103.-
700 during the same period amounted to 45,300 acre-
feet. In addition, about 350,000 acre-feet of Colorado
River is used each year, primarily for irrigation.

Ground water extractions in the HSA are estimated
at about 185,000 acre-feet.

GROUND WATER RESOURCES

DESERT

STUDY AREA

Degree of knowledge

Problems

Limited for livestock and domestic use. Nat-
ural recharge about 1800 AFV. Extractions
negligible. A potential for limited to moderate
additional development.

Limited for livestock, domestic and industrial
use. Natural recharge estimated at about 3000
AFV. 1952 extractions estimated at about 7.0
AF. A potential for limited to moderate addi-
tional development.

Limited for livestock and domestic use. Nat-
ural recharge estimated at about 2700 AFV.
1952 extractions estimated at about 2 AF. A
potential for moderate additional development.

Limited for domestic use. Natural recharge
estimated at about 500 AFV. 1952 extractions
estimated at about 1 AF. A potential (or limited
to moderate additional development.

Limited for agriculture and domestic use. 1952
extractions 11 AF. A potential for limited to
moderate additional development.

Limited for domestic and industrial use. 1952
extractions estimated at about 320 AF. A po-
tential for limited to moderate additional de-
velopment.

Limited for domestic use. Natural recharge
estimated at about 800 AFV. 1952 extractions
about 1 AF. A potential for moderate to high
additional development.

Limited for domestic and moderate for indus-
trial use. Natural recharge estimated at about
2100 AFV. 1952 extractions about 11 AF. A
potential for limited to moderate additional de-
velopment.

Limited for domestic, irrigation, and industrial
use. Natural recharge estimated at about 900
AFV. 1952 extractions about 1 AF. A poten-
tial for limited to moderate additional develop-
ment.

Superficial for geology and limited for
hydrology and water quality.
References:
DWR 40, 42, USGS 117

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 40, 42

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 40, 87

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 40, 81

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 40, 42, 80; USBR 18

Limited for geology and hydrology in east
and superficial in west. Limited for water
quality.

References:

DWR 40, USBR 18; USGS 63

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 40, 87

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 40, 78; USBR 14

Locally water high in sulfate and TDS, un-
suitable for domestic use. Locally unsuitable
for irrigation use.

None known.

Locally TDS, sulfate, fluoride, and chloride,
high for domestic use. Saline water near
Danby dry lake. Locally unsuitable for irri-
gation use.

Locally chloride, TDS, fluoride, and sul-
fate high for domestic use; boron high for
irrigation use.

Locally sulfate, chloride, fluoride, and
TDS high for domestic use; boron, TDS, and
percent sodium high for irrigation use.

Locally fluoride high for domestic use;
percent sodium high for Irrigation use.

Poor quality in the vicinity of Cadiz dry
lake.

Poor quality northwest of Bristol dry lake.
f-Hiqh fluorides along northeast boundary of
valley.

Poor quality in the vicinity of Dale dry lake.

INVENTOI

COLOI

HyOROLOGIC S

T
inc

wi-

Che

Cr«
Se;

Basin name, county

Basin description:

size, major stream,

water bearing material

Well yields
in gpm

Depth
zone
in feet

Storage
capacity

in
acre-feet

Basin
number

Max.

Aver.

7-10

Twentynine Palms Valley,
San Bernardino County

A 1 80-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger al-
luvium.

600

220

20-220

1,420,000

7-11

Copper Mountain Valley,
San Bernardino County

AllO-square-milebasin with
internal drainage. Younger allu-
vium.

525

300

20-220

830,000

7-12

Warren Valley, San Bernar-
dino County

A 20-square-mi le basin
drained by unnamed streams.
Younger alluvium.

550

290

20-220

180,000

7-13

Deadman Valley, San Ber-
nardino County

A160-square-milebasin with
internal drainage. Younger allu-
vium.

Unknown

20-220

1,270,000

7-20

7-22

Lavic Valley, San Bernardino
County

Bessemer Valley, San Bernar
dino County

Ames Valley, San Bernardino
County

Means Valley, San Bernar-
dino County

Johnson Valley, San Bernar-
dino County

Lucerne Valley, San Bernar-
dino County

Morongo Valley, San Bernar-
dino County

Coachella Valley, Imperial
and Riverside Counties

West Salton Sea Basin, In
perial County

A 40-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger allu-
vium.

A 85-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger al-
luvium.

A 1 50-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger al-
luvium.

A 25-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger al-
luvium.

A 1 50-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger al-
luvium.

A 260-square-mile basin with
internal drainage. Younger al-
luvium.

A 1 4-square-mile basin
drained by Big Morongo Creek.
Younger alluvium.

A 690-square-mile basin
drained by the Whitewater
River. Younger and older allu-
vium.

A 190-square-mile basin ad-
joining the west shore of Salton
Sea. Younger and older allu-
vium.

Unknown

2,500

Unknown

20-220

1961
water
levels to
base of
water-
bearing
unit.

20-220

270,000

740,000

1,200,000

260,000

1,300,000

4,736,000

100,000

100-1000 39,000,000

Unknown

Unknown Ui

3,6

GROUND WATER RESOURCES

DESERT

AREA — Continued

Development

Degree of knowledge

Proble

Limited to moderate for domestic use. Nat-
ural recharge estimated at about 300 AFY. 1952
extractions 760 AF. A potential for limited to
moderate additional development.

Moderate for domestic use. Natural recharge
estimated at about 1100 AFV. 1969 extractions
about 450 AF. A potential for moderate addi-
tional development.

Limited for irrigation and domestic use. Nat-
ural recharge estimated at about 500 AFY. 1969
extractions about 1500 AF. A potential for
limited additional development.

Limited for domestic use. Natural recharge
estimated at about 400 AFY. Water exported to
Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Base. A poten-
tial for moderate additional development.

Limited for domestic use. Natural recharge
estimated at about 300 AFY. A potential for
moderate additional development.

No development. Natural recharge estimated
at about 300 AFY. A potential for limited to
moderate additional development.

Limited for domestic use. Natural recharge
estimated at about 700 AFY. A potential for
moderate additional development.

Limited for livestock use. Natural recharge
estimated at about 100 AFY. A potential for
limited additional development.

Limited for livestock, irrigation, and domes-
tic use. Natural recharge estimated at about
2300 AFY. 1952 extractions about 62 AF. A
potential tor limited to moderate additional
development.

Moderate for irrigation, domestic, and live-
stock use. Recharge under 1960 61 cultural
conditions 5700 AFY 1960-61 extractions
12,000 AF. A potential for limited to moderate
additional development.

Moderate for domestic use. Natural recharge
estimated at about 800 AFY. 1952 extractions
about 230 AF. A potential for limited addi-
tional development.

Moderate to high for municipal and irrigation
use. Limited for domestic use. Natural recharge
estimated at about 80,000 AFY. 1952 extrac-
tions about 177,000 AF. A potential for limited
additional development.

Limited for domestic use. A potential for
limited additional development.

Superficial to limited for geology and
hydrology and limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 40, 75; USBR 14; USGS 44, 110

Limited for geology, hydrology, and v/ater
quality.

References:
DWR 40, 75; USBR 14; USGS 72

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 40, 75; USBR 14; USGS 72

Limited for geology, hydrology and water
quality in west and superficial in east.
References:
DWR 40, 75; USBR 14, USGS 72

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 40, 87

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 40; USBR 14; USGS 109

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.

References:
DWR 40, 75; USBR 14; USGS 72

Limited for geology and hydrology. Super-
ficial for water quality.
References:
DWR 40, 75; USBR 14; USGS 72, 109

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 40, USBR 14; USGS 72, 109

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 40, 71; USGS 5, 109

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 40; USBR 14; USGS 5, 109

Intensive for geology, hydrology and water
quality in center, moderate in ends.
References:

DWR 40, 115,1 80; USGS 1 5, 32, 89, 1 20,
121

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.

References:
DWR 40

Locally fluoride high for domestic use.

Failing septic tanks.

Poor quality vicinity of Deadman dry lake.

Locally TDS high for domestic use.

None known.

Locally unsuitable for domestic and irri-
gation use. FHigh TDS, fluoride, and chloride.

None known.

Sulfate high for domestic use.

Locally TDS, nitrate, chloride, sulfate, and
fluoride high for domestic use; TDS and
boron high for irrigation use. Overdraft.

None known.

Locally fluoride, sulfate, and TDS high for
domestic use; boron high for irrigation. Poor
quality semi-perched water. Overdraft.

Locally quality marginal to unacceptable
for irrigation use and unacceptable for
domestic use.

INVENTORy OF

COLORADO

HYDROLOGIC STUDY

Basin
number

7-23

7-25

7-29

7-33

7-35

Basin name, county

Clark Valley, San Diego
County

Borrego Valley, San Diego
County

Ocotillo Valley, Imperial
and San Diego Counties

Terwilliger Valley, Riverside
County

San Felipe Valley, San Diego
County

Vallecito-Carrizo Valley, Im-
perial and San Diego Counties

Coyote Wells Valley, Im-
perial and San Diego Counties

Imperial Valley, Imperial
County

Orocopia Valley, Riverside
County

Chocolate Valley, Riverside
County

East Salton Sea Basin, Im-
perial and Riverside Counties

Amos Valley, Imperial County

Ogilby Valley, Imperial
County

Basin description:

size, major stream,

water bearing material

A 40-square-mile basin with
internal drainage under low sur-
face water flow. Younger and
older alluvium.

A 110-square-mile basin
drained by Coyote Creek.
Younger and older alluvium.

A 410-square-mile basin
drained by San Felipe Creek.
Younger and older alluvium.

A 1 0-square-mi I e basin
drained by Coyote Creek. Old-
er alluvium.

A 40-square-mile basin
drained by San Felipe Creek.
Younger alluvium.

A 200-square-mile basin
drained by Vallecito and Car-
rizo Creeks. Younger and older
alluvium.

A 100-square-mile basin
drained by Palm Canyon Wash.
Younger and older alluvium.

A 1,870-square-mile basin
drained to the Salton Sea via
the New and Alamo Rivers.
Younger and older alluvium.

A 1 40-square-mile basin
drained by Box Canyon Wash.
Younger and older alluvium.

A 120-square-mile basin
drained by Salt Creek. Younger
and older alluvium.

A 150-square-mile basin
drained by Salt Creek. Younger
and older alluvium.

A 220-square-mile basin
drained by unnamed streams.
Younger alluvium.

A 220-square-mlle basin
drained by unnamed streams.
Younger alluvium.

Well yields
in gpm

Max.

3,000

1,800

Unknown

1,000

Aver.

900

Unknown

Depth
zone
in feet

Storage
capacity

in
acre-feet

450,000

1,300,000

5,800,000

Unknown

2,500,000

1,700,000

14,000,000

Usable
capacity

in
acre-feet

300,000

1,000,000

1,900,000

Unknown

200-400 1,500,000 Unknown

1,000,000

360,000

2,900,000

Unknown

GROUND WATER RESOURCES

DESERT

AREA — Continued

Development

Degree of knowledge

Problems

Limited for domestic use. Natural recharge
estimated at about 1200 AFY. A potential for
limited to moderate additional development.

Moderate for irrigation and domestic use.
Natural recharge estimated at about 3200 AFV.
1952 extractions about 10,400 AF. A potential
for limited to moderate additional development.

Limited for irrigation and domestic use. Nat-
ural recharge estimated at about 1100 AFY.
1952 extractions about 3 AF. A potential for
limited additional development.

Limited for irrigation and domestic use. Nat-
ural recharge estimated at about 400 AFY. 1952
extractions about 1900 AF. A potential for
limited additional development.

Limited for livestock and domestic use. 1952
extractions about 38 AF. A potential for limited
additional development.

Limited for domestic and livestock use. A po-
tential for moderate to high additional develop-
ment.

Limited for domestic use. Natural recharge
estimated at about 300 AFY. 1952 extractions
about 1 AF. A potential for moderate to high
additional development.

Limited for livestock, domestic and irrigation
use. Natural recharge estimated at about 3300
AFY. 1952 extractions about 300 AF. A poten-
tial for moderate additional development.

Limited for domestic and irrigation use. Nat-
ural recharge estimated at about 500 AFY. A
potential for moderate additional development.

No development. Natural recharge estimated
at about 200 AFY. A potential for moderate
additional development.

Limited for domestic use. Natural recharge
estimated at about 200 AFY. 1952 extractions
about 6 AF. A potential for limited additional
development.

Limited for domestic and industrial use. Nat-
ural recharge estimated at about 250 AFY. A
potential for moderate additional development.

Limited for domestic and industrial use. Nat-
ural recharge estimated at about 250 AFY. 1952
J. extractions about 9 AF. A potential for moder-
' ate additional development.

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 40, 88; USSR 17

Superficial for geology. Limited for hydrol-
ogy and water quality.
References:
DWR 40, 88,USBR 17

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 40, 88;USBR 17

Superficial for geology, hydrology, and
water quality.

References:
DWR 40; DMG 6

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 40, 88

Limited for geology, hydrology and water
quality.

References:
DWR 40, 192

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 40, 135;USGS 35

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 40; DMG 4

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 40; DMG 4, 9

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 40; DMG 9

Locally unsuitable for domestic and irri-
gation use. High fluoride, TDS, and percent
sodium.

Locally magnesium, nitrate, fluoride, sul-
fate, chloride, and TDS high for domestic use;
percent sodium, TDS and chloride high for
irrigation use.

Locally chloride, fluoride, sulfate, and
TDS high for domestic use; percent sodium,
TDS and chloride high for irrigation use.

Locally quality unsuitable for domestic and
irrigation use.

Locally chloride, sulfate and TDS high for
domestic use; chloride and TDS high for irri-
gation use.

Locally, magnesium, sulfate, chloride,
fluoride, and TDS high for domestic use;
percent sodium high for irrigation use.

Locally poor quality for domestic and irri-
gation use.

Large areas of poor quality water un-
suited for domestic and irrigation use. Failing
septic tanks near Brawley.

Locally fluoride and TDS high for domestic

Locally poor quality for domestic and
irrigation use.

Locally quality marginal to unacceptable for
irrigation use and unacceptable for domestic
use.

Locally quality poor for domestic use.

INVENTORY OF

COLORADO

HYDROLOGIC STUDY

Basin name, county

Basin description:

size, major stream,

water bearing material

Well yields
in gpm

Depth
zone
in feet

Storage
capacity

in
acre-feet

Usable
capacity

Bdsin
number

Max.

Aver.

in
acre-feet

7-36

Yuma Valley, Imperial County

A170-square-mile basin with
drainage to the Colorado River.
Younger and older alluvium.

100

0-200

4,600,000

Unknown

7-37

Arroyo Seco Valley, Impe-
rial and Riverside Counties

A 430-square-mile basin
drained by Arroyo Seco Wash
tributary to the Colorado River.
Younger and older alluvium.

Unknown

0-200

7,000,000

Unknown

7-38

Palo Verde Valley, Imperial
and Riverside Counties

A 200-square-mile basin with
drainage to the Colorado River.
Younger alluvium.

2,180

670

0-300

4,960,000

Unknown

7-39

Palo Verde Mesa, Imperial
and Riverside Counties

A 280-square-mile mesa
drained by unnamed streams.
Younger alluvium.

2,750

1,650

0-300

6,840,000

Unknown

7-40

Quien Sabe Point Valley,
Riverside County

A 40-square-mi le basi n
drained by McCoy Wash a trib-
utary to the Colorado River.
Younger and older alluvium.

Unknown

0-200

230,000

Unknown

7-41

Calzona Valley, Riverside
and San Bernardino Counties

A 150-square-mile basin
drained by Vidal Wash. Young-
er alluvium.

2,340

500

100-500

1,500,000

Unknown

7-42

Vidal Valley, Riverside and
San Bernardino Counties

A 160-square-mile basin
drained by Vidal Wash a trib-
utar/ to the Colorado River.
Younger alluvium.

1,800

675

100-500

1,600,000

Unknown

7-43

Chemehuevi Valley, San Ber-
nardino County

A 440-square-mile basin
drained by Chemehuevi Wash,
a tributary to the Colorado
River. Younger alluvium.

Unknown

0-200

4,700,000

Unknown

7-44

Needles Valley, San Ber-
nardino County

A 140-squdre-mile basin
drained by Piute Wash, a trib-
utary to the Colorado River.
Younger alluvium.

1,500

980

0-200

1,100,000

Unknown

7-45

Piute Valley, San Bernardino
County

A 270-square-mile basin
drained by Piute Wash. Young-
er alluvium.

360

200

300-500

2,400,000

Unknown

7-47

Jacumba Valley, San Diego
County

A 10-square-mile basin bor-
dering the Republic of Mexico.
Younger alluvium.

900

Unknown

GROUND WATER RESOURCES

DESERT

AREA — Continued

Development

Degree of knowledge

Problems

Moderate for domestic and Irrigation use.
Natural recharge estimated at about 400 AFY.
A potential for moderate additional develop-
ment.

Limited for domestic use. Natural rectiarge
estimated at about 1500 AFY. A potential for
moderate to tiigh additional development.

Moderate for domestic and irrigation use.
Natural rectiarge estimated at about 500 AFY.
A potential for limited additional development.

Limited for domestic and irrigation use. Nat-
ural recharge estimated at about 800 AFY. A
potential for moderate additional development.

Limited for domestic use. Natural recharge
estimated at about 300 AFY. A potential for
limited additional development.

Limited for domestic use. Natural recharge
estimated at about 400 AFY. A potential for
moderate additional development.

Limited for domestic and irrigation use. Nat-
ural recharge estimated at about 350 AFY. A
potential for moderate additional development.

Limited for domestic use. Natural recharge
eitimated at about 2300 AFY. A potential for
moderate to high additional development.

Moderate for irrigation and municipal use and
limited for domestic use. Natural recharge esti-
mated at about 1000 AFY. A potential for mod-
erate additional development.

Limited for domestic use. Natural recharge
estimated at about 1200 AFY. A potential for
moderate additional development.

Limited for domestic and irrigation use. Nat-
ural recharge estimated at about 1300 AFY. A
potential for limited additional development.

Limited for geology, hydrology and water
quality in east and superficial in west.
References:
DWR 40, DMG 9; USGS 95

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 40, DMG 4

Moderate for geology and limited for
hydrology and water quality.
References:
DWR 40; USGS 79, 80

Moderate to limited for geology, hydrol-
ogy and water quality in the east, superficial in
the west.

References:

DWR 40, USGS 79, 80

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 40; USGS 79, 80

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 40; USGS 79, 80

Superficial for geology, and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 40, 81

Limited for geology, hydrology and water
quality in east and superficial in west.
References:
DWR 40; USGS 81

Limited for geology, hydrology and water
quality.

References:
DWR 40; USGS 66, 67, 81

Limited for geology, hydrology, and water
quality.

References:
DWR 40; Misc. 11

Superficial for geology and hydrology.
Limited for water quality.
References:
DWR 42; DMG 9

Locally magnesium, sulfate, chloride, man-
ganese and TDS high for domestic use; chlo-
ride, TDS and percent sodium high for irriga-
tion use. Failing septic tank and leach field
systems. Overdraft projected for 1975 be-
cause of export of municipal waste water.

Locally manganese, chloride, and TDS high
for domestic use; TDS and percent sodium
high for irrigation use.

Locally fluoride, chloride, TDS and sulfate
high for domestic use; chloride and TDS high
for irrigation use. Failing septic tank and leach
field systems.

Locally arsenic, selenium, fluoride, chlo-
ride, sulfate, and TDS high for domestic use;
chloride, boron, and TDS high for irrigation
use. Overdraft.

Locally sulfate, chloride, fluoride, and
TDS high for domestic use; chloride and TDS
high for irrigation use.

Locally sulfate, chloride, fluoride, and
TDS high for domestic use; chloride high for
irrigation use.

Locally fluoride, sulfate, chloride, and
TDS high for domestic use; chloride and per-
cent sodium high for irrigation use.

Locally sulfate, chloride, fluoride, and TDS
high for domestic use; percent sodium high
for irrigation use.

Locally sulfate, chloride, fluoride and TDS
high for domestic use; chloride, TDS and per-
cent sodium high for irrigation use. Overdraft.

Locally sulfate and fluoride high for
domestic use; percent sodium high for irriga-
tion use.

Locally sulfate, fluoride, and TDS high for
domestic use.

County Listing of Ground Water Basins

Ground Water Basin Number

ALAMEDA COUNTY

Castro Valley 2-8

Santa Clara Valley 2-9

Santa Clara Valley-East Bay Area 2-9.01

Livermore Valley 2-10

Sunol Valley 2-11

San Joaquin Valley 5-22

ALPINE COUNTY

Carson Valley 6-6

AMADOR COUNTY

No ground water basins identified for use in this
report

BUTTE COUNTY

Sacramento Valley 5-21

Sacramento Valley Eastside Tuscan

Formation Highlands 5-55

CALAVERAS COUNTY

No ground water basins identified for use in this re-
port

COLUSA COUNTY

Sacramento Valley 5-21

Stonyford Town Area 5-63

Bear Valley 5-64

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

Pittsburg Plain 2-4

Clayton Valley 2-5

Ygnacio Valley 2-6

San Ramon Valley 2-7

Santa Clara Valley 2-9

Santa Clara Valley-East Bay Area 2-9.01

Livermore Valley 2-10

Arroyo del Hambre Valley 2-31

San Joaquin Valley 5-22

DEL NORTE COUNTY

Smith River Plain 1-1

Lower Klamath River Valley 1-14

EL DORADO COUNTY

Tahoe Valley 6-5

Tahoe Valley-South 6-5.01

FRESNO COUNTY

San Joaquin Valley 5-22

Squaw Valley 5-24

Cedar Grove Area 5-72

GLENN COUNTY

Sacramento Valley 5-21

Chrome Town Area 5-61

Elk Creek Area 5-62

Ground Water Basin Number

Stonyford Town Area 5-63

HUMBOLDT COUNTY

Hoopa Valley 1-7

Mad River Valley 1-8

Eureka Plain 1-9

Eel River Valley 1-10

Prairie Creek Area 1-25

Redwood Creek Valley 1-26

Big Lagoon Area 1-27

Mattole River Valley 1-28

Honeydew Town Area 1-29

Pepperwood Town Area 1-30

Weott Town Area 1-31

Garberville Town Area 1-32

Larabee Valley 1-33

Dinsmores Town Area 1-34

IMPERIAL COUNTY

Chuckwalla Valley 7-5

Coachella Valley 7-21

West Salton Sea Basin 7-22

Ocotillo Valley 7-25

Vallecito-Carnzo Valley 7-28

Coyote Wells Valley 7-29

Imperial Valley 7-30

East Salton Sea Basin 7-33

Amos Valley 7-34

Ogilby Valley 7-35

Yuba Valley 7-36

Arroyo Seco Valley 7-37

Palo Verde Valley 7-38

Palo Verde Mesa 7-39

Jacumba Valley-East 7-60

Davies Valley 7-61

INYO COUNTY

Owens Valley 6-12

Black Springs Valley 6-13

Fish Lake Valley 6-14

Deep Springs Valley 6-15

Eureka Valley 6-16

Saline Valley 6-17

Death Valley 6-18

Wingate Valley 6-19

Middle Amargosa Valley 6-20

Pahrump Valley 6-28

Mesquite Valley 6-29

Searles Valley 6-52

Indian Wells Valley 6-54

Coso Valley 6-55

Rose Valley 6-56

Darwin Valley 6-57

Panamint Valley 6-58

Fish Slough Valley 6-60

Cameo Area 6-61

County Listing of Ground Water Basins — Continued

Ground Water Basin Number

Race Track Valley 6-62

Hidden Valley 6-63

Marble Canyon Area 6-64

Cottonwood Spring Area 6-65

Lee Flat 6-66

Santa Rosa Flat 6-68

Cactus Flat 6-70

Coles Flat 6-72

Wild Horse Mesa Area 6-73

Harnsburg Flats 6-74

Wildrose Canyon 6-75

California Valley 6-79

Middle Park Canyon Valley 6-80

Butte Valley 6-81

Spring Canyon Valley 6-82

Furnace Creek Area 6-83

Greenwater Valley 6-84

Gold Valley 6^5

Rhodes Hill Area 6-86

KERN COUNTY

Cuyama Valley 3-13

San Joaquin Valley 5-22

Kern River Valley 5-25

Walker Basin Creek Valley 5-26

Cummings Valley 5-27

Tehachapi Valley West 5-28

Castac Lake Valley 5-29

Inns Valley 5-79

Brite Valley 5-80

Bear Valley 5-81

Cuddy Canyon Valley 5-82

Cuddy Ranch Area 5-83

Cuddy Valley 5-84

Mill Potrera Area 5-85

Antelope Valley 6-44

Tehachapi Valley East 6-45

Fremont Valley &46

Harper Valley 6-47

Searles Valley 6-52

Indian Wells Valley 6-54

Kelso Lander Valley 6-69

Butterbread Canyon Valley 6-87

KINGS COUNTY

San Joaquin Valley 5-22

LAKE COUNTY

Gravelly Valley 1-48

Upper Lake Valley 5-13

Scott Valley 5-14

Kelseyville Valley (Big Valley) 5-15

High Valley 5-16

Burns Valley 5-17

Coyote Valley 5-18

Collayomi Valley 5-19

Ground Water Basin

Number

Lower Lake Valley 5-30

Long Valley 5-31

Little Indian Valley 5-65

Clear Lake Cache Formation Highlands 5-66

Clear Lake Pleistocene Volcanics 5-67

Pope Valley 5-68

LASSEN COUNTY

Big Valley 5^

Fall River Valley 5-5

Mountain Meadows Valley 5-8

Modoc Plateau Recent Volcanic Areas 5-32

Modoc Plateau Pleistocene Volcanic Areas 5-33

Hot Spring Valley 5-40

Long Valley 5-44

Butte Creek Valley 5-51

Gray Valley 5-52

Dixie Valley 5-53

Ash Valley 5-54

Surprise Valley 6-1

Madeline Plains 6-2

Willow Creek Valley 6-3

Honey Lake Valley 6-4

Pine Creek Valley 6-92

Harvey Valley 6-93

Grasshopper Valley 6-94

Dry Valley 6-95

Eagle Lake Area 6-96

Horse Lake Valley 6-97

Tuledad Canyon Area 6-98

Painters Flat 6-99

Secret Valley 6-100

Bull Flat 6-101

Modoc Plateau Recent Volcanic Areas 6-102

Modoc Plateau Pleistocene Volcanic Areas 6-103

Long Valley 6-104

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Santa Clara River Valley — Eastern Basin 4-4.07

Acton Valley 4-5

Coastal Plain — Los Angeles County 4-11

San Fernando Valley 4-12

San Gabriel Valley 4-13

Upper Santa Ana Valley 4-14

Hungry Valley 4-18

Russell Valley 4-20

Conejo-Tierra Rejada Volcanic Areas 4-21

Malibu Valley 4-22

Antelope Valley 6-44

MADERA COUNTY

San Joaquin Valley 5-22

MARIN COUNTY

Petaluma Valley 2-1

Sebastopol Merced Formation Highlands.... 2-25

County Listing of Ground Water Basins — Continued

Ground Water Basin Numb

Sand Point Area 2-27

Ross Valley 2-28

San Rafael Valley 2-29

Novato Valley 2-30

MARIPOSA COUNTY

Yosemite Valley 5-69

MENDOCINO COUNTY

Round Valley

Laytonville Valley

Little Lake Valley

Anderson Valley

Garcia River Valley

Fort Bragg Terrace Area

Cottoneva Creek Valley

Lower Laytonville Valley

Branscomb Town Area

Ten Mile River Valley

Little Valley

Sherwood Valley

Williams Valley

Eden Valley

Big River Valley

Navarro River Valley

Gualala River Valley

McDowell Valley

Potter Valley (Old No. 1-14)

Ukiah Valley (Old No. 1-15)

Sanel Valley (Old No. 1-16)

MERCED COUNTY

San Joaquin Valley

Los Banos Creek Valley

MODOC COUNTY

Klamath River Valley

Fairchild Swamp Valley

Modoc Plateau Recent Volcanic Areas

Modoc Plateau Pleistocene Volcanic Areas

Goose Lake Valley

Al\uras Basin

Alturas Basin-South Fork Pit River and

Alturas Area

Alturas Basin-Warm Springs Valley

Jess Valley

Big Valley

Modoc Plateau Recent Volcanic Areas

Modoc Plateau Pleistocene Volcanic

Areas

Round Valley

Fandango Valley

Hot Spring Valley

Egg Lake Valley

Bucher Swamp Valley

Rocky Prairie Valley

1-11
1-12
1-13
1-19
1-20
1-21
1-37
1-38
1-39
1-40
1-41
1-42
1-43
1-44
1-45
1-46
1-47
2-12
2-14
2-15
2-16

5-22
5-70

1-2

1-22

1-23

1-24

5-1

5-2

5-2.01

5-2.02

5-3

5-4

5-32

5-33
5-36
5-39
5-40
5-41
5^2
5-43

Ground Water Basin Number

Long Valley 5-44

Surprise Valley 6-1

Cow Head Lake Valley 6-91

MONO COUNTY

Antelope Valley (Topaz Valley) 6-7

Bridgeport Valley 6-8

Mono Valley 6-9

Adobe Lake Valley 6-10

Long Valley 6-11

Fish Lake Valley 6-14

Granite Mountain Area 6-59

Fish Slough Valley 6-60

Slinkard Valley 6-105

Little Antelope Valley 6-106

Sweetwater Flat 6-107

MONTEREY COUNTY

Pajaro Valley 3-2

Salinas Valley 3-4

Paso Robles Basin 3-4.06

Seaside Area 3-4.08

Langley Area 3-4.09

Corral de Tierra Area 3-4.10

Cholame Valley 3-5

Lockwood Valley 3-6

Carmel Valley 3-7

NAPA COUNTY

Napa-Sonoma Valley 2-2

Napa Valley 2-2.01

Berryessa Valley 5-20

NEVADA COUNTY

Martis Valley (Truckee Valley) 6-67

ORANGE COUNTY

Coastal Plain — Orange County 8-1

San Juan Valley 9-1

PLACER COUNTY

Sacramento Valley 5-21

Tahoe Valley 6-5

Tahoe Valley— North 6-5.02

PLUMAS COUNTY

Lake Almanor Valley 5-7

Indian Valley 5-9

American Valley 5-10

Mohawk Valley 5-1 1

Sierra Valley 5-12

Modoc Plateau Pleistocene Volcanic Areas 5-33
Sacramento Valley Eastside Tuscan

Formation Highlands 5-55

Yellow Creek Valley 5-56

Last Chance Creek Valley 5-57

County Listing of Ground Water Basins — Continued

Ground Water Basin Number

Clover Valley 5-58

Grizzly Valley 5-59

Humbug Valley 5-60

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

Ward Valley 7-3

Rice Valley 7-4

Chuckwalla Valley 7-5

Pmto Valley 7-6

Cadiz Valley 7-7

Dale Valley 7-9

Coachella Valley 7-21

Terwilliger Valley 7-26

Orcopia Valley 7-31

Chocolate Valley 7-32

East Salton Sea Basin 7-33

Arroyo Seco Valley 7-37

Palo Verde Valley 7-38

Palo Verde Mesa 7-39

Quien Sabe Point Valley 7-40

Calzona Valley 7-41

Vidal Valley 7-42

Lost Horse Valley 7-51

Pleasant Valley 7-52

Hexie Mountain Area 7-53

Buck Ridge Fault Valley 7-54

Collins Valley 7-55

Upper Santa Ana Valley 8-2

Cajaico Valley (Inundated by Lake

Mathews) 8-3

Elsinore Basin 8-4

San Jacinto Basin 8-5

Hemet Lake Valley (Garner Valley) 8-6

Temecula Valley 9-5

Coahuila Valley 9-6

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

Sacramento Valley 5-21

San Joaquin Valley 5-22

SAN BENITO COUNTY

Gilroy-Hollister Valley 3-3

Santa Ana Valley 3-22

Upper Santa Ana Valley 3-23

Quien Sabe Valley 3-24

Tres Pinos Creek Valley 3-25

San Benito River Valley 3-28

Dry Lake Valley 3-29

Bitter Water Valley 3-30

Hernandez Valley 3-31

Peach Tree Valley 3-32

Panoche Valley 5-23

Vallecitos Creek Valley 5-71

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

Death Valley 6-18

Ground Water Basin Number

Wingate Valley 6-19

Middle Amargosa Valley 6-20

Lower Kingston Valley 6-21

Upper Kingston Valley 6-22

Riggs Valley 6-23

Red Pass Valley 6-24

Bicycle Valley 6-25

Avawatz Valley 6-26

Leach Valley 6-27

Mesquite Valley 6-29

Ivanpah Valley 6-30

Kelso Valley 6-31

Broadwell Valley 6-32

Soda Lake Valley 6-33

Silver Lake Valley 6-34

Cronise Valley 6-35

Langford Valley 6-36

Coyote Lake Valley 6-37

Caves Canyon Valley 6-38

Troy Valley 6-39

Lower Mojave River Valley 6-40

Middle Mojave River Valley 6-41

Upper Mojave River Valley 6-42

El Mirage Valley 6-43

Antelope Valley 6-44

Harper Valley 6-47

Goldstone Valley 6-48

Superior Valley 6-49

Cuddeback Valley 6-50

Pilot Knob Valley 6-51

Searles Valley 6-52

Salt Wells Valley 6-53

Indian Wells Valley 6-54

Lost Lake Valley 6-71

Brown Mountain Valley 6-76

Grass Valley 6-77

Denning Spring Valley 6-78

California Valley 6-79

Owl Lake Valley 6-88

Kane Wash Area 6-89

Cady Fault Area 6-90

Lanfair Valley 7-1

Fenner Valley 7-2

Ward Valley 7-3

Rice Valley 7-4

Pinto Valley 7-6

Cadiz Valley 7-7

Bristol Valley 7-8

Dale Valley 7-9

Twentynine Palms Valley 7-10

Copper Mountain Valley 7-11

Warren Valley 7-12

Deadman Valley 7-13

Lavic Valley 7-14

Bessemer Valley 7-15

County Listing of Ground Water Basins — Continued

Ground Water Basin Number

Ames Valley 7-16

Means Valley 7-17

Johnson Valley 7-18

Lucerne Valley 7-19

Morongo Valley 7-20

Calzona Valley 7-41

Vidal Valley 7-42

Chemehuevi Valley 7-43

Needles Valley 7-44

Piute Valley 7-45

Helendale Fault Valley 7-48

Pipes Canyon Fault Valley 7-49

Iron Ridge Area 7-50

Lost Horse Valley 7-51

Upper Santa Ana Valley 8-2

Big Meadows Valley 8-7

Seven Oaks Valley 8-8

Bear Valley 8-9

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

Clark Valley 7-23

Borrego Valley 7-24

Ocotillo Valley 7-25

San Felipe Valley 7-27

Vallecito-Carrizo Valley 7-28

Coyote Wells Valley 7-29

Canebrake Valley 7-46

Jacumba Valley 7-47

Collins Valley 7-55

Yaqui Well Area 7-56

Pinyon Wash Area 7-57

Whale Peak Area 7-58

Mason Valley 7-59

Jacumba Valley-East 7-60

San Mateo Valley 9-2

San Onofre Valley 9-3

Santa Margarita Valley 9-4

San Luis Rey Valley 9-7

Warner Valley 9-8

Escondido Valley 9-9

San Pasqual Valley 9-10

Santa Maria Valley 9-11

San Dieguito Valley 9-12

Poway Valley 9-13

Mission Valley 9-14

San Diego River Valley 9-15

El Cajon Valley 9-16

Sweetwater Valley 9-17

Otay Valley 9-18

Tia Juana Basin 9-19

Jamul Valley 9-20

Las Pulgas Valley 9-21

Batiquitos Lagoon Valley 9-22

San Elijo Valley 9-23

Pamo Valley 9-24

Ground Water Basin Number

Ranchito Town Area 9-25

Pine Valley 9-26

Cottonwood Valley 9-27

Campo Valley 9-28

Potrero Valley 9-29

Tecate Valley 9-30

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY

Visitation Valley 2-32

Islais Valley 2-33

San Francisco Sand Dune Area 2-34

Merced Valley 2-35

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY

San Joaquin Valley 5-22

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY

Paso Robles Basin 3-4.06

Cholame Valley 3-5

Los Osos Valley 3-8

San Luis Obispo Valley 3-9

Pismo Creek Valley 3-10

Arroyo Grande Valley-Nipomo Mesa Area .. 3-11

Santa Maria River Valley 3-12

Cuyama Valley 3-13

Carrizo Plain 3-19

San Carpoforo Valley 3-33

Arroyo de la Cruz 3-34

San Simeon Valley 3-35

Santa Rosa Valley 3-36

Villa Valley 3-37

Cayucos Valley 3-38

Old Valley 3-39

Toro Valley 3-40

Morro Valley 3-41

Chorro Valley 3-42

Rinconada Valley 3-43

Pozo Valley 3-44

Huasna Valley 3-45

Rafael Valley 3-46

Big Spring Area 3-47

SAN MATEO COUNTY

Santa Clara Valley 2-9

Half Moon Bay Terrace 2-22

San Gregorio Valley 2-24

Pescadero Valley 2-26

Visitation Valley 2-32

Merced Valley 2-35

San Pedro Valley 2-36

Ano Nuevo Area 3-20

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

Santa Maria River Valley 3-12

Cuyama Valley 3-13

San Antonio Creek Valley 3-14

County Listing of Ground Water Basins — Continued

Ground Water Basin Number

Santa Ynez River Valley 3-15

Goleta Basin 3-16

Santa Barbara Basin 3-17

Carpintena Basin 3-18

Careaga Sand Highlands 3-48

Montecito Area 3-49

SANTA CLARA COUNTY

Santa Clara Valley 2-9

Santa Clara Valley— South Bay Area 2-9.02

Gilroy-Hollister Valley 3-3

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

Soquel Valley 3-1

Pajaro Valley 3-2

Ano Nuevo Area 3-20

Santa Cruz Purisima Formation Highlands .. 3-21

West Santa Cruz Terrace 3-26

Scotts Valley 3-27

SHASTA COUNTY

Fall River Valley 5-5

Redding Basin 5-6

Modoc Plateau Recent Volcanic Areas 5-32

Modoc Plateau Pleistocene Volcanic

Areas 5-33

Pondosa Town Area 5-38

Hot Spring Valley 5-40

Cayton Valley 5-45

Lake Britton Area 5-46

Goose Valley 5-47

Burney Creek Valley 5-48

Dry Burney Creek Valley 5-49

North Fork Battle Creek Valley 5-50

SIERRA COUNTY

Sierra Valley 5-12

Martis Valley (Truckee Valley) 6-67

Long Valley 6-104

SISKIYOU COUNTY

Klamath River Valley 1-2

Butte Valley 1-3

Shasta Valley 1-4

Scott River Valley 1-5

Happy Camp Town Area 1-15

Seiad Valley 1-16

Bray Town Area 1-17

Red Rock Valley 1-18

Modoc Plateau Recent Volcanic Areas 1-23

Modoc Plateau Pleistocene Volcanic Areas 1-24

Modoc Plateau Recent Volcanic Areas 5-32

Modoc Plateau Pleistocene Volcanic Areas 5-33

Mount Shasta Area 5-34

McCloud Area 5-35

Toad Well Area 5-37

Ground Water Basin

Number

Pondosa Town Area 5-38

SOLANO COUNTY

Napa-Sonoma Valley...

Napa Valley

Suisun-Fairfield Valley.
Sacramento Valley

2-2
2-2.01
2-3
5-21

SONOMA COUNTY

Anapolis Ohison Ranch Formation

Highlands

Petaluma Valley

Napa-Sonoma Valley

Sonoma Valley

Knights Valley (Old No. 1-22)

Alexander Valley (Old No. 1-17)

Alexander Valley-Alexander Area

(Old No. 1-17.01)
Alexander Valley-Cloverdale Area

(Old No. 1-17.02)

Santa Rosa Valley (Old No. 1-18)

Santa Rosa Valley-Santa Rosa Plain

(Old No. 1-18.01)
Santa Rosa Valley-Healdsburg Area

(Old No. 1-18.02)
Santa Rosa Valley-Rincon Valley

(Old No. 1-18.03)

Kenwood Valley (Old No. 1-23)

Lower Russian River Valley .. (Old No. 1-98)

Bodega Bay Area

Napa-Sonoma Volcanics Highlands

Sebastopol Merced Formation Highlands....

STANISLAUS COUNTY

San Joaquin Valley

SUTTER COUNTY

Sacramento Valley

TEHAMA COUNTY

Redding Basin

Sacramento Valley

Modoc Plateau Pleistocene Volcanic Areas
Sacramento Valley Eastside Tuscan

Formation Highlands

TRINITY COUNTY

Hayfork Valley

Hyampon Valley

Hettenshaw Valley

1-49

2-1

2-2

2-2.02

2-13

2-17

2-17.01

2-17.02

2-18

.2-18.01

2-18.02

2-18.03

2-19

2-20

2-21

2-23

2-25

TULARE COUNTY

San Joaquin Valley

Three Rivers Area

Springville Area ,

Templeton Mountain Area
Manache Meadows Area...

5-22
5-21

5-6
5-21
5-33

5-55

1-6

1-35

1-36

5-22
5-73
5-74
5-75
5-76

100

County Listing of Ground Water Basins— Continued

Ground Water Basin

Sacator Canyon Valley

Rockhouse Meadow Valley.
Inns Valley

Number

5-77
5-78
5-79

TUOLUMNE COUNTY

No ground water basins identified for
in this report

VENTURA COUNTY

Cuyama Valley

Upper Ojai Valley

Ojai Valley

Ventura River Valley

Santa Clara River Valley

Pleasant Valley

Arroyo Santa Rosa Valley

Los Posas Valley

3-13

4-1

4-2

4-3

4-4

4-6

4-7

4-8

Ground Water Basin

Number

Simi Valley 4-9

Conejo Valley 4-io

Tierra Rejada Valley 4-15

Hidden Valley 4-16

Lockwood Valley 4-17

Hungry Valley 4-18

Thousand Oaks Area 4-19

Russell Valley 4-20

Conejo-Tierra Rejada Volcanic Areas 4-21

Cuddy Ranch Area 5-83

YOLO COUNTY

Sacrannento Valley 5-21

YUBA COUNTY

Sacramento Valley 5-21

101

Bibliographies

Two bibliographies follow. The first bibliography presents a selected list of references that are statewide in
scope and also cover specialized topics. The second bibliography presents all of the references cited m the
nine hydrologic study area inventories. The references are arranged numerically by agency. Abstracts of all
Department of Water Resources Bulletins released since 1922 are available in the Department's Bulletin No.
170 Series.

All reports are available for inspection, loan, and/or purchase through the individual agencies. Many of the
reports are available in public and university libraries. Reports of the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific
Regional Office are available for inspection only at their Geology Section Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacra-
mento. California 95825.

Selected References of Statewide Coverage

I. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES AND ITS PREDECESSORS.

A California Department of Public Works

Division of Water Resources

Richter. R. C. and others, November 1952. Ground Water Basins in California. Water Quality Investigations Report No. 3

Richter. R. C . and others. March 1957, Office Report on Ground Water in California. Unnumbered Report.
B. California Department of Water Resources

Bulletin No. 3, May 1957. Tfie California Water Plan.

Bulletin No. 39 series, 1900-1962. Water Supply Conditions in Soutfiern California.

Bulletin No. 63. November 1958. Sea-Water Intrusion in California.

Bulletin No. 66 series. 1955-56, 1957, 1958, 1959. 1960. 1961-62, Quality of Ground Waters in California.

Bulletin No. 77 series. 1957-58, 1958-59. 1959-60, 1962, Ground Water Conditions in Central and Nortf^ern California.

Bulletin No. 120-74, December 1974, Water Conditions in California. Summary Report.

Bulletin No. 160-70, December 1970, Water for California. Tfie California Water Plan Outlook in 1970.

Bulletin No. 160-74. November 1974, Tt)e California Water Plan. Outlook in 1974

II. CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
State Geologic Map

Jennings. C W.. 1973. State of California. Preliminary Fault and Geologic l^ap. Preliminary report 13, two maps, map scale 1:750,000.
Several authors, 1958 to 1967, State Geologic Map. Map Scale 1:250.000. A Series of 27 Sheets.

Bulletin No. 198. 1973, Urban Geology. Master Plan for California The Nature. Magnitude, and Costs of Geologic Hazards in
California and Recommendations for Their Mitigation

III. CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND ITS PREDECESSORS '

Water Quality Control Plan Report, Klamath River Basin (lA)

Water Quality Control Plan Report North Coastal Basm (IB)

Water Quality Control Plan Report San Francisco Bay Basin (2)

Water Quality Control Plan Report, Central Coastal Basm (3)

Water Quality Control Plan Report. Santa Clara River Basm (4A) .

Water Quality Control Plan Report Los Angeles River Basm (4B) .

Water Quality Control Plan Report Sacramento River Basm (5A).

Water Quality Control Plan Report, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Basm (5B)

Water Quality Control Plan Report. San Joaquin River Basm (5C).

Water Quality Control Plan Report Tulare Lake Basin (5D)

Water Quality Control Plan Report. North Lahontan Basm (6A).

Water Quality Control Plan Report. South Lahontan Basm (6B)

Water Quality Control Plan Report West Colorado River Basm (7A) .

Water Quality Control Plan Report. East Colorado River Basm (7B).

Water Quality Control Plan Report. Santa Ana River Basm (8) .

Water Quality Control Plan Report San Diego Basin (9)

IV. U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Bader. J S.. July 24. 1969. Summary of Ground Water Data as of 1967. California Region. Open-File Report Supported by Nine

Subregion Reports.

Kunkel. F.. March 17. 1970. Summary of Ground-Water Occurrence in California Open-File Report

McGuinness. C. L.. and others. 1963, The Role of Ground Water in the National Water Situation Water-Supply Paper 1800

• Reports cil«l for this agpno' are currently in various stages of preparation.

103

V. MISCELLANEOUS

Coe. J. J , and others, 1972. Ground Water Management. American Society of Civil Engineers, Manuals and Reports on Engineering

Practice. No. 40.

Fuhriman. 0. K.. and Barton. J. R . December 1971. Ground Water Pollution in Arizona. California. Nevada, and Utah. Fuhriman,

Barton and Associates. Provo. Utah 84601 for the U. S. Office of Research and Monitoring. Environmental Protection Agency.

Project No 16060ERU. Contract No. 14-12-919.

Poland. J. F.and Davis. G. H.. 1969. Land Subsidence Due to Withdrawal of Fluids. The Geo\oq\ca\ SoaeXs/ oi P<.mer\ca. Inc.. Reviews

ir, Engineering Geology II.

Poland. J. F.. August 22-24. 1973. Subsidence in United States Due to Ground Water Overdraft — A Fleview. American Society of

Civil Engineers. Proceedings of the Irrigation and Drainage Division Speciality Conference Held at Fort Collins. Colorado. August

22-24. 1973.

Pollan. R. G.. and others. June 1971. Water Resources. California Region. Water Resources Council. Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency

Committee. California Region Framework Study Committee. Appendix V.

Waananen. A. O.. and Bean. R. T.. 1966. Mineral and Water Resources of California. Part II. Water Resources. United States Senate.

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

Williams. D, E,. and Wilder, D. G.. August 1971. Gasoline Pollution of a Ground Water Reservoir — A Case History. Paper presented

at National Ground Water Quality Symposium. Denver. Colorado

Selected References for Inventory Summaries

\. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES AND ITS PREDECESSORS (DWR)

A. California State Water Resources Board

1. Bulletin No. 1. 1951. Water Resources of California.

2. Bulletin No. 5, August 1953. Santa Cruz-Monterey Counties Investigation.

3. Bulletin No. 6. September 1952. Sutter-Yuba Counties Investigation.

4. Bulletin No. 7. June 1955. Santa Clara Valley Investigation.

5. Bulletin No. 8. March 1952. Central Basin Investigation. Lower Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Area. County of Los Angeles.

6. Bulletin No, 9. February 1953. Elsinore Basin Investigation.

7. Bulletin No. 10. June 1955. Placer County Investigation.

8. Bulletin No. 11. June 1955. San Joaquin County Investigation.

9. Bulletin No. 12. October 1953. Revised April 1956. Ventura County Investigation.

10. Bulletin No 13. March 1963. Alameda County Investigation.

11. Bulletin No. 14. July 1957. Lake County Investigation.

12. Bulletin No, 15. February 1959. Santa Ana River Investigation. Appendix B. Geology of San Jacinto and Elsinore Basins.

13. Bulletin No, 18. May 1958. San Luis Obispo County Investigation.

14. Bulletin No. 19. February 1956. Salinas River Basin Investigation.

15. Bulletin No. 21. June 1955. American River Basin Investigation. Report on Development Proposed for the California Water
Plan. Appendix A. Ground Water Studies.

16. Bulletin No. 22, July 1964. Shasta County Investigation.

17. MacRostie. W. L., November 1951. Interim Report on Elsinore Basin Investigation. Unnumbered Report.

B. California Department of Public Works Division of Water Resources

Bulletins

18 Bulletin No 45. 1934. South Coastal Basin Investigation. Geology and Ground Water Storage Capacity of Valley Fill.

19, Bulletin No. 46. 1933. Ventura County Investigation.

20, Bulletin No. 47. 1934. Mojave River Investigation.

21, Bulletin No. 48. 1935. San Diego County Investigation.

22, Bulletin No, 55. 1949. San Dieguito and San Diego Rivers Investigation.
23 Bulletin No 57. June 1956. Santa Margarita River Investigation.

Unnumbered Reports

24. Bookman. M,. November 5. 1951. Upper San Jacinto Water Basin Court Reference. City of San Jacinto, et al. vs. Fruitvale
Mutual Water Company, et al. No. 51546. County of Riverside. Unnumbered Memorandum Report,

25. Bookman, M,. and others. November 29. 1951 Interim Report of Referee Tia Juana Basin. In the Superior Court of the State
of California in and for the County of San Diego. Marvin L. Allen, et al. Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants, vs. California Water
and Telephone Company, a Corporation, et al. Defendants and Cross Complainants No. 85482 California Water and Tele-
phone Company, a Corporation. Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant, vs. Cornelius R. Spooner. et al. Defendants and Cross-
Complainants No. 154464. Unnumbered Interim Report.

26. Conkling. H.. and others. July 12. 1943. Report of Referee. In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County
of Los Angeles. City of Pasadena, a Municipal Corporation. Plaintiff vs. City of Alhambra. a Municipal Corporation, et al.
Defendants No. Pasadena C-1323. Unnumbered Report. Volumes 1 and 2,

27. Crooker. H, M.. March 1930, South Fork Kern River Investigation. Report for the Period March 12 to December 31. 1929.
Unnumbered Report.

28. Gleason. G. B . and others. March 30. 1949. Report on the Geology and Hydrology of Piru and Fillmore Basins. Ventura County.
California. Unnumbered Report.

104

Selected References for Inventory Summaries — Continued

29. Gleason, G. B.. and others. June 1952. \A/esr Coast Basin Reference. Report of Referee. In the Superior Court of the State of
California m and for the County of Los Angeles. California Water Service Company, a Corporation, et al. Plaintiffs, vs. City
ofCompton. etal. Defendants California Water Service Company, a Corporation, etal. Plaintiffs, vs. Alexander Abercromby.
et al. Defendants. No. 506806 Unnumbered Report.

30. Illingworth. L. R.. and others. July 7. 1950. Report on the Water Supply. Sewage Disposal. Flood Control and Foundation
Problems at the California Institution for Women Near Tehachapi. Unnumbered Report.

31. Illingworth. L. R., and others. April 1955. Report of Referee Upper San Jacinto Basin. In the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Riverside. The City of San Jacinto, et al. Plaintiffs, vs. Fruitvale Mutual Water Company,
etal. Defendants. No. 51546. Unnumbered Report.

32. Illingworth. L. R.. and others, July 1956. Temecula Creek Reference Report of Referee. In the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for County of San Diego. Ernest Louis Barbey. et al. Plaintiffs, vs. James Oviatt. et al. Defendants, f^ary Vail
Wilkinson, etal. Cross-Complainants, vs. Ernest Louis Barbey. etal. Cross-Defendants. No. 154140. Unnumbered Report.

33. James, L. B.. and others. March 1952. Report to Los Angeles Regional Water Pollution Control Board Laguna Wash Investiga-
tion. Code No. 52-4-13. Unnumbered Water Quality Investigations Report

34. Lorens. P. J.. February 1952, Pollution Survey of Tehachapi Creek Spring Area A Contribution to a Report Prepared by the
Bureau of Sanitary Engineering for the Central Valley Regional Water Pollution Control Board Unnumbered Report.

35. Page. J. M.. and others. July 1954. Special Report No 1 of Referee. Tia Juana Basin tvlarvin L. Allen, et al. Plaintiffs and
Cross-Defendants, vs. California Water and Telephone Company, a Corporation, et al. Defendants and Cross-Complainants.
No 85482 California Water and Telephone Company, a Corporation. Plaintiffs, and Cross-Defendant vs. Cornelius R Spooner.
et al. Defendants and Cross-Complainants. No. 154464. In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County
of San Diego.

36. Page. J. M., and others. June 1957, Special Report No. 2 of Referee, Tia Juana Basin. In the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of San Diego. tVlarvin L. Allen, etal Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants, vs. California Water and
Telephone Company, a Corporation, et al. Defendants and Cross-Complamants. No. 85482. California Water and Telephone
Company, a Corporation. Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant vs. Cornelius R Spooner. et al. Defendants and Cross-Complainants.
No 154464.

37. Seward. E. N., and others. June 1954. Ventura County Oil Waste Investigation. Project No. 53-4^. A report to Los Angeles
Regional Water Pollution Control Board No 4. Unnumbered Water Quality Investigations Report.

38. Stephenson. P, E.. March 1951. Report on Use of Water Within Isabella Reservoir Area on Kern River. Kern County California.
Unnumbered Report.

39- Willets. D. B.. and others. September 1952, Investigations of Los Angeles River Code No. 52-4-2. Unnumbered Water Quality
Investigations Report.

40. Willets. D. B., and others, May 1954. Ground Water Occurrence and Quality. Colorado River Basin Region. Water Quality
Investigations Report No. 4.

41. Willets. D B . and others. December 1955. Office Report El Cajon Valley Water Quality and Resources San Diego County.
Unnumbered Water Quality Investigations Office Report.

42. Willets, D. B.. and others. January 1956. Office Report on Water Well and Ground Water Data in Pahrump. Mesquite. Ivanpah.
Lanfair. Fenner. Chuckwalla. and Jacumba Valleys. Unnumbered Office Report.

43. Willets, D B.. and others, April 1956, Antelope Valley Investigation. Lahontan Region Project No. 55-6-1. Report to Lahontan
Regional Water Pollution Control Board No 6. Unnumbered Water Quality Investigations Report.

California Department of Water Resources
Bulletins

44. Bulletin No. 39*2. July 1964, Water Supply Conditions in Southern California During 1961-62.

45. Bulletin No. 58. June 1960. Northeastern Counties Investigation.

46. Bulletin No. 60. March 1957. Interim Report to the California State Legislature on the Salinity Control Barrier Investigation.

47. Bulletin No. 62, November 1958, Recommended Water Well Construction and Sealing Standards. IVIendocino County.

48. Bulletin No. 63, November 1958. Sea-Water Intrusion in California.

49. Bulletin No. 63. Appendix A. December 1960. Sea-Water Intrusion in California. Status of Sea-Water Intrusion. Limited
Distribution Report.

50. Bulletin No 63. Appendix B. March 1957, Sea-Water Intrusion in California. Appendix B, Report by Los Angeles County Flood
Control District on Investigational Work for Prevention and Control of Sea-Water Intrusion, West Coast Basin Experimental
Project. Los Angeles County.

51 Bulletin No. 63-1. October 1965. Sea-Water Intrusion. Oxnard Plain of Ventura County.

52 Bulletin No. 63-2, January 1968. Sea-Water Intrusion. Bolsa-Sunset Area. Orange County.
53. Bulletin No 63-3. February 1970. Sea-Water Intrusion. Pismo-Guadalupe Area.

54 Bulletin No. 63-4. September 1971, Sea-Water Intrusion. Aquitardsin the Coastal Ground Water Basin of Oxnard Plain. Ventura
County

55 Bulletin No. 63-5. (in preparation) , Sea-Water Intrusion in California, Inventory of Coastal Ground Water Basins.
56. Bulletin No. 63-6. February 1972. Sea-Water Intrusion, fvlorro Bay Area. San Luis Obispo County.

57 Bulletin No 64. April 1964. West Walker River Investigation.

58. Bulletin No. 66-62. August 1964. Quality of Ground Waters in California. 1961 and 1962. Part I. Northern and Central California.

105

Selected References for Inventory Summaries — Continued

59. Bulletin No. 72, November 1959. San Dieguito River Investigation
60 Bulletin No. 74-2. June 1964, Water Well Standards. Alameda County.

61. Bulletin No, 74-3, August 1966, Water Well Standards. Del Norte County.

62. Bulletin No. 74-4. October 1965. Water Well Standards. Central Hollywood. Santa Monica Basins. Los Angeles County.

63. Bulletin No. 74-5. July 1969, Water Well Standards. San Joaquin County. Final Supplement

64. Bulletin No. 74-6. Septennber 1968, Water Well Standards. Fresno County.

65. Bulletin No. 74-7, July 1971, Water Well Standards Arroyo Grande Basin. San Luis Obispo County.

66. Bulletin No. 74-8. August 1968, Water Well Standards Shasta County.

67. Bulletin No. 74-9, August 1968, Water Well Standards Ventura County

68. Bulletin No. 75, February 1959, Water Quality and Water Quality Problems. Ventura County

69. Bulletin No. 81, December 1960, Intrusion of Salt Water Into Ground Water Basins of Souttiern Alameda County.

70. Bulletin No. 83, July 1964, Klamath River Basin Investigation.

71. Bulletin No. 84, August 1967, Mojave River Ground Water Basins Investigation.

72. Bulletin No. 87, July 1964, Shasta Valley Investigation.

73. Bulletin No. 89. December 1960, Lower San Joaquin Valley Water Quality Investigation.

74. Bulletin No. 91-1, June 1960, Data on Wells in the West Part of the Middle Mojave Valley Area. San Bernardino County.
California.

75. Bulletin No. 91-2. June 1960. Data on Water Wells and Springs in the Yucca Valley-Twentynine Palms Area. San Bernardino
and Riverside Counties. California.

76. Bulletin No. 91-3, August 1960. Data on Water Wells in the Eastern Part of the Middle Mojave Valley Area. San Bernardino
County. Call torn 13-

77. Bulletin No. 91-4, September 1960, Data on Water Wells in the Willow Springs Gloster. and Chaffee Areas. Kern County.
California.

78. Bulletin No 91-5, March 1961. Data on Water Wells in the Dale Valley Area. San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. California.

79. Bulletin No. 91-6. June 1962. Data on Wells in the Edwards Air Force Base Area. California.

80. Bulletin No. 91-7. May 1963. Data on Water Wells and Springs in the Chuckwalla Valley Area. Riverside County. California.

81. Bulletin No. 91-8. May 1963, Data on Water Wells and Springs in the Rice and Vidal Valley Areas Riverside and San Bernardino
Counties, California.

82. Bulletin No. 91-9, May 1963, Data on Water Wells in Indian Wells Valley Area. Inyo. Kern, and San Bernardino Counties
California.

83. Bulletin No. 91-10, December 1963, Wells and Springs in the Lower Mojave Valley Area. San Bernardino County. California.

84. Bulletin No. 91-11, May 1965, Water Wells in the Western Part of the Antelope Valley Area, Los Angeles and Kern Counties,
California.

85. Bulletin No 91-12, December 1966, Water Wells in the Eastern Part of the Antelope Valley Area. Los Angeles County.
California.

86. Bulletin No. 91-13, August 1967, Water Wells and Springs in Soda. Silver and Cronise Valleys. San Bernardino County.
California.

87. Bulletin No. 91-14, August 1967, Water Wells and Springs in Bristol. Broadwell. Cadiz. Danby. and Lavic Valleys and Vicinity.
San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. California.

88. Bulletin No. 91-15. January 1968. Water Welts and Springs in Borrego. Carrizo. and San Felipe Valley Areas. San Diego and
Imperial Counties. California.

89. Bulletin No. 91-16, February 1969, Water Wells and Springs in the Fremont Valley Area. Kern County. California.

90. Bulletin No. 91-1 7, December 1969. Water Wells and Springs in Panamint. Searles, and Knob Valleys, San Bernardino and Inyo
Counties. California.

91. Bulletin No 91-18. May 1971, Water Wells in the San Luis Rey Valley Area. San Diego County, California.

92 Bulletin No. 91-19, May 1971, Water Wells in the Harper Superior, and Cuddeback Valley Areas, San Bernardino County,
California.

93. Bulletin No. 91-20, August 1971, Water Wells and Springs in the Western Part of the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed.
Riverside and San Diego Counties. California.

94. Bulletin No. 91-21, January 1972, Water Wells and Springs in Ivanpah Valley. San Bernardino County. California.

95. Bulletin No. 91-22, August 1974, Water Wells and Springs in the Eastern Part of the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed.
Riverside and San Diego Counties. California.

96. Bulletin No 98, February 1963, Northeastern Counties Ground Water Investigation

97. Bulletin No. 98, Appendix C, March 1965, Office Report Geology. Northeastern Counties Ground Water Investigation.

98. Bulletin No. 99, March 1962. Reconnaissance Report on Upper Putah Creek Basin Investigation.

99. Bulletin No. 104, September 1968, Planned Utilization of Ground Water Basins. Coastal Plain of Los Angeles County.

100. Bulletin No. 104, Appendix A, June 1961, Planned Utilization of the Ground Water Basins of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles
County Appendix A. Ground Water Geology.

101 , Bulletin No. 104, Appendix B, April 1962, Planned Utilization of the Ground Water Basins of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles
County. Appendix B. Safe Yield Determinations.

106

Selected References for Inventory Summaries — Continued

102^ Bulletin No 104, Appendix C. December 1966. Planned Utilization ot Ground Water Basins Coastal Plain of Los Angeles
County Appendix C. Operation and Economics.

103. Bulletin No. 104-2. Appendix A. March 1966. Planned Utilization of Ground Water Basins. San Gabriel Valley. Appendix A.
Geotiydrolagy.

104. Bulletin No. 104-3. May 1971. fleeting Water Demands in the Chimo-Riverside Area.

105. Bulletin No. 104-3. Appendix A. September 1970. Meeting Water Demands in the Chino-Riverside Area. Appendix A. Water
Supply.

106. Bulletin No. 104-5. Decennber 1970. f\/leeting Water Demands in the Bunker Hill-San Timoteo Area.

107. Bulletin No. 104-6. June 1971. l\/leeting Water Demands in the Raymond Basin Area.

108. Bulletin No. 104-7. June 1972. Planned Utilization of Water Resources in the San Juan Creek Basin Area.

109. Bulletin No. 104-8 (in preparation). Ventura County Investigation.

1 10. Bulletin No. 105-3. December 1970. North Coastal Area Action Program. A Study of the Smith River Basin and Plain.

111. Bulletin No. 105-4. November 1973. Water IVIanagement for Wildlife Enhancement in Butte Valley. Appendix-Supporting
Studies.

112. Bulletin No. 106-1. June 1964. Ground Water Occurrence and Quality. Lahontan Region.

113. Bulletin No, 106-2. June 1967, Ground Water Occurrence and Quality. San Diego Region.

114. Bulletin No. 107, August 1962. Recommended Well Construction and Sealing Standards for Protection of Ground Water
Quality in West Coast Basin. Los Angeles County.

115. Bulletin No. 108. July 1964, Coachella Valley Investigation.

116. Bulletin No. 118-1. Appendix A. August 1967. Evaluation of Ground Water Resources South Bay. Appendix A Geology.

117. Bulletin No. 118-1. Volume 1. August 1968, Evaluation of Ground Water Resources South Bay. Volume 1. Fremont Study Area.

118. Bulletin No, 118-1. Volume II. August 1973, Evaluation of Ground Water Resources South San Francisco Bay. Volume II.
Additional Fremont Study Area.

119. Bulletin No. 118-1, Volume III (in preparation). Evaluation of Ground Water Resources. North Santa Clara County.

120. Bulletin No. 118-2. June 1974. Evaluation of Ground Water Resources. Livermore and Sunol Valleys.

121 Bulletin No 118-2. Appendix A. August 1966. Livermore and Sunol Valleys. Evaluation of Ground Water Resources. Appendix.
Geology

122 Bulletin No 118-3, July 1974, Evaluation of Ground Water Resources. Sacramento County

123. Bulletin No. 118-4 (in preparation). Evaluation of Ground Water Resources. Sonoma County.

124. Bulletin No. 120-74, December 1974. Water Conditions in California. Summary Report October 1. 1973-September 30. 1974.

125. Bulletin No. 126, October 1964, Fish Slough Dam and Reservoir. Feasibility Investigation.

126. Bulletin No. 133, March 1964, Folsom-East Sacramento Ground Water Quality Investigation.

127. Bulletin 135. August 1966. Madera Investigation.

128. Bulletin 138. March 1966. Coastal San Mateo County Investigation

129 Bulletin No 142-1. Volume 1. April 1965. Water Resources and Future Requirements. North Coastal Hydrographic Area.
Volume I. Southern Portion.

130. Bulletin No. 143-1. June 1966. San Lorenzo River Watershed Water Quality Investigation.

131. Bulletin No. 143-3, April 1965, Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area Water Quality Investigation.

132. Bulletin No. 143-4. May 1968. Russian River Watershed Water Quality Investigation.

133. Bulletin No. 143-5. August 1969. Lower San Joaquin River Water Quality Investigation.
134 Bulletin No. 143-6, August 1968, Delano Nitrate Investigation.

135. Bulletin No. 143-7. February 1970. Geothermal Wastes and the Water Resources of the Salton Sea Area.

136. Bulletin No. 146. July 1967. San Joaquin County Ground Water Investigation.

137 Bulletin No 147-1. December 1966. Ground Water Basin Protection Projects Santa Ana Gap Salinity Barrier. Orange County.

138. Bulletin No. 147-6. September 1970. Ground Water Basin Protection Projects Oxnard Basin Experimental Extraction-Type
Barrier

139. Bulletin No 150. March 1965. Upper Sacramento River Basin Investigation.
140- Bulletin No. 160-74, November 1974, The California Water Plan Outlook in 1974.

Unnumbered Reports

141 Angelos. R E . and others, September 1965, Ground Water Conditions in San Diego River Valley. A Report to San Diego
Regional Water Pollution Control Board No. 9 Project Code No 59-9-1. Unnumbered Report.

142. Anonymous, 1958, North Tulare Basin Ground Water Investigation. Geohydrology of North Tulare Basin. Unnumbered Office
Report

143. Anonymous, 1958. Kern County Ground Water Investigation. Geohydrology of Kern County. Unnumbered Office Report.

144 Anonymous. 1960. Ground Water Geology of Petaluma-Santa Rosa Valleys. Unnumbered Report.

145 Anonymous. May 23. 1960, Report on Bridgeport Valley Ground-Water Investigation. Unnumbered Report.

146. Brown. G A . and others. October 1962. Ground Water Geology of the San Gabriel Valley. Los Angeles County. Unnumbered
Office Report

107

Selected References for Inventory Summaries — Continued

147. Coluzzi. A A , May 1968, Santa Clara River Valley Water Quality Study. Unnumbered Report

148. Coe. A. L.. and others, October 1967. Monterey County Water Quality Investigation.

149. Doody. J. J.. June 1964, Ground Water Quality Survey of Lower Otay River Valley. A Report to San Diego Regional Water
Pollution Control Board No 9. Project Code No 4109-024. Unnumbered Report.

150. Doody. J. J. September 1964. San Juan Creek Ground Water Study. A Report to San Diego Regional Water Pollution Control
Board No. 9. Project Code No. 4109-064. Unnumbered Report.

151. Finlayson. D. J., and Ford. R. S.. June 1970. Sea-Water Intrusion Lower Salinas Valley. Progress Report 1968-1969 Unnumbered
Progress Report.

152. Ford. R. S.. June 1969. Geology of the Lower Portion. Salinas Valley Ground Water Basin. Unnumbered Office Report.

153. Ford. R. S.. and others. June 1970. Livermore and Sunol Valleys. Evaluation of Ground Water Resources Tfirough 1968.
Unnumbered Memorandum Report.

154. Ford, R. S.. July 1972. Ground Water and the Environment. San Joaquin County. Unnumbered Report.

155. Fowler. L. C. and others. March 1960. Reconnaissance Investigation of Water Resources of IVIono and Inyo Counties.
Unnumbered Report.

156. Gentry, W.. and others. December 1959. IVIadeline Plains Water Quality Investigation. Unnumbered Water Quality Investiga-
tions Report.

157. Gershon. S. I., and others. March 1971. Preliminary Evaluation of the Water Supply of the Arroyo Grande and Paso Robles
Area. Unnumbered Report

158. Hanson. H. C. and others. May 1963. Ground Water Geology of the Tulare Basin. Unnumbered Office Report.

159. Hansen. R. G.. and others. May 1958. Investigation of the Water Quality in IVIission Basin San Luis Rey Valley. San Diego
County. Project No 58-9-1 A Report to San Diego Regional Water Pollution Control Board No. 9 Unnumbered Water Quality
Investigations Report.

160. Hassan. A. H.. and others. August 1974. l\/1athematical IVIodeling of Water Quality for Water Resources fvlanagement. Volume
I. Development of the Water Quality IVlodel Volume II. Development of Historic Data for the Verification of the Ground Water
Quality Model of the Santa Clara-Calleguas Area. Ventura County. Unnumbered Report. Vols. 1 and 2.

161. Hill. D. M.. February 1973. Qualification of Measuring Wells. Tahoe Valley (South Tahoe) Ground Water Basin No. 6-05 01.
Unnumbered Memorandum Report.

162. Hudson. W. S.. and others. November 1974. Water Demand. Supply and Potential Sources in San Luis Obispo County.
Unnumbered District Report.

163. Kramsky. M.. July 5. 1960. Water Quality. Surprise Valley. Unnumbered Water Quality Investigations Report.

164. Kramsky. M.. July 14. 1960. Water Quality Report on Honey Lake and Willow Creek Valleys Unnumbered Water Quality
Investigations Report.

165. LoBue. J. F., November 1968. Investigation of Waste Discharges in Lompoc Basin. Unnumbered Report.

166. LoBue. J. F.. February 1969. Escondido Creek Ground Water Investigation. Unnumbered Report.

167. LoBue. J. F. and others. June 2. 1969. Water Quality Conditions of the Upper Salinas River Region. Unnumbered Memorandum
Report

168. LoBue. J. F.. December 16. 1970. Santa Maria River Valley Water Quality Conditions. 1969. Unnumbered Memorandum Report,

169. LoBue. J, F.. and others. October 1973. Los Qsos-Baywood Ground Water Protection Study Unnumbered Report.

170. Loo. F,, December 1971, Ground Water Quality and Hydrology Data San Antonio Creek Basin. Southern District Unnumbered
Memorandum Report.

171. Meffley, R. W., and others, July 1974, Zone 11 Investigation. Carmel Valley and Seaside Ground Water Basins. Monterey
County. District Unnumbered Report.

172. Mclntyre, V. B., and others. July 1973. Sea-Water Intrusion Lower Salinas Valley. Monterey County. Unnumbered Report.

173. Mido. K. W., and others. December 1969, Planned Utilization of Ground Water Basins. San Gabriel Valley Including Appendix
B: Operation and Economics. Unnumbered Memorandum Report.

174. Mido, K. W.. and others. February 1971. Meeting Water Demands in Bunker Hill-San Timoteo Area. Geology. Hydrology, and
Operation-Economics Studies. Unnumbered Report.

175. Mido. K. W.. and others. May 1971. Meeting Water Demands in the Chino-Riverside Area. Appendix B. Operation-Economics.
Unnumbered Memorandum Report

176. Morgester, J. J.. June 1969. Water Quality of the Lower Portion. Salinas Valley Ground Water Basin. Unnumbered Office
Report.

177. Mosley. J C. and others. October 21. 1963. Mineral Quality Criteria South Santa Clara Valley. Unnumbered Report,

178. Mosley, J. C , and others. February 17, 1964. Mineral Quality Criteria, San Benito County. Unnumbered Report

179. Mosley. J. C. September 1964. Water Well Construction in the Bay Area Branch. Unnumbered Office Report.

180. Nishimura. G. H.. and others. December 10. 1969. Water Supply and Water Quality Conditions in Indio Hydrology Subarea.
Unnumbered Report.

181. Nishimura, G. H.. and others, December 1973, Mammoth Basin Water Resources Environmental Study (Final Report) Unnum-
bered Report.

182. Nishimura, G. H.. January 1975. Impact of Waste Treatment and Disposal on the Quality of Water Supplies. Santa Margarita
Watershed. Unnumbered Memorandum Report.

108

Selected References for Inventory Summaries — Continued

183. Parsons. J. M.. November 1971, Preliminary Evaluation of Specific Yield and Change in Storage of the Santa Clara-Calleguas

Subarea Unnumbered Report,
184 Reynolds. R, R,, and others. October \Q7Z. An Interagency-I^ultidisciplinary Investigation of the Natural Resources of the Sierra

Valley Study Area. Sierra and Plumas Counties. Unnumbered Cooperative Study Report by Federal, State, and Local Agencies,

185. Richter, R. C. and others, March 1957. Office Report on Ground Water in California. Unnumbered Report.

186. Richardson, N L. July 1968, Water Quality Conditions m San Dieguito River Basin. Unnumbered Report

187. Roos, M., February 14, 1975, Supporting Data on Net Water Demand and Water Supplies for Bulletin No. 160-74. Unnumbered
Report.

188. Scott. R. G,. and others, June 1973, Sea-Water Intrusion and Ground Water l\/lonitoring Programs in the Eureka Area.
Unnumbered District Report.

189. Thronson. R. E,. 1963, Geologic Conditions and Occurrence and Nature of Ground Water in the Russian River Hydrographic
Unit. Unnumbered Office Report,

190 Weber. E. t^.. and others, July 1967, Progress Report on Ground Water Geology of the Coastal Plain of Orange County.
Unnumbered Progress Report,

191, Werner, S. L., and others. July 1967, Investigation of Geothermal Waters in the Long Valley Area. Mono County. Unnumbered
Report.

192, Werner. S. L.. January 30. 1973. Ground Water Quality Problem. Coyote Wells Hydrologic Unit. Unnumbered Memorandum
Report

193. Whisman. E. E.. and others. December 30, 1968, Ground Water Quality Problems in Sutter and Yuba Counties. Unnumbered
Memorandum Report.

194. Wolfe. C, G.. and others. December 1955. Report to the California State Legislature on Putah Creek Cone Investigation.
Prepared Pursuant to Chapter 1478. Statutes of 1951. Unnumbered Report.

CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY (DMG)

1. Jennings, C W, and Strand, R. G , 1958, Geologic Map of California. Santa Cruz Sheet. Single Map Sheet. Scale 1:250,000.

2. Jennings. C. W.. 1961, Geologic Map of California. Kingman Sheet. Single Map Sheet, Scale 1:250.000,

3. Jennings. C. W.. and others, 1962. Geologic Map of California. Trono Sheet. Single Map Sheet, Scale 1:250.000.

4. Jennings, C. W.. 1967. Geologic Map of California. Salton Sea Sheet. Single Map Sheet. Map Scale 1:250.000.

5. Matthews. R. A., and others. 1965. Geologic Map of California. Fresno Sheet Single Map Sheet. Scale 1:250.000.

6 Rogers, T. H., 1965. Geologic Map of California. Santa Ana Sheet. Single Map Sheet. Scale 1:250,000.

7 Rogers. T H., 1967, Geologic Map of California. San Bernardino Sheet. Single Map Sheet, Scale 1:250,000,
8. Smith, A. R., 1964. Geologic Map of California. Bakersfield Sheet . Single Map Sheet, Scale 1:250.000.

9 Strand. R. G , 1962. Geologic Map of California. San Diego— El Centro Sheet. Single Map Sheet, Scale 1:250,000.

CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND ITS PREDECESSORS (SWRCB)

A State Water Rights Board

1 Finlayson. D J . and others. July 1962. Report of Referee. In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County
of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles, a Municipal Corporation. Plaintiff vs. City of San-Fernando, a Municipal Corporation,
et al. Defendants. No. 650079 Unnumbered Report.

B. State Water Resources Control Board Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board

2 Doyle. A. A., February 1969. Report on Arsenic Occurrence in the North Muroc Hydrologic Basin. Kern County. California.
Unnumbered Report,

C. State Water Resources Control Board

3. Anonymous. April 1974. Comprehensive Water Quality Control Plan Report for the San Diego Basm. Abstract.

4. Anonymous. June 1974. Water Quality Control Plan Report. Santa Clara River Basin (4A) Part I and II. Vol. 1.

5. Anonymous. 1974. Water Quality Control Plan Report. Los Angeles River Basin (4B).

U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (USBR)

A Mid-Pacific Regional Office

1 Richardson. H. E., and others. July 1961. San Felipe Division. Geology and Ground-Water Resources Appendix. Part I — North
Santa Clara Valley. Part II — South Santa Clara Valley. Part III — Hollister Area. Part IV^Watsonville Subarea. Unnumbered
Report.

2 Richardson. H E.. and others, July 1961, Feasibility Studies of East Side Division. Central Valley Project. California. Geology
and Ground Water Resources Appendix. Unnumbered Report.

3 Richardson. H. E . and others. July 1962. North Coast Project. Eel River Division. Round Valley Unit. Geology and Ground-Water
Resources Appendix. Unnumbered Report

4 Richardson. H E . and others. February 1963. Central Valley Project. San Luis Unit. Geology and Ground-Water Resources
Definite Plan Appendix Unnumbered Report.

5 Richardson, H E,. and others. May 1964. Central Valley Project. Pit River Division. Reconnaissance Study of Allen Camp Unit.
Geology and Ground-Water Resources Appendix Unnumbered Report,

6. Richardson. H. E.. and others. July 1964. Reconnaissance Study of West Sacramento Canals Unit California. Ground-Water
and Geology Resources Appendix Part I — Lower Cache Creek Service Area. Part II — Solano County Service Area. Part
III — Middletown Service Area. Unnumbered Report.

109

Selected References for Inventory Summaries — Continued

7. Richardson. H. E.. and others. January 1965. Feasibility Studies of Sespe Creek Project. Ground-Water Geology and Resources
Appendix Unnumbered Report,

8. Richardson. H. E.. and others. September 1965. Central Valley Project. San Luis Unit. Ground-Water Conditions and Potential
Pumping Resources Above the Corcoran Clay, an Addendum to the Ground-Water Geology and Resources Definite Plan
Appendix. 1963. Unnumbered Report

9. Richardson. H E . and others. March 1966. San Felipe Division. Ground Water Conditions in North Santa Clara Valley. Santa
Clara County. Spring 1958-Spring 1966. An Addendum to the Geology and Ground Water Resources Appendix. 1961. Unnum-
bered Report.

10. Richardson. H. E.. and others. March 1968 (Revised June 1969). Lompoc Project. Feasibility Study. Ground-Water Geology

and Resources Appendix Unnumbered Report.
1 1 Richardson. H. E.. and others. August 1968. Ventura River Project Extensions. Feasibility Study. Ground-Water Geology and

Resources Appendix. Unnumbered Report.

12. Richardson. H. E.. and others, December 1968. North Coast Project. Eel River Division. English Ridge Unit. Feasibility Studies,
Groundwater Geology and Resources Appendix. Unnumbered Report.

B, Region 3

13. Anonymous. March 1965, Interim Report. Inland Basins Projects. Mojave River Basin. Unnumbered Report.

14. Anonymous, July 1967. Interim Report. Inland Basins Projects Morongo-Yucca Upper Coachella Valley. California. Unnum-
bered Reconnaissance Investigation.

15. Anonymous. March 1968. Interim Report Inland Basins Projects, Indian Wells and Searles Valley, California. Unnumbered
Reconnaissance Investigation.

16. Anonymous. November 1968. Interim Report on Inland Basins Projects Nevada-California, Amargosa Project. Unnumbered
Reconnaissance Investigation.

17. Anonymous. June 1968. Interim Report. Inland Basins Projects. Borrego Valley. California. Unnumbered Reconnaissance
Investigation.

18. Anonymous. December 1968. Interim Report. Inland Basins Projects. Chuckwalla Valley. California. Unnumbered Reconnais-
sance Investigation

V. U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS)

1. Akers. J. P.. July 24. 1969. Ground Water in the Scotts Valley Area. Santa Cruz County, California. Open-File Report.

2. Akers, J. P.. and others. March 28. 1967. Geohydrologic Reconnaissance of the Soquel-Aptos Area, Santa Cruz County.
California. Open-File Report.

3. Akers. J. P.. March 1974, The Effect of Proposed Deepening of the John F. Baldwin and Stockton Ship Channels on Salt-Water
Intrusion. Suisun Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Areas. California. Water Resources Investigations 56-73.

4. Back. W.. 1957, Geology and Ground Water Features of the Smith River Plain. Del Norte County, California. Water Supply
Paper 1254.

5. Bader. J. S..and others. 1958. Data on Water Wells and Springs in Morongo Valley and Vicinity. San Bernardino and Riverside
Counties, California. Open-File Report.

6. Bader, J. S.. and others. 1958. Data on Water Wells in the Upper Mojave Valley Area. San Bernardino County. California.
Open-File Report.

7. Bader. J, S.. January 29. 1969. Ground-Water Data as of 1967. North Lahontan Subregion. California. Open-File Report.

8. Bader. J. S.. March 5. 1969. Ground-Water Data as of 1967. Central Coastal Subregion. California. Open-File Report.

9. Bader. J. S.. March 5. 1969. Ground-Water Data as of 1967 Sacramento Basin Subregion. California. Open-File Report.

10. Bader. J. S.. March 5. 1969. Ground-Water Data as of 1967 San Francisco Bay Subregion. California. Open-File Report.

11. Berkstresser. C. F.. Jr., December 1973, Base of Fresh Ground Water Approximately 3.000 Micromhos in the Sacramento
Valley and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. California. Water Resources Investigations 40-73.

12. Bertoldi, G. L.. March 11. 1971. Chemical Quality of Ground Water in the Dos Palos-Kettleman City Area. San Joaquin Valley,
California. Open-File Report.

13 Bloyd. R. M., Jr.. August 28. 1967. Water Resources of the Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency Area. California. Open-File
Report

14. Bloyd. R. M. and others. November 12. 1967. Mathematical Ground-Water Model of Indian Wells Valley. California Open-File
Report.

15. Bloyd. R- M.. Jr.. 1971. Underground Storage of Imported Water in the San Gorgonio Pass Area. Southern California. Water
Supply Paper 1999-D

16. Cardwell. G. T.. 1958. Data for Wells and Streams in the Russian and Upper Eel River Valleys, Sonoma and Mendocino
Counties. California. Open-File Report.

1 7 Cardwell. G T.. 1958. Geology and Ground Water in the Santa Rosa and Petaluma Valley Areas Sonoma County, California.
Water Supply Paper 1427.

18. Cardwell. G. T.. 1965. Geology and Ground Water in Russian River Valley Areas and m Round. Laytonville. and Little Lake
Valleys. Sonoma and Mendocino Counties. California. Water Supply Paper 1548.

19. Chandler. T, S.. November 29. 1972. Water-Resources Inventory. Spnng 1966 to Spring 1971. Antelope Valley-East Kern Water
Agency Area, California. Open-File Report.

110

Selected References for Inventory Summaries — Continued

20. Cordes, E H.. and others. December 8. 1966. Progress Report on Analog Model Construction Orange County. California.
Open-File Report.

21. Crippen. J. R.. and others. 1970, The Lake Tahoe Basin. California-Nevada Water Supply Paper 1972

22. Croft. M. G.. and others. April 10. 1968, Geology. Hydrology, and Quality of Water in the Hanford-Visalia Area San Joaquin
Valley. California. Open-File Report.

23. Croft, M. G , 1972. Subsurface Geology of the Late Tertiary and Quarternary Water-Bearing Deposits of the Southern Part
of the San Joaquin Valley. California. Water Supply Paper 1999-H.

24. Dale. R H., and others, June 20, 1966, Ground-Water Geology and Hydrology of the Kern River Alluvial-Fan Area, California.
Open-File Report.

25. Davis, G. H., and others. 1957, Ground Water Conditions m the Mendota-Huron Area. Fresno and Kings Counties. California.
Water Supply Paper 1360-G.

26. Davis, G. H. and others, 1959. Ground Water Conditions and Storage Capacity in the San Joaquin Valley. California. Water
Supply Paper 1469.

27. Davis. G. H.. and others. 1964. Use of Ground Water Reservoirs for Storage of Surface Water in the San Joaquin Valley.
California. Water Supply Paper 1618.

28. Durham. D. L.. 1974. Geology of the Southern Salinas Valley Area. California. Professional Paper 819.

29. Dutcher. L. C. and others. 1358. Geologic and Hydrologic Features of the San Bernardino Area. California. With Special
Reference to Underflow Across the San Jacinto Fault. Open-File Report.

30. Dutcher, L. C, and others. 1959. Geology and Ground-Water Hydrology of the Mill Creek Area. San Bernardino County.
California. Open-File Report.

31. Dutcher. L. C. and others. August 25. 1963. Geology. Hydrology, and Water Supply of Edwards Air Force Base. Kern County.
California. Open-File Report.

32. Dutcher, L. C. and others. 1963. Geology and Hydrology of Agua Caliente Spring. Palm Springs. California. Water Supply
Paper 1605.

33. Dutcher. L. C. and others. 1963. Geologic and Hydrologic Features of the San Bernardino Area. Ca///om/a. Water Supply Paper
1419.

34 Dutcher. L. C. and others. February 9, 1972. Ground-Water Outflow. San Timoteo-Smiley Heights Area. Upper Santa Ana
Valley. Southern California. 1927 through 1968. Open-File Report.

35. Dutcher. L. C. and others. 1972. Preliminary Appraisal of Ground Water in Storage with Reference to Geothermal Resources
■ in the Imperial Valley Area. California. Circular 649.

36. Dutcher. L. C. and Hoyle. W. R.. Jr., 1973. Geologic and Hydrologic Features of Indian Wells Valley. California. Water Supply
Paper 2007.

37. Ellis. A. J., and others, 1919, Geology and Ground Waters of the Western Part of San Diego County. California. Water Supply
Paper 446.

38 Evenson, R E., 1959. Geology and Ground-Water Features of the Eureka Area, Humboldt County, California. Water Supply
Paper 1470

39. Evenson. R E , and others. November 23, 1962. Yield of the Carpinteria and Goleta Ground Water Basins, Santa Barbara
County. California. 1941-58. Open-File Report.

40. Evenson. R E . April 4. 1966. Hydrologic Inventory of the Lompoc Subarea, Santa Ynez River Basin, Santa Barbara County.
California. 1957-1962. With a Section on Perennial Supply. Open-File Report.

41. Faye. R. E.. November 1973, Ground-Water Hydrology of Northern Napa Valley. California. Water-Resources Investigations
No. 13-73.

42. Faye. R. E., August 1974. Mathematical Model of the San Juan Valley Ground-Water Basin. San Benito County. California.
Water Resources Investigations 58-73.

43. French. J. J.. 1972. Ground Water Outflow From Chino Basin. Upper Santa Ana Valley. Southern California. Water Supply
Paper 1999-C

44. Giessner, F W., 1965, Ground Water Conditions During 1964 at the Marine Corps Base, Twentynine Palms, California.
Open-File Report.

45 Greene, H. G . 1970. Geology of Southern Monterey Bay and its Relationship to the Ground Water Basin and Salt Water
Intrusion. Open-File Report

46 Hardt. W. F., and others, tVlay 28, 1971, Analysis of Ground-Water System in Orange County. California, by Use of An Electrical
Analog Model. Open-File Report

47 Hardt. W F . August 18, 1971, Hydrologic Analysis of Mojave River Basin. California. Using Electric Analog Model Open-File
Report.

48. Hardt. W. F.. 1972. Proposed Water-Resources Study of Searles Valley. California. Open-File Report.

49. Mickey. J. J.. April 10. 1968. Hydrogeologic Study of the Soquel-Aptos Area. Santa Cruz County. California. Open-File Report.

50. Hilton. G. S., and others. April 30. 1963, Geology. Hydrology, and Quality of Water in the Terra Bella-Lost Hills Area. San Joaquin
Valley. California. Open-File Report

51. Hilton. G. S . 1963, Water-Resources Reconnaissance in Southeastern Part of Honey Lake Valley. Lassen County. California.
Water Supply Paper 1619-Z.

52. Hotchkiss. W R . August 1. 1968. A Geologic and Hydrologic Reconnaissance of Lava Beds National Monument and Vicinity.
California. Open-File Report.

Selected References for Inventory Summaries — Continued

53. Hotchkiss. W R. and others. August 6. 1971. Geology. Hydrology, and Water Quality of the Tracy-Dos Palos Area. Sar) Joaquin
Valley, California. Open-File Report.

54. Hotchkiss. W. R.. May 12, 1972. Generalized Subsurface Geology of the Water-Bearing Deposits Northern San Joaquin Valley.
California. Open-File Report.

55. Hughes. J. L.. December 27. 1973, Evaluation of Ground-Water Degradation Resulting from Waste Disposal to Alluvium Near
Barstow. California. Open-File Report.

56. Hunt. C. B.. and others, 1966. Hydrologic Basin. Death Valley. California. Professional Paper 494-B.

57. Irwin, G. A., and others, 1971, Maps of the Watersheds of the Santa fvlarganta and San Luis Rey Rivers Riverside and San
Diego Counties. California. Showing Ground-Water Quality Data 1971. Open-File Maps.

58. Kllburn, C, August 31, 1972, Ground-Water Hydrology of the Hollister and San Juan Valleys San Benito County California.
1913-1968. Open-File Report.

59. Kistler, R. W., 1966. Structure and IVIetamorphism in the Mono Craters Quadrangle. Sierra Nevada. California. Bulletin 1221-E.

60. Koehler, J. H., February 6, 1970, Ground-Water Conditions During 1968. Vandenberg Air Force Base Area. California. Open-File
Report.

61. Kunkel, F., and others, 1959, Geologic Reconnaissance and Test-Well Drilling. Camp Irwin. California. Water Supply Paper
1460-F.

62. Kunkel, F., and others. 1960. Geology and Ground Water in Napa and Sonoma Valleys Napa and Sonoma Counties. California.
Water Supply Paper 1495.

63. Kunkel. F.. 1963. Hydrologic and Geologic Reconnaissance of Pinto Basin Joshua Tree National Monument. Riverside County.
California. Water Supply Paper 1475-0.

64. Kunkel. F., 1966, /4 Geohydrologic Reconnaissance of the Saratoga Spring Area. Death Valley National Monument. California.
Open-File Report.

65. Kunkel, F., and others. January 23, 1969, Geology and Ground Water in Indian Wells Valley. California. Open-File Report.

66. Kunkel, F.. August 12. 1969. Test-Well and Soil Data Fort Mojave Indian Reservation Area. California. Basic Data Connpilation.

67. Kunkel. F.. 1970. The Deposits of the Colorado River on the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation in California 1850-1969. Open File
Report.

68. LaRocque. G. A.. Jr., and others, 1950. Wells and Water Levels in Principal Ground-Water Basins in Santa Barbara County.
California. Water Supply Paper 1068.

69. LaFreniere. G. F., and others, April 10, 1968, Ground-Water Resources of the Santa Ynez Upland Ground-Water Basin. Santa
Barbara County. California. Open-File Report.

70. Lee. C. H., 1912, An Intensive Study of the Water Resources of a Part of Owens Valley. California. Water Supply Paper 294.

71. Lewis, R. E., and others, October 15, 1968, Water Resources Inventory for 1967 Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency Area.
California. Open-File Report.

72. Lewis. R. E.. March 24, 1972, Ground-Water Resources of the Yucca Valley-Joshua Tree Area. San Bernardino County.
California. Open-File Report.

73. Lofgren, B. E., and others, 1969, Land Subsidence Due to Ground-Water Withdrawal. Tulare-Wasco Area. California. Profes-
sional Paper 437-B.

74. Lofgren, B. E., 1973. Land Subsidence Due to Ground-Water Withdrawal Arvin-Maricopa Area. California. Open-File Report.

75. Lofgren. B, E., 1973. Preliminary Investigation of Land Subsidence in the SacramentoValley. California. Open-File Report.

76. Mack. S.. 1958. Geology and Ground Water Features of Scott Valley. Siskiyou County. California. Water Supply Paper 1462.

77. Mack. S.. 1960, Geology and Ground Water Features of Shasta Valley. Siskiyou County. California.

78. Malmberg, G. T.. 1967, Hydrology of the Valley-Fill and Carbonate-Rock Reservoirs Pahrump Valley. California. Water Supply
Paper 1832.

79. Metzger. D. G.. 1 965. A Miocene (?) Aquifer in the Parker-Blythe-Cibola Area. Arizona and California. Professional Paper 525-C.

80. Metzger. D, G.. and others. 1973. Geohydrology of the Parker-Blythe-Cibola Area. Arizona and California. Professional Paper
486-G.

81. Metzger, D. G., and others. 1973, Geohydrology of the Needles Area. Arizona. California and Nevada. Professional Paper 486-J.

82. Miller, G. A., and others. 1966. Utilization of Ground Water in the Santa Maria Valley Area. California. Water Supply Paper
1819-A

83. Mitten, H, T., and others, 1970, Geology. Hydrology, and Quality of Water in the Madera Area. San Joaquin Valley. California.
Open-File Report.

84. Mitten, H. T., December 1974, Estimated Ground Water Pumpage in the Southern Part of the Sacramento Valley. California.
1969-71 Open-File Report

85. Moreland, J. A., and others, March 19. 1969. A Study of Deep Aquifers Underlying Coastal Orange County. California. Open-File
Report.

86. Moreland, J, A., August 7. 1970, Artificial Recharge Yucaipa. California. Open-File Report.

87. Moreland, J. A., 1972, Maps of the Watersheds of the Santa Margarita and San Luis Rey Rivers. Riverside and San Diego
Counties. California. Showing Water-Level Contours and Water-Ouality Diagrams. Autumn 1971. Open-File Maps.

88. Moreland, J, A.. October 1974. Hydrologic and Salt-Balance Investigations Utilizing Digital Models. Lower San Luis Rey River
Area San Diego County. California. Water-Resources Investigations 24-74.

112

Selected References for Inventory Summaries — Continued

89 Moreland. J. A.. February 1975. Evaluation of Recharge Potential Near Indio. California Water Resources Investigations 35-74.
90. Muir. K. S.. 1964. Geology and Ground Water of San Antonio Creek Valley. Santa Barbara County. California. Water-Supply
Paper 1664.

91 Muir. K S . 1968. Ground-Water Reconnaissance of the Santa Barbara-Montecito Area, Santa Barbara County, California.
Water Supply Paper 1859-A.

92 Muir. K S.June 27. 1972. Geology and Ground Water of the Pajaro Valley Area. Santa Cruz and IVIonterey Counties, California.
Open-File Report.

93. Muir. K. S.. October 1974. Sea-Water Intrusion. Ground Water Pumpage. Ground Water Yield and Artificial Recharge of the
Pajaro Valley Area. Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. California. Water-Resources Investigations 9-74.

94. Olmstead. F, H.. and others. 1961. Geologic Features and Ground-Water Storage Capacity of the Sacramento Valley. California.
Water Supply Paper 1497.

95 Olmsted. F H . and others. 1973. Geohydrology of the Yuma Area. Arizona and California. Professional Paper 486-H.

96. Page. R W.. 1963. Geology and Ground-Water Appraisal of the Naval Air l^issile Test Center Area Point t^ugu. California.
Water Supply Paper 1619-S.

97. Page. R. W.. and others. 1969. Geology. Hydrology, and Water Quality in the Fresno Area. California. Open-File Report.
98 Page. R. W.. and others. September 1973. Geology and Quality of Water m the l\/lodesto-IVIerced Area San Joaquin Valley.

California, with a Section on Hydrology. Water-Resources Investigations 6-73.
99. Page. R. W.. 1973. Base of Fresh Ground Water (Approximately 3000 micromhos) in the San Joaquin Valley. California.
Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-489

100. Piper. A. M.. and others. 1939. Geology and Ground-Water Hydrology of the Mokelumne Area. California. Water Supply Paper
780.

101 . Pistrang. M. A., and others. 1964. A Brief Geologic and Hydrologic Reconnaissance of the Furnace Creek Wash Area. Death
Valley National Monument. California Water-Supply Paper 1779-Y

102. Poland. J. F . and others. 1956. Ground Water Geology of the Coastal Zone Long Beach-Santa Ana Area. California. Water
Supply Paper 1109.

103. Poland. J, F.. and others. 1959. Geology. Hydrology and Chemical Character of Ground Waters in the Torrance-Santa Monica
Area. California. Water Supply Paper 1461.

104. Poland. J. F.. and others. 1959. Hydrology of the Long Beach-Santa Ana Area. California, with Special Reference to the
Watertightness of the Newport-lnglewood Structural Zone. With a Section on Withdrawal of Ground Water. 1932-41. Water
Supply Paper 1471.

105 Poland. J. F.. and others. 1962. Subsidence in the Santa Clara Valley, California, A Progress Report. Water Supply Paper 1619-C.

106. Poland. J. F.. and others. 1973. Land Subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley. California as of 1972. Open-File Report.

107. Poole. J. L.. 1961. Water Resources Reconnaissance of Hoopa Valley. Humboldt. California. Water Supply Paper 1576-C.

108. Powers. W. R.. III. and others. December 1974. Oak Glen Water Resources Development Study Using Modeling Techniques.
San Bernardino County. California. Water Resources Investigations 31-74.

109 Riley. F. S . 1956. Data on Water Wells in Lucerne. Johnson. Fry and Means Valleys. San Bernardino County, California.
Open-File Report.

110 Riley. F S.. and others, 1961. Data on Water Wells on Marine Corps Base, Twentynine Palms, California. Open-File Report.

111 Robson. S. G . February 10. 1972. Water Resources Investigation Using Analog Model Techniques in the Saugus-Newhall Area,
Los Angeles County. California. Open-File Report.

112. Robson. S. G.. February 1974. Feasibility of Digital Water Quality Modeling Illustrated by Application at Barstow, California.
Water Resources Investigations 46-73.

113. Singer. J. A., and others. August 3. 1970. Pumpage and Ground Water Storage Depletion in Cuyama Valley. California.
1947-1966 Open-File Report.

114. Singer. J, A,. January 8. 1973. Geohydrology and Artificial Recharge Potential of the Irvine Area. Orange County. California.
Open-File Report.

115. Swarzenski. W. V.. May 2. 1967. Progress Report Ground Water Appraisal of Cuyama Valley. California. Open-File Report.

116. Thomasson. H. G. and others. 1960. Geology. Water Resources and Usable Ground-Water Storage Capacity of Part of Solano
County. California. Water Supply Paper 1464.

117. Thompson. D. G . 1920. Ground Water in Lanfair Valley. California. Water Supply Paper 450-B

118. Thompson. D. G . 1929. The Mojave Desert Region, California, A Geographic, Geologic, and Hydrographic Reconnaissance.
Water Supply Paper 578

1 19. Thompson. T. H . September 15. 1965. Seepage Losses in the San Jacinto River Alluvial Fan. Near Elsinore. California. Open-File
Report.

120. Tyley. S. J.. January 30. 1973. Artificial Recharge in the Whitewater River Area Palm Springs California. With a Section on
Identification of Recharge Sources and an Evaluation of Possible Water Quality Effects on Artificial Recharge as Indicated
by Mineral Equilibria Calculations Open-File Report.

121. Tyley. S. T . 1974. Analog Model Study of the Ground-Water Basin of the Upper Coachella Valley. California. Water Supply
Paper 2027

122. Upson. J E . and others. 1951. Geology and Water Resources of the Santa Ynez River Basin. Santa Barbara County, California.
Water Supply Paper 1107.

113

Selected References for Inventory Summaries — Continued

123 Upson. J. E . 1951, Geology and Ground-Water Resources of the South-Coast Basins of Santa Barbara County. California.

Water Supply Paper 1108.
124. Upson. J E. 1951. Ground Water in the Cuyama Valley. California. Water Supply Paper 1110-B
125 Upson. J E. and others. 1955. Ground Water of the Lower Lake-Middleton Area. Lake County. California. VJaxer Supply Paper

1297,

126. Waring. G. A . 1919. Ground Water in the San Jacinto and Temecula Basins. California. Water Supply Paper 429.

127. Waring. G. A.. 1920. Ground Water in Pahrump. Mesquite and Ivanpah Valleys Nevada and California. Water Supply Paper
450-C

128. Warner. J. W.. and others. November 16. 1972, Artificial Recharge in the Waterman Canyon-East Twin Creek Area San
Bernardino County. California. Open-File Report.

129. Wilson. H. D.. Jr.. 1959. Ground-Water Appraisal of Santa Ynez River Basin. Santa Barbara County, California, 1945-52. Water
Supply Paper 1467.

130. Wood. P, R,. and others. 1959. Ground-Water Conditions in the Avenal-McKittrick Area, Kings and Kern Counties, California.
Water Supply Paper 1457.

131. Wood, P, R,. 1960. Geology and Ground Water Features of the Butte Valley Region. Siskiyou County. California. Water Supply
Paper 1491

132. Wood. P, R.. and others. 1964. Geology and Ground Water Features of the Edison-Maricopa Area. Kern County. California.
Water Supply Paper 1656,

133. Worts. G. F.. Jr.. 1951. Geology and Ground-Water Resources of the Santa Maria Valley Area. California, with a Section on
Surface-Water Resources. Water Supply Paper 1000,

MISCELLANEOUS (MISC.)

1. Anonymous. May 1969. Water and Related Land Resources. Central Lahontan Basin. Walker River Subbasin. Nevada-Califor-
nia. U,S, Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. Forest Service. Soil Conservation Service. Unnumbered'
Report. Appendix II.

2. Anonymous. June 1969. Water and Related Land Resources, Central Lahontan Basin. Walker River Subbasin, Nevada-Califor-
nia. US, Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. Forest Service. Soil Conservation Service, Unnumbered
Summary Report,

3. Anonymous. November 1972, Water and Related Land Resources. Central Lahontan Basin. Interim Report. Truckee River
Subbasin. Nevada-California. US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Forest Service. Soil Conservation
Service, Unnumbered Interim Report,

4. Eakin. T. E,. 1950. Preliminary Report on Ground Water in Fish Lake Valley. Nevada and California. State of Nevada, Office
of the State Engineer, Water Resources Bulletin No. 11,

5. Glancy. P. A,. June 1968. Water Resources Appraisal of Mesquite-lvanpah Valley Area. Nevada and California. Nevada
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Water Resources-Reconnaissance Series Report 46.

6. Lowney/Kaldveer Associates. Palo Alto. April 4, 1974, Ground Water Investigation. Denmston Creek Vicinity San l\/fateo
County. California, for Coast-side County Water District Half IVIoon Bay. California. Unnumbered Report.

7. Manning. J, C. November 1967. An Evaluation of Water Sources for Agricultural Supply in Pleasant Valley. Fresno County,
California. Hydrodevelopment. Inc.. Bakersfield,

8. Mcllwain. R. R,. and others. June 1970. West Coast Basin BarrieTVroject 1967-1969. A Los Angeles County Flood Control
District Report on the Control of Sea-Water Intrusion. Los Angeles County Flood Control District. Unnumbered Report,

9. Michael. E, D,. and others. 1962, Geology. Ground Water Survey. Tehachapi Soil Conservation District. Consultants Report
to Tehachapi Soil Conservation District,

10. Poland. J. F., March 1935. Ground Water Conditions in Ygnacio Valley, California. Stanford University Masters Thesis.

11. Rush. F. E.. and others. February 1966. Ground-Water Appraisal of the Eldorado-Piute Valley Area. Nevada and California.
Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Water Resources-Reconnaissance Series Report 36,

12. Rush. F, E,. and others. 1973. Water Resources Appraisal of Fish Lake Valley. Nevada and California. Nevada Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources. Division of Water Resources. Water Resources-Reconnaissance Series Report 58.

13. Santa Ana River Water Master. February 1972. First Annual Report of the Santa Ana River Water Master. 1970-71.

14. Sharp. J, v.. February 1975. Availability of Ground Water. Truckee-Donner Public Utilities District. Nevada County. California.
Hydro-Search.

15. Tanji. K. K. January 1975, Water and Salt Transfers in Sutter Basin, California. American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
Paper No. 74-2029.

16. Turner.JM.. 1971. Ventura County Water Resources Management Study, Geohydrology of the Ventura River System. Venxura
County Department of Public Works. Flood Control District, Unnumbered Report,

17. Van Denburgh, A, S,. and others. 1970, Water Resources Appraisal of the Columbus Salt-Marsh-Soda Spring Valley Area.
Mineral and Esmeralda Counties, Nevada. Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Resources, Water Resources-Reconnaissance Series Report 52.

18. Vemuri. V.. and others. February 1969. Identification of Nonlinear Parameters of Ground Water Basins by Hybrid Computation.
Water Resources Research. Volume 5. No, 1,

19. Walker. G, E,, and others. March 1963. Geology and Ground Water of Amargosa Desert. Nevada-California. Nevada Depart-
ment of Conservation and Natural Resources. Ground Water Resources-Reconnaissance Series Report 14,

20. Williams. D, E.. June 1969. Preliminary Geohydrologic Study of A Portion of the Owens Valley Ground-Water Reservoir. New
Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Ph.D. Thesis,

114

CHAPTER IV. GROUND WATER BAS
PROTECTION AND UTILIZATIO

The use of ground water basins in California has
developed several kinds of problems. Pump lifts vary-
ing from 500 to 1,000 feet in some areas have made
water too expensive for most agricultural uses. In sev-
eral basins, excessive pumping has permitted salt wa-
ter, from natural sources beneath or beside the basins,
to enter the basin and degrade a portion of the water.
At times, disposal of wastes has added salts, disagree-
able odors, or toxic materials to the ground water and
impaired its usefulness. Extensive pumping of ground
water with reduction in pressure has also caused deep
lying clay beds to compact, resulting m actual sinking
of the ground surface.

Excessive reliance on surface water supplies pro-
duces high ground water levels in some areas. This is
a problem because pumping to keep water levels be-
low root zones of crops m some of these basins results
in waste when the drained water is not beneficially
used in the area or downstream.

Solutions for many of these problems, as well as
measures that have increased the usability of some
basins, have been developed and implemented m
some parts of the State.

Protection of Basins

The following problems and methods of solution ap-
ply to some of California's ground water basins. Fre-
quently, the problem is recognized for a long while
before any solution is implemented.

Excessive Pump Lifts

One of California's first ground water laws prohibit-
ed waste of water from artesian wells. Even with this
regulation, it did not take long for the rate of use of
water from the basin to exceed the amount available
from flowing artesian wells. Introduction of pumps to
increase the flows soon lowered the ground water lev-
el in the basins so that free flowing wells became a
rarity. Further lowering of the water table required that
wells be deepened or, in many cases, that shallow
wells be replaced with deeper wells. Very few basins
have achieved a balance between withdrawal of water
and natural recharge. In most cases, some form of
management had to be instituted or is now needed.

Salt Water Intrusion

Water in the seaward portion of basins bordered by
the ocean, or by bays and channels containing brackish
water, has often become unusable due to intrusion of
sea water, as pumping lowered the ground water lev-
els below sea level. The intrusion is sometimes in-

Figure 16. Basins with Overdraft

KNOWN AREAS OF SEA WATER INTRUSION
Name
EEL RIVER VALLEY
PETALUMA VALLEY
NAPA-SONOMA VALLEY
SANTA CLARA VALLEY
PAJARO VALLEY
SALINAS VALLEY
LOS OSOS VALLEY
MORRO VALLEY
CHARRO VALLEY
SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY
COASTAL PLAIN LOS ANGELES

COUNTY
COASTAL PLAIN ORANGE

COUNTY
SAN LUIS REY VALLEY

■■(

1 ^

Figure 17. Sea Water Intrusion in Ground Water Basins

116

PUMPED WELL

RECHARGE AREA

WATER LEVEL

■PERCHED WATER TABLE

RECHARGE (Precipitotion & Irrigation)

PUMPED WELL

SEA WATER INTRUDED
WELL

■WATER LEVEL

NON WATER BEARING ROCK

Figure 18. Sea Water Intruding a Coastal Basin

taming brackish or saline water. In several cases, heavy the basin.

Injcclion Well in Sfo Woter Barrier

117

Quality Degradation

Industrial processes and waste disposal have creat-
ed many kinds of water quality problems, categorized
generally under the heading of water quality degrada-
tion. Contributing factors include the disposal of brines
from oil fields by percolation into ground water basins,
the discharge of brines from water softener regenera-
tion plants by means that allow wastes to enter ground
water basins, and the leaching of soluble material from
refuse dumps. In some instances, surface water has
been permitted to flow through the refuse dumps, thus
accelerating the leaching and percolation of undesira-
ble material to the ground water.

Some of the causes of ground water degradation are
obscure and take many years to be recognized. Waste
disposal practices at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal
northeast of Denver, Colorado, seriously damaged a
ground water aquifer throughout an area of approxi-
mately 6'/2 square miles. Contaminants were chlorates
and 2.4 D type compounds, both of which are effective
herbicides. Both compounds were generated in waste
disposal ponds by chemical reactions among other
compounds discharged by chemical factories in the
Arsenal. Travel of the water through the permeable
alluvium in which the ponds were constructed was
very_ slow. Crop damage was first reported eleven
years after disposal of the wastes began at a location
3'/2 miles from the ponds.

Contaminated ground water within the affected
area is toxic to agricultural crops and impotable for
humans. Corrective measures have been taken to halt

GROUND SURFACE

.LOWER AQUIFER. ..■.••• ■.■„".

;;;;:o-.- »;":•.■.: ■■;■.;■■:.•;•
■ :'• ." SANITARY LAND FILL >

Figure 19. Dump Site in Ground Water Basin

further contamination, but the area of toxicity is ex-
panding owing to migration of the body of ground
water already contaminated.

An unusual conditi.on of quality degradation near
Los Angeles resulted from leakage of gasoline from a
buried pipeline. The degradation was first discovered
in 1968, when Forest Lawn Memorial Park reported
pumping gasoline from one of its irrigation wells. Re-
sults of a subsequent study estimated that approxi-
mately 160,000 square feet were underlain with 250,000
gallons of gasoline. During the next three years about
50,000 gallons Of the gasoline were removed by pump-
ing the wells.

Of concern at present is the uncertainty about the
possible effects on human health of a variety of stable
organic industrial wastes that find their way into sew-
age and industrial wastes that, in turn, enter ground
water basins.

Buildup of Salt in Ground Water

A problem rapidly gaining the degree of concern it
merits is buildup of salt concentrations in some basins.
The San Joaquin Valley from Fresno on south is espe-
cially subject to salt buildup, because there is little
outflow of water from the Valley. Moreover, about 2
million tons of salt enter the Valley each year in import-
ed'water and in runoff from local watersheds. Use of
water for both urban and agricultural purposes contrib-
utes to the salt buildup. As plants remove water from
the soil, they leave behind nearly all the salt that was
dissolved in the water.

High Water Tables

In some areas, surface water applied in excess of
consumptive requirements of urban and agricultural
uses has saturated the underlying soil all the way to the
ground surface. This situation usually occurs where
the price charged for the surface water is very low. The
high water tables result in various problems, the specif-
ic form depending on the use of the land. Various bur-
ied or open ditch drain systems are used to lower the
water table, especially when the water-bearing materi-
al near the surface is not sufficiently permeable to yield
water to wells. The drains also prevent salt buildup in
the soil, due to evapotranspiration by plants that use
very large quantities of water.

In some basins, wells are used to lower the ground
water level. This provides an opportunity for use of
both surface water and ground water storage capacity.
However, when the ground water is pumped at times
when it cannot be used in the area or downstream, the
water is wasted.

Land Subsidence

Extensive use of ground water basins has caused
structural change in some basins, and has affected the
quantity and quality of water. In many basins, lowering
of water levels from one hundred to several hundred
feet has allowed water to be squeezed from clay

118

lenses: this causes the solid particles making up the
clay to consolidate so that they occupy a snnaller vol-
ume, and the clay lenses become thinner. In one area
of the San Joaquin Valley, the land surface has low-
ered as much as 28 feet.

This type of subsidence has occurred most notably
on both the western and southern portions of the San
Joaquin Valley and to a lesser degree at San Jose in the
Santa Clara Valley. It has required repair and remodel-
ing of many forms of public and private facilities —
particularly water facilities, which are very sensitive to
changes in land elevation.

Water Well Standards

To aid in protecting California's ground waters,
standards for the construction and destruction of wells
have been developed. Besides extracting water from
the ground, wells can also be a means for impairing the
quality of ground water. This occurs when wells pro-
vide a physical connection between sources of pollu-
tion and usable water because of inadequate
construction or improper disposition when their useful
lives are over.

The solution is to use methods and materials that are
adequate. To this end. the Department has issued
statewide standards for well construction and destruc-
tion (Bulletin No. 74, "Water Well Standards: State of
California" February 1968). In addition, studies apply-
ing these standards to specific ground water condi-
tions have been made in ten areas. The California
Regional Water Quality Control Boards and the De-
partment of Health also have a role in adoption of the
standards.

The task of establishing well standards falls to the
counties and cities. As of mid-1975, 23 counties have
enacted well ordinances and ten others, ordinances
limited to specific kinds of wells. Of California's 411
cities, 110 enforce standards.

While urging adoption of ordinances, the Depart-
ment is also striving to see that proper well construc-
tion practices are employed statewide and that
abandoned wells are properly destroyed.

Management of Ground Water Resources

Many misconceptions and myths concerning
ground water management still exist. Three common
misconceptions are that (1) ground water levels must
be maintained or raised, (2) ground water that is
mined or overdrafted will destroy the usefulness of the
ground water reservoir, and (3) ground water is differ-
ent from any other resource and therefore must be
managed differently.

Those misconceptions have often mflcienced
ground water resources planning. In many cases, tak-
ing immediate steps to avoid declining water levels, to
eliminate overdraft, and to forestall possible subsid-
ence and water quality degradation, has become the
objective of ground water basin management. Thus,
many alternatives, such as controlled mining for a lim-

ited period and selective uses of ground water basins
for salt sinks and other purposes, have not received
consideration.

Recharge

Water users recognized long ago that if a constant
supply of surface water could be provided to the more
pernneable recharge areas of basins, the yield of the
basins could be increased. In some cases, surface sup-
plies have been obtained by construction of dams and
reservoirs to regulate streams solely for the purpose of
releasing the water for ground water recharge. In other
areas, most of the winter runoff stored in the reservoirs
has been used for direct surface application during the
summer months and the remaining portion has been
used for ground water recharge.

In many cases, water has been imported in excess of
the needs of a basin to replace water that was mined
from the basin before the imported supply became
available. In a few areas, where highly permeable re-
charge areas are either limited or unavailable, lands
overlying the basin are irrigated during the nongrow-
ing season in years of large runoff to recharge the
ground water basin. Waste water has also been used
in several recharge projects.

Control of Pumping

When all available recharge opportunities have been
fully developed, pumping by all ground water users has
been controlled in some basins, so that water is not
taken from the basin to the point of depletion. This
step has almost always been accompanied by importa-
tion of water for surface distribution.

Situations may arise in the future where it will be
necessary to curtail the actual use of water rather than
replace the cutback m ground water with an imported
supply. However, if water is imported to offset an over-
draft situation, any irrigation of new land, at the ex-
pense of not offsetting the overdraft, should be
evaluated and specifically approved as part of the
project.

Figure 21. Basins with Artificial Recharge Projects

Recharge Area ond Recreotion

120

Conjunctive Use with Surface Water

Conjunctive use involves the planned use of under-
ground storage in coordination with surface water sup-
plies to increase the yield of the total water resource.
This can be accomplished by several methods or com-
binations of methods. All involve the operation of sur-
face storage facilities — either locally or at some
distance from the ground water basin — and the deliv-
ery of water to overlying lands where recharge can be
accomplished by (1) extending flow m stream chan-
nels, (2) operation of spreading basins and surface
irrigation conveyance facilities, and (3) percolation of
excess applied surface irrigation supplies.

In a few basins, in addition to ground water, substan-
tial surface supplies are available for use on the overly-
ing irrigated lands. In such basins a conjunctive
operation has evolved without any particular planning.
The surface water is distributed to most of the lands to
meet crop water requirements during years of normal
or above normal runoff, and ground water is used to
irrigate much of the land during years of low runoff.
Yolo County, with a highly variable supply of surface
water from Clear Lake, has been a notable example of
this type of unplanned conjunctive operation. Planned
conjunctive operation has also taken place in basins
that have had to import surface water from some other
watershed.

Maintenance of Water Quality

Where sea water intrusion has occurred, various
kinds of barriers can be constructed to control the
movement of water from the ocean into a ground wa-
ter basin. Limiting pumping from a basin so that there
IS always a positive gradient toward the ocean is effec-
tive, but usually limits a basin's usefulness by requiring
that It be nearly full at all times.

Another method is to inject surface water into the
aquifers in a line of wells parallel to the coastline to
create a ground water mound. Some of the injected
water is lost as it flows toward the ocean to prevent
salt water from moving inland, and some of the inject-
ed water flows inland and contributes to the supply in
the basin.

A reverse process has also been used, in which a line
of wells parallel to the coast has been pumped, result-
ing in movement of both fresh water and salt water to
the wells. This limits the distance salt water will move
into the basin but also results in loss of the fresh water
that IS mixed with the salt water withdrawn from the
wells. Physical barriers have been considered for some
shallow aquifers but only one small barrier has been
installed in a ground water basin in California.

Where ground water basins are underlain by salt

. water, the only practical solution to resulting quality

problems has been to limit the depth and spacing of

wells and the amount of water withdrawn from the

basin to avoid mixing of the two water bodies.

In a large enclosed ground water basin such as the
Tulare Basin, where surface outflow occurs only m

Figure 22. Basins Under Intensive Ground V\/ater Man-
agement

121

PUMPING WELL

PUMPING WELL -7

_£__ . J . I ' ^^ \'\'-^''^/^f

PUMPING TROUGH BARRIER

PUMPING WELL

CONTROLLED PUMPING

PUMPING WELL

.WATER TABLE.

^ '^ I /_ 1^\ \ \-/ ."^ •

•|V^'. .•A':

MAN-MADE PHYSICAL BARRIER

INJECTION WELL

PUMPING WELL

INJECTION BARRIER

PUMPING WELL

ARTIFICIAL -RECHARGE

Figure 23. Sea Water Intrusion Protective Measures

122

extremely wet years, a controlled degradation concept
of managennent has been suggested as an interim
means of controlling salinity in the basin. This concept
envisions reduction of salt load reaching the underly-
ing ground water basin when practicable and feasible.
Suggested ways to implement this concept include:
(1) review of fertilization and soil amendment prac-
tices. (2) study of methods to control leachate from
newly developed lands, and (3) evaluation of recent

information of the potential for salt storage through
increased irrigation efficiency.

A large variety of measures have been taken to con-
trol disposal of man-made wastes, to correct problems
resulting from polluted ground water and to prevent
new problems from occurring. These measures are ex-
tremely important, because a basin that may be ex-
pected to be used for thousands of years can become
unusable, perhaps permanently, within only a few
years by deliberate or accidental pollution.

OXNARD PLAIN EXPERIMENTAL (INACTIVE)

WEST COAST BASIN

DOMINGUEZ GAP

ALAMITOS

Figure 24. Sea Water Intrusion Barriers

123

Figure 25 Adjudicated Ground Water Basins

Ground Water Law

Much of the law relating to the use of ground w.
in California has been developed by the courts si
very few statutes affecting ground water rights h
been adopted by the California Legislature.'

Most of the ground water in California is "percc
ing water", waters trapped in aquifers of undergro
basins through which it slowly percolates. The con
five rights doctrine governs rights to percola
ground water. It is analogous to riparian rights. E
overlying landowner is entitled to make reason,
beneficial use of ground water with a priority equ;
all other overlying users. Water in excess of the ne
of the overlying owners can be pumped and usee
nonoverlying lands on a first-in-time. first-in-right b;
but such appropriative rights are extinguished in
absence of prescription when overlying users make
use of available supplies. When there is not suffic
water to meet the needs of the overlying owners,
courts have applied the principle of "correlc
rights" to apportion such water among the overl
landowners.^

In several Southern California basins, where the
ter users had badly depleted the ground water by
time a court action was commenced, the courts f
developed a doctrine of "mutual prescription" ui
which the water users are given a share of the
yield" of the basin. In all of the earlier lawsuits
rights in ground water basins, commencing with
Raymond Basin of Southern California,' the wate
ers have entered into stipulated judgments which \
protected the established uses under the pnncipl
"mutual prescription" by prorating the rights on
basis of the use of water during the five years imn
ately preceding the filing of the court actions. Ar
ception to these earlier "mutual prescription" ji
ments is the recent San Fernando case decided by
California Supreme Court on May 12. 1975."

Under the earlier "mutual prescription" stipuli
judgments the total annual ground water produc
usually has been limited to the "safe yield" of the b;
that is. the average annual amount of water w
naturally recharges the basin. The courts adopted
safe yield concept based on the conventional wis(
of the ground water hydrologists of the 1940's and
that continued overdraft of ground water basins
undesirable. However these limitations on minin
ground water often have limited the potential us
ness of basins to offset variations in annual preci
tion and particularly to postpone or reduce the r
for importations of water. Recent studies of grc
water basins have indicated that the dangers of pe
nent damage from overproduction have been over
to the courts.

' An exception is water in subterranean streams which is subject to a statutory
system under the jurisdiction of the State Water Resources Control Board (Wate
Section 1200). However all hydrologists agree that almost none of California's ,
water resources flows in subterranean streams.

> Katz V, WAlkinsbaw. 141 Cal 116. 70 Pac. 663. 74 Pac 766 (1902-3)

» City of Pasadena v City of Alhanibra. 33 Cal.2d 908. 207 P 2d 17 1 1949!

* City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando, et aJ.. Cal.3d ( 1975)

RIGHTS TO GROUND WATER

FULL BASIN

^tSS WATER Nor /vr
" ^tPORTEO FR0A4 ny^Dn.'^Oo

OVERLYING LANDOWNERS SHARE
COEQUALLY OR CORRELATIVE LY
FOR BENEFICIAL USES ON OVER
LYING LANDS WITHOUT REGARD
TO TIME OF USE.

RECHARGE FROM NATURAL
SOURCES SUFFICIENT TO
KEEP BASIN FULL.

GROUND WATER
ALL FROM NATURAL SOURCES

OVERDRAWN BASIN

IMPORTED WATER MAY USE STORAGE SPACE
NOT NEEDED FOR NATURAL RECHARGE

OVERLYING LANDOWNERS SHARE
NATURAL WATER COEQUALLY
SECOND PRIORITY

IMPORTED WATER RECAPTu/jf^

IMPORTED WATER PROJECT
OPERATOR AND CUSTOMERS

NO WATER AVAILABLE FOR
EXPORT BY APPROPRIATORS

Notes;

• Totol o5es of water limited to amount which will not do permanent domoge to basin or have adverse effects on the basins
long-term supply.

• Old Posodena vs Alhombro mutuol prescription" rule which apportioned water omong all users both overlying and
oppropriative on basis of uses during the lost 5 yeors of overdroft prior to filing odjudieotory oction is no longer the
low. Tlie case of Los Angeles vs San Fernondo overturned the "Mutual prescription" doctrine and held prescriptive
rights do not opply against FVjblic entities.

• Also the old Posadeno vs Alhombra rule which limited ground woter withdrawals of overlying landowners and appropri-
otors to the "sofe yields," that is, the overage annual noturol rechorge of the bosin, has been modified to allow
withdrowols in amounts which will not odversly effect the basin.

Figure 26. Rights to Ground Water

Each of the earlier court decrees was meant to solve
a particular problem at a particular time. Thus most of
these judgments do not lend themselves to a system of
conjunctive use of surface and ground water, which is
discussed later in this report. In particular the courts
did not separately consider the rights to empty storage
space in a drawn down basin.

Almost all of California's ground water basins are
within the boundaries of several agencies with jurisdic-
tion over water resources, but with widely varying au-
thority as to ground water management. Unless one
agency with adequate authority embraces all or nearly
all of a basin within its boundaries, agreement on an
overall management plan is very difficult. Efficient con-
junctive operation of ground water basins requires
that an agency or group of agencies acting under the
Joint Exercise of Powers Act has authority to manage
the basin; that is, authority to store and withdraw water
and to control the ground water levels in the basin.
Few major water project operators in California pres-
ently have such authority and because of the prolifera-
tion of small districts there are few, if any, basinwide
entities with authority over any of California's major
ground water basins.^

A careful analysis of the Supreme Court's San Fer-
nando 6ec\s\ou would indicate that this decision pres-
ages the dawn of a new era in the law and will greatly
facilitate the conjunctive use of California's ground
water basins — at least in those basins which have been
overdrawn to a point that there is more empty storage
space than is presently being used.

The Court was considering the rights to the San
Fernando ground water basins on the northern edge of
Los Angeles. In one part of the decision the Court held
that a public entity cannot lose its rights by prescrip-
tion. This holding will effectively rule out any future
"mutual prescription" settlements or judgments in ba-
sins where some or all of the rights are held by public
entities.

As to the rights to the natural yield of the basin, the
Court found that Los Angeles has prior rights to all of
the yield pursuant to its pueblo right acquired under
Spanish law. This pueblo right was held to be superior
to the rights of all overlying landowners.

However, for the future of conjunctive use of ground
water basins, the Court's holding with respect to the
rights to the empty storage space in the basin is the
most important. The court upheld the rights of all of
the owners of water imported from outside of the ba-

* For a broader discussion of the legal problems of conjunctive use see Department of
Water Resources Southern District Report dated June 1974 entitled "Ground Water
Storage of State Water Project Supplies".

sin to recover from the ground water basin all of such
imported water which reached the ground water
whether by deliberate spreading or by incidental per-
colation after surface use. The Court held that the
rights to recover such imported water are of equal
priority to the City of Los Angeles' pueblo right and are
"prior to the rights dependent on ownership of overly-
ing land or based solely upon appropriation of ground
water from the basin" .

The Court noted that there did not appear to be any
shortage of underground storage space in relation to
the demand, and therefore it was unnecessary to de-
termine priorities to the use of such space.

Under these rulings, it appears that m any ground
water basin in which storage space exceeds the
present uses, including the maximum space needed
for wet-year natural recharge, then the operator of a
major water project or its water customer would be
protected if the operator elects to commence a
spreading program. The project operator (or its cus-
tomer) would have a prior right to recapture such wa-
ter and could protect this right against overlying
landowners and other users.

The most efficient use of a ground water basin
would still call for overall management of all uses.
Nonetheless, this right to store and recapture imported
water could be a considerable adjunct to project oper-
ation and could serve to add to the project yield and
delivery capability.

Besides earlier laws to prevent waste of water, par-
ticularly from artesian wells, and to require reporting of
ground water pumping in certain water-short Southern
California counties, the Legislature now has adopted
comprehensive laws for the protection of ground wa-
ter basins from pollution.

The next important consideration is the need to es-
tablish a framework for more complete control and
management of ground water basins in conjunction
with surface water supplies for the benefit not only of
the local landowners but all the people of California.
As we have noted, considerable authority already ex-
ists. However, it may still be prudent to seek specific
legislative authority before proceeding with any major
program for use of ground water basins in conjunction
with imported surface supplies from the State Water
Project or any other major surface water project.
Legislation would be particularly needed if there are
competing uses for all of the available storage space
in a basin.

126

CHAPTER V. OPPORTUNITIES FOR BASIN
MANAGEMENT AND FUTURE STUDIES

With certain exceptions, basin management has
been limited principally to meeting the needs of overly-
ing landowners. Important concepts that have long in-
fluenced basin management plans include safe yield,
salt balance, and maintenance of water quality for ben-
eficial use. A more recent concept is nondegradation
of water quality. Today, however, even broader con-
cepts are under consideration.

New Concepts in Basin Management

Operation of ground water basins to more fully use
their vast storage capacity in conjunction with surface
water has great potential in California. The surface
water facilities now enable water originating in the
north coastal area to reach the Mexican Border and
water from the Colorado river to cross the State to the
south coast. Considerable additional studies, some
general and some very specific, will be needed to de-
velop the potential available in these huge water sys-
tems. The Department of Water Resources is assisting
in these studies to encourage local basin managers to

utilize their basins more fully for statewide benefits.
Several concepts based on the development of this
unused storage capacity are discussed in the following
paragraphs.

Storage of State Water Project Water

The Southern California Water Conference and the
Department of Water Resources have made prelimi-
nary studies of storage of State Water Project water in
Southern California ground water basins, where sev-
eral million acre-feet of storage capacity is empty of
water. Storage of water — which could be conveyed
through unused capacity of the Project aqueduct —
could provide supplies for use during dry periods or
during any prolonged disruption of Project service.
These supplies would also supplement surface storage
in Southern California. The level of water in the basins
would be higher, thus decreasing the pumping lift and
energy requirements for local agencies using the ba-
sins.

Aqueduct— Son Jooquin Valley

127

The studies indicate that about 2.6 million acre-feet
of water will be available to be placed underground
during the next five years. This would defer the tinne at
which additional conservation facilities would be
needed in Northern California to meet the increasing
water requirements of the State Water Project.

Some areas m the San Joaquin Valley are also being
examined to determine if State Water Project water
can be stored underground in space presently empty
in that ground water basin.

Cyclic Storage of Water

A further possibility that warrants study is a carefully
coordinated operation of the State Water Project and
storage space in some of Southern California's and
San Joaquin Valley's ground water basins to determine
the feasibility of long-term recharge and use of storage
to permanently increase the dry period yield of the
State Water project. This study would also include a
determination of need for additional aqueduct capaci-
ty and the feasibility of providing the increased capaci-
ty-
Conjunctive Operation of Surface Supplies
with Ground Water Basins

Some of the large ground water basins in the State,
particularly those in the Sacramento and San Joaquin

Valleys, have potential for use of part of their storage
capacity in conjunction with surface supplies to meet
increased water demands at any location in California
to which water may economically be transported from
the Central Valley.

The concept has two basic variations. The first varia-
tion, filling empty storage space in advance of use
(Table I) , now under consideration for the State Water
Project, has had considerable attention. The second
possibility is to use and then replace water from a
basin that is presently full. Basins which are now large-
ly served by surface supplies are the most promising
because of the recharge of the basins from irrigation
and conveyance losses. Suitable well and collection
facilities would have to be installed to enable water to
be taken from the storage in the basin during a dry
year, or a period of dry years, and transported to
places of use through conveyance facilities such as
those of the California State Water Project or the Cen-
tral Valley Project.

An alternative method would be to use water from
the ground water basin on the overlying lands during
dry periods and to divert the usual surface supplies of
the area to other areas that lack a reserve supply of
ground water. Such a plan might require new econom-
ic procedures to assure equitable allocation of costs.

Ground Water Pumped inio Irrigation Canal

128

Table 1. Empty Ground Water Storage Capacity

2-9

3-3

4-2

4-4

4-4.07

4-8

4-12

4-13

5-21
5-22

8-1
8-2

8-5
9-5

Santa Clara Valley (San Jose Area). . . .

Gilroy-Hollister Valley

Ojai Valley

Santa Clara River Valley

Santa Clara River Valley — Eastern Basin

Las Posas Valley

San Fernando Valley

San Gabriel Valley

Raymond Basin

San Gabriel Basin

Sacramento Valley (Sacramento County)
San Joaquin valley

San Joaquin Basin

Tulare Basin

Coastal Plain — Orange County

Upper Santa Ana

Chino Basin

Bunker Hill — San Timoteo Basin

San Jacinto Basin

Temecula Valley

300,000
300,000

45,000
1 50,000

20,000
650,000
500,000

1 50,000
100,000
,500,000

1,500,000
1,000,000
250,000

,800,000

500,000

320,000

50,000

52,135,000

A detailed study might reveal some combination of
ground water use on overlying lands and export of
ground water that would be most satisfactory.

Advantages and Problems in Conjunctive
Use of Surface and Ground Water

A major advantage of use of large volumes of under-
ground storage capacity for regulation of surface sup-
plies is the decreased need for construction of costly
surface storage reservoirs. Evaporation from the
ground water basins will be much lower than that from
equivalent surface storage. Moreover, water stored in
the ground water basins is less prone to natural or
man-caused deterioration than is water in surface
reservoirs.

There are also some problems associated with con-
junctive operation. Lowering of the water levels in the
ground water basins which contain clay layers if exten-
sive and over several years may be accompanied by
significant land subsidence. Because of receding
ground water levels, existing wells in basins operated
conjunctively may require lowering of pump bowls,
deepening or replacement. In addition, energy will be
required to remove the water from the basin.

Pump Taxes

In the implementation of selected ground water ba-
sin management plans, one of the most powerful tools
available to water districts is the authority to make
financial assessments for use of ground water underly-
ing the district. Existing authorities are the following
two types:

1. Broad and complex assessment formulas for pur-
chase of imported water for recharge and use of pump

taxes on the ground water withdrawn; and

2. Flexible authority for assessing relative benefits
within a water district depending upon the benefits or
detriments which accrue to landowners overlying or
adjacent to the basin or whose ground waters are in-
fluenced by districtwide imported water supplies or
planned recharge and use of ground water.

Legislation is presently under consideration that
would provide specific short-term authority, along with
a schedule for termination of authority, for trial pur-
chase and recharge of ground water.

A survey of these authorities and their use would be
helpful to any district preparing to develop a ground
water management plan.

To the Department of Water Resources' current
knowledge, only five of the twelve agencies specifi-
cally authorized to do so are actively imposing user
pump taxes to manage their ground water resources.
Additionally, about seven agencies are considering
plans for some form of pump tax in the future.

Mining Ground Water

Many ground water basins have enabled develop-
ment of a significant economic base, either urban or
agricultural, by withdrawing substantial quantities of
water from storage in an underlying basin (mining) as
discussed earlier in this report. In most cases. addition-

Figure 27. Mining Ground Water

129

130

al recharge of the basin has subsequently been accom-
plished by either regulation of local surface supplies or
importation of water.

This management tool still has potential use. Mining
basins to expand a local economy is occurring in some
parts of the San Joaquin Valley and may continue for
a number of years before the ground water overdraft
is replaced by an imported surface supply. Mining
ground water is also a possibility for thermal-electric
power plant cooling in some of the desert basins in
Southern California. The underlying ground water
would meet the cooling-water needs over the econom-
ic life of the power plant without provision for replace-
ment of the water after that time. Basins that contain
brackish water would be particularly well-suited to this
use and are the only ones that should be considered
initially.

Unused Bodies of Ground Wai^r

A ground water basin underlies South San Francisco
Bay, and aquifers are known to extend considerable
distances offshore in both Ventura and San Luis
Obispo Counties. In each of these cases, a fresh water
aquifer underlies a surface body of salt water, but is
hydraulically separated from the salt water by im-
permeable clay strata. Limited use has been made in
the past of the fresh water under South San Francisco
Bay. and some thought has been given to withdrawal
of fresh water from the offshore basins in Ventura and
San Luis Obispo Counties.

Some salt water has reached the fresh water body at
San Francisco Bay, possibly through natural or man-
made breaks in the overlying clays, or possibly through
seepage of salt water through the clays because of
lowering of the water pressure in the underlying aqui-
fer due to pumping from the landward portion of the
ground water basin. Further use of water from these
basins would require careful advance study to ensure
against unintentional damage to the water quality in
the basins.

The desert area in the southeastern portion of Cali-
fornia consists mainly of mountainous areas and allu-
vium-filled valleys in about equal proportions. Most of
the alluvium is filled with ground water and is suffi-
ciently permeable to yield water to wells. Part of the
basins contain fresh water suitable for most uses.
Many contain brackish water that is unsuited for urban
or agricultural uses.

Recharge of the basins is very limited m relation to
their area and storage capacity. Use of water from the
basins over a long period of time requires importation
of water from some distant source. The basins can be
mined for various purposes, including use of brackish
water for thermal power plant cooling. Further devel-
opment of the water in these basins would require a
good deal of additional study but should not be over-
looked.

Figure 29. Fresh Water in Offshore Aquifers

131

Ground Water in Bedrock Areas

Outside the recognized ground water basins, experi-
ence has shown that small quantities of ground water
can be obtained from wells in geologic formations that
are usually regarded as nonwater-bearing. The water
frequently occurs in fractures in bedrock material or in
sedimentary rocks with limited water storage space.
Although there is considerable risk of any given well
being dry when drilled or becoming dry during a
drought year, wells in such areas supply many single-
family homes.

Some limited studies by the Department of Water
Resources of this occurrence of ground water show
that favorable areas for occurrence of ground water in
rock areas can be identified. Use of the information
assembled in such a study can greatly increase the
possibility of locating homes and wells where a little
water can be obtained from such formations. Such
studies are a worthwhile element of any comprehen-
sive reconnaissance level study of the water resources
of individual areas o"f the State.

Ground Water Basin Studies

Most of the highly developed ground water basins in
the State have been studied several times at increasing
levels of intensity. Such a sequence of study is usually
necessary, because each study builds upon the knowl-
edge and data from the earlier study and upon the
knowledge gained through construction and use of
wells as the basin has developed. Except for surface
geology, very little information can be easily obtained
for study of undeveloped basins. Much additional in-
formation can be obtained by construction of test
wells and by seismic surveys, but both are very expen-
sive.

The usual sequence of development of knowledge is
somewhat as follows:

(a) Surface water hydrology and water use

(b) Basin configuration and surface geology

(d) Ground water occurrence, movement, and re-
plenishment

(e) Quality of the water

(f) Mathematical models of the basin's hydrology
and water quality.

Mathematical models can be employed at several
stages of study of a basin. However, models contribute
a substantially new body of knowledge only when ap-
plied to highly developed basins that have had a good
deal of earlier study and for which a large body of data
IS available. The first attempt at mathematical model-
ling of a basin usually reveals that additional data are
needed and sometimes indicates existence of certain
types of geologic formations that require further defi-
nition before a mathematical model of the basin can be
verified.

132

Figure 30. Degree of Geologic Knowledge

Figure 31. Degree of Hydrologic Knowledge

Figure 32. Degree of Water Quality Knowledge

133

The models permit evaluation of the probable effect
of different patterns and locations of recharge of the
basin, and different patterns and locations of extrac-
tion of water from the basins. The physical changes
indicated by the model can be evaluated in terms of
cost so that the economic consequences of various
methods of operation of the basin can be estimated.

Some preliminary adaptations of models have been
developed to measure changes in quality that can be
expected with introduction of water of different qual-

ity than that presently in the basin. The models enable
managers of a basin to obtain quantitative estimates of
the effects and costs of a variety of different operation
plans before making any substantial commitment to
the cost of physical' works to carry out a particular
management plan. Modelling is a tool of great interest
to ground water basin managers, and its use may soon
progress to the point where some basins in California
are being managed in accordance with plans based on
mathematical models.

BASIN
MANAGER

FLOOD

CONTROL
DISTRICT

ENVIRONMENTAL
REPRESENTATIVE '

IRRIGATION
DISTRICT

PUBLIC
REPRESENTATIVE

WATtR
COMPANY

REPLENISH-
MENT DISTRICT

PRIVATE
WELL OWNER

INDUSTRIAL
USER

Figure 33. Conference on Ground Water Basin Management

134

Table 7. Metric Conversion Factors
English to Metric System of Measurement

Quantity

Length

Area

Volume

Velocity

Discharge

Weight (Mass)

Temperature

Concentration
Electrical conductance

English unit

inches

feet

yards

miles

square yards. . .
acres

square miles. . .

gallons

acre-feet

cubic feet
cubic yards

feet per second
miles per hour

cubic feet per

second
gallons per

minute

pounds

tons (2,000
pounds)

degrees
Fahrenheit

parts per million
mho

Multiply by

2.54
30.48
0.3048
0.0003048
0.9144

1,609.3
1.6093
0.83613
0 . 40469

4,046.9

0 . 0040469
2.5898

0.0037854
3.7854
1,233.5
1,233,500.0

0.028317
0.76455
764.55

0.3048
1 .6093

0.028317

3.7854

.0037854

0.45359
0.90718

1.8

1 .0 (Approx.)
1.0

To get
metric equivalent

centimeters

meters

kilometers

meters

kilometers

square meters

hectares

square meters

square kilometers

cubic meters

liters

cubic meters

liters

cubic meters

liters

meters per second
kilometers per hour

cubic meters per

second
liters per minute

cubic meters per
second

kilograms
tons (metric)

degrees Celsius

milligrams per liter
Siemens

Photoclectronic composition by

VC 88084— 850 7-75 8M UDK

135

THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE

THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE
STAMPED BELOW

BOOKS REQUESTED BY ANOTHER BORROWER
ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RECALL

2G05ilti'B

VZZl\yu

FEB 1 ^ 2005
PSL

LIBRARY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

D4613-1 (5/02)M

r -81

3 1175 00571 2560

^X'

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "California's ground water"

See other formats