Skip to main content

Full text of "A life in western water development : transcript, 1964"

See other formats

University of California Berkeley 

Sidney T. Harding 

Vol. II 

Edited by Gerald J. Giefer 

Statewide Water Resources Center, University of California 

in cooperation with the 
Regional Oral History Office, Bancroft Library, Berkeley 

Berkeley, 1967 







My investigations *"or the state in the 1920* s on investi 
gations in Kern and Tulare counties can be considered to be within 
the scope of the CVP, although there was no plan for such a project 
at the time this work was done. This earlier work has been des 
cribed. When what became the CVP began to take shape the state 
had organized a substantial staff for its water resources invest 
igations and the need for the individually directed investigations 
such as I had made in K<-Tn and Tulare counties had passed. After 
Hyatt became state engineer he set up a general consulting board 
r or advice on engineering and policy matters. I continued to 
handle other work p or the state engineer such as the water storage 
district procedure, but did not have as much direct activity in 
the genera], water resources investigations. From time to time, 
however. I was asked for comments on specific matters. 

Some of these matters which arose are covered in the following 
discussion. Some resulted in reports to which reference is made. 
Many were informal sta^f discussions. I was probably the individual 
engineer, in these years, available to the state engineer who had 
the most detached acquaintance with the physical conditions in 
the area the CVP was planning to serve. I had also had experience 
in the organizational phases of project development which was a new 
field -for the state. 

S mie o^ the items relating to the CVP in which I participated 
are described in the ^ollowing discussion. These may have come 
interest in illustrating the subjects that arooe in the development 


of the CVP and current thinking in regard to them. In relation 

to the final results, these items generally represent stepping stones 

along the way. 


In Nov. 1924, I prepared a brief memorandum on the above 
subject for the state engineer. It had been requested by Paul 
Bailey then in charge of the state s Water Resources Investigations. 

The need for additional water to meet the general water 
overdraft in the east side area of the San Joaquin Valley south 
of Kings River had become generally recognized. Wo plan had then 
been developed for importing water from distant sources; such a 
plan later became the CVP. It was hoped that there might be 
enough surplus water in Kings River which could be developed at a 
cost and in an amount which could meet this overdraft or reduce 
it until some larger source could be secured. I was working for 
the state engineer on other Kings River matters and was asked to 
report on any syrplus flow that might be obtainable. 

It was my conclusion that there was unused water in Kings 
River, but that storage would be required to make this surplus water 
usable. Storage plans for its use in Kings River were then under 
way. I concluded that any additional Kings River supply made 
available by such storage would belong to and be used on Kings 
River and that there was no exportable surplus. No efforts to 
secure surplus Kings River water for use outside of its own area 
were made by the state nor have any such efforts been made later 
by the USBR. It is possible that, in the development of the plans 
o-f the East Side Canal, there may be some exchanges of water 
between rights of Kings River and the East Side Canal, but these 


are not expected to involve a net exportation "from Kings River. 
Some Kings River areas may be purchasers of East Side Canal water. 

It was early recognized that the east side of the San Joaquin 
Valley souti of Kings River did not have a sufficient water supply 
within its own area to meet the needs of its existing development 
in the 1920 s and that the relief *"rom the overdraft would 
require importation of water from some distant source. 

% report is No. .9 in Item Vf of my bibliographical file. 



In June 1930, I prepared a report on "Tentative Areas and 
Water Requirements of Lands Now Developed and Deficient in Ground 
Water Supply in Southern San Joaquin Valley." This was done for 
the state engineer for use by C.A. Bissell of the USER. Bissell 
was then stationed in Sacramento reviewing the results of the state s 
investigations. The USER was working on cooperative studies with 
the state seeking to find a project for the relief of the southern 
San Joaquin Valley which would be within the scope of what the 
Bureau could then undertake. 

This report considered areas of overdraft, their 
extent o r development and the amount of overdraft. If a 
source of vater supply could have been secured and made available 
to these lands in 1930 it was estimated that a supply of about 
330,000 acre-^eet per year would have met the overdraft. To 
maintain a ground water balance with such an additional supply 
would have required some means for preventing the development of 
additional irrigated areas. 

These areas were scattered and would have been difficult to 
serve at feasible cost. There was also no basis on which other 
overlying lands could have been prevented from drawing on the 
ground water supply. 

This report was made to furnish an estimate of the extent o p 
the problem involved in this area and a starting point from which 
other projects could be studied. It served this purpose. 

This report is Item 50 in my bibliographical file. Its title 
is "Memorandum on Tentative Areas and Water Requirements of Lands 


Now Developed and Deficient in Ground Water Supply in Southern San 
Joaquin Valley." It is datedJune, 1930. 

This report includes a map showing the lands irrigated in 
the overdraft areas. This 1930 map together with later maps showing 
the irrigated areas in the same general area illustrate how the 
problem of ground water overdraft in this area has grown as 
additional water supplies have become available. The first 
stage Priant-Kern Canal supply has now become insufficient and 
the East Side Canal is new "being sought as an additional source. 
Eventually, there will be a demand for water ^or the full develop 
ment o r all o^ the suitable land on the east side of the southern 
San Joaquin Valley. California has lacked the legal means to 
restri :^ overlying owners "rom adding to the overdraft by increasing 
their use. There was no indication that such restrictions would 
have had popular support in this area in the 1920 s and 1930 s 
iven i" a legal means for their accomplishment had been available. 



My earlier work for the state relating to what became the 
state s Central V- lley Project has "been described. By 1933? it 
was .Apparent that the state s project could rwt be -financed **rom 
the sale of the revenue bonds that had been voted in 1930. The 
peri id o^ -".onstruction and of the development o the use o~f water 
w ..s toe .long "or t iis project to be feasible for revenue bond 

77 f -forts be;;;an t.-> be made in 1933 to secure ^eder-j-1 "inancing. 
These were successful in 1935 when President Roosevelt made an 
c-.llotment *"rorn t :e available emergency -funds with which to start 
I r : project. These *unds jud "been appropriated to the 
depression and were subject to allotment by the president. The 
funds were allotted to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Thus, 
+ he C.V.P. became and has remained a federal project. 

Prior to 1935, the USER had had only limited activity in 
Calif .imia. It had its Klamath Project on the north and its 
Colorado River work on the southeast. Internally its only project 
was the small Orland unit in the Sacramento Valley. Consequently, 
Cclifornians generally lacked experience with the practices of the 
Bureau. This applied both to the local engineers and the attorneys. 
"?tie state engineer had contracts with the Bureau in the oint 
studies of a salt water barrier and of a dam on the Sacramento River, 
but neither of these involved contracts with local units. 

In my own work, prior to 1935> I had both worked -for the 
Bureau directly and also for local organizations on some o-f its 


projects. This work had given me a familiarity with their methods 
and procedures. I became a readily available source of information 
on such matters and was quite active in this field until others here 
had acquired similar experience. 

When Hyatt was seeking to secure federal funds for the C.V.P. 
in April, 1933, I prepared for him a comparison of the repayment 
record of the USER projects and the California Irrigation districts. 
This report is Item 13*4- of my bibliographical file. This 1933 
r i .- .son was favorable to California. Botn types of projects 
IT /i many defaults later in the 1930 s. Hyatt used this report to 
emphasize the better repayment capacity of California projects. 

The Reclamation Law permitted term contracts to be made 
concerning payments prior to the completion of project and before 
the final charges became known. Such shorter contracts had been 
made without including the acreage limitation. I made a report 
on sue i term contracts for the Tulare Lake Basin W.S.D. in 1939- 
This report is No. 13 in Item 135 in my bibliographical file. 
The Reclamation Law enables the Bureau to define its own 
projects and units of projects. Tnis has importance in the allocation 
of costs. The average cost of delivery of water tothe Madera I.D. 
would be lower than that under the Friant-Kern Canal. In May, 1936, 
I made a report for the Madera I.D. supporting the authority of the 
Bureau t^ contract separately with these parts of the project. This 
position was not accepted by the Bureau. This was followed by a report 
In January, 1938, also for the Madera I.D., on the practice of the 
Bureau in dividin , its projects into units. The first report had 
also covered the separation of charges for repayment of construction 
and -for operation and maintenance costs. These reports are Nos. k 

State Division of Water Resources dinner, Fresno, November 4, 1939 
Engineers who had worked on the Central Valley Project investigations 

Seated, left to right: Edward Hyatt, State Engineer; Paul Bailey, 
former State Engineer; B.A. Etcheverry, member of Consulting 
Board; R.L. Jones, Chief Assistant Engineer; Fred Hermann, member of 
Consulting Board; J.B. Lippincott, Consulting Engineer L.A.; 
George Hawley, in charge of safety of dams; George D. Louderback, 
Professor of Geology, U.C.; John D. Galloway, Consulting Engineer, 
on Consulting Board. 

Standing, left to right: Roy Matthews, staff, author Delta 

reports, Bulletins 27 and 28; W.A. Perkins, State Engineer staff, 
unidentified; Jerry Jones, later State Reclamation Board; Roy 
Meikle, Chief Engineer Turlock Irrigation District, Consulting 
Board; A.D. Edmonston, later State Engineer; S.T. Harding, Special 
Investigations; Irving Althouse, Engineer, Porterville; P.H. Van 
Etten, State Engineer staff; Gilbert Mellin, later State 
Reclamation Board; Lester S. Ready, Consulting Engineer, Consulting 
Board; Tom B. Waddell, State Engineer staff; H.M. Crocker, State 
Engineer staff. 

Names by S.T. Harding 
February 15, 1966 

State Division of Water Resources dinner, Fresno, November 4, 1939 

and 5 in Item 37 of my bibliographical file. When the Repayment 
Commission of th Bureau was appointed in 1937, Geo. T. Cochran wrote 
to me asking for my suggestions. I replied on Nov. 23, 1937, and 
again on Feb. 3, 1938, after receiving his reply of Jan. 29, 1938. 
This correspondence is No. l4 in Item 13^ of my bibliographical 
file. Ii, applied to the USBR in general as well as to the C.V.P. 
As previously discussed, I had worked with Cochran for Oregon on the 
Walla Walla case. 

The Fresno I.D. had made some filings on the San Joaquin River 
wh: .; i were affected by the Bureau s plan to build Friant Reservoir. 
On March 10, 19^0, I made a report for the Fresno I.D. on the 
general relationship o^ project organizations to the Bureau. This 
is N .-. 12 in Item kj of my bibliographical -file. 

The Reclamation Law permits the Bureau to operate partially 
ompleted projects on an annual water rental basis until they are 
ready for their repayment contract. On Sept. 28, 19^3, I made a report 
"or the Madera I.D. on such water rentals and their possible use in 
this district. This is No. 2 in Item 37 of my bibliographical file. 
This was followed on Oct. I 1 *, 19^3 by a report on the effect of the 
use o r interim water by the Madera I.D. This is No. 1 in Item 37 
o-f my bibliographical file. 

In 19^2, Dr. Harlan H. Barrows, Prof, of Geography at the 
University o^ Chicaf^o, proposed and promoted a group of studies 
o^ various Matures o^ the C.V.P. by a total of 2k committees on 
the separate problems. Dr. Barrows had conducted a similar type of 
study of the Columbia Besin Project. 

Dr. Barrows had outlined his plan, secured the support of the 


USSR and had appointed one various committees. He was asked to 
discuss his program at a meeting of the Natural Resources Section 
,;f the State Chamber o" Commerce in Los Angeles on Dec. 2, 19^4-2. 
I was asked to comment on his program under the title of "The 
State s Interest in the Central Valley Project." I prepared such 
comments. A copy is N-. 12 o* Item 135 of my bibliographical file. 

I had met Dr. Barrows in 193^ when I was working on the Upper 
Missouri River Report for the National Water Resources Committee. 
He was a consultant to that committee. He had been mainly 
responsible for securin,_, the funds for the investigation o? the 
Rio Grande River "or use by the three states involved in their 
negotiations of the Rio Grande Compact. I had known of his work 
in the C >lumbia Basin and had read several o p the committee reports 
there. In his report outlining the Columbia Basin Studies, Dr. 
Barrows had stated that "Provision must be made for many poor or 
even destitute settlers. Both public opinion and official opinion it. The possibility o^ setting up a system under which 
settlers could pay over a relatively long period for the land and p or improvements much as they would repay water right charges 
under the Re lama t ion Project Act of 1939 should be explored 

Although the World War II was under way with its resulting 
manpower shorages, Barrows C.V.P. program involved 132 members of 
the committees and 28 additional advisors. No direct need for such 
a review had been demonstrated in the C.V.P. 

In the remarks whi -h I prepared I took issue with the need for 
any such extensive study committees and asserted that the whole job 
could be done in less time by a hal p dozen experienced members of the 


USSR staff. I opposed the program both during the War or at any 

When the audience was gathering for the meeting I went over 
and greeted Dr. Barrows and told him that I would oppose his program. 
He seemed to be surprised that anyone would have the temerity to 
question his recommendations. 

The meeting started and as often occurs soon got behind 
schedule. When Dr. Barrows time to talk came, this was mentioned. 
He knew that my comments would follow his. However, he overran his 
own time so that when I was reached little time was left. I discarded 
my prepared remarks and lit into his program with both feet. When 
I stopped there was time for a few questions, but Barrows excused 
himself saying he had to atch a train. Rightly or wrongly I have 
thought that he extended his remarks in order to reduce my time 
for criticism. 

The usual committee reports were complete in due time and 
published. Little action was taken on their recommendations. No 
particular changes in the C.V.P. either physically or in matters 
of policy resulted -from this voluminous work. In my opinion, it 
was money and time wasted. This work has now largely been forgotten. 

Some correspondence relating to my comments on the Barrows 
program is included with the copy of the comments in No. 12 of 
Item 135 of my bibliographical file. 

Dr. Barrows was a very tall and imposing person. He had a 
resonant voice and could use more long words and roll them off his 
tongue better than anyone I had met. I have no doubt but that in his 
own mind he was doing a good public service in his actions in the 
water resources field. I have never overcome my resentment to his 


belief that American farmers should be reduced to the type of tenure 
he advo.ated for the Columbia Basin. 

In 19^, the Senate Sub -committee on Irrigation and Reclamation 
held a series of hearings in California on S. Res. 295 relating to 
the C.V.P. The material presented related largely to the applicability 
o p the acreage limitation to the C.V.P. Up to the time when this issue 
arose in relation to the C.V.P., the Bureau had not enforced this 
acreage provision and there vas a natural opposition to its 
enforcement in the C.V.P. 

I testified at the hearing held in Hanford on July 28, 19^4. 
Senator Downey presided. My statement is in the published report 
of the Hearings on S. Res. 295, 78 cong, 2d Sess. on pp. 256-366. 
A copy is Item 138 of my bibliographical file. I discussed the 
history of the lack o r enforcement of the acreage limitation. 

Senator Hatch of New Mexico, who was a member of the group 
o senators holding these hearings, had introduced S. 19^8 of that 
session in rebuttal to an amendment Congressman Alfred J. Elliott 
of Tulare had introduced to H.R. 39^1 which would have abolished 
the acreage limitation. Hatch s bill had been prepared within the 
Bureau of Reclamation. 

It would have put the Bureau in the land settlement business 
and had other objectionable features. The Hatch bill had been 
so vigorously opposed at the preceding hearings that Senator 
Hat .;h had announced that he would not seek its enactment. However, 
I presented further objections citing the experience of California 
with Delhi and Durham. No specific legislation resulted from 
these hearings. 



This was Senator Downey s bill to exempt certain projects from 
the land-limitation provisions of the federal reclamation laws. 
Extended hearings were hald in Washington in May, 19^7> and a 
lengthy record has been published (132? pages). 

At that time, I was the consulting engineer of the Tulare 
Lake Basin W.S.D. The land owners in this district were very 
much concerned with the question of the application of the 160 
acre limitation to the overflow lands in Tulare Lake. 

I went to Washington to attend part o^ the hearing on S 912 
and to testify in its support. My main testimony is on pages 59 
to 79 of "the published report. A copy o^ the published report on 
tnis hearing is Item 139 of my bibliographical file. 

The USBR appeared in p orce in opposition to this bill. Later 
at Senator Downey s request I sent him telegrams rebutting some of 
the Bureau s testimony. These are on pages 1130 and 1219- 

One o^ the main points I made in my testimony was that the 
a ..rF-^e limitation would not be enforceable against an excess 
laiiuu .viier who had an underlying ground water supply. Even i f his 
nat"r n .l ground water supply was being overdrawn, there would be 
no <_./ bo identify the natural recharge from the ground water that 
might be received from the deep percolation of Bureau water. In 
rebuttal to this position the Bureau presented a witness who proposed 
that the Bureau could put offset wells around its areas of service 
and prevent the travel of its water to excess lands. The physical 
absurdity of this position was easily recognizable. 

Senator Downey worked very hard on this bill, but was not 
able to secure its passage. Eventually, it was a major ^actor in the 


deterioration of his health and his decision not to seek a third 
term. In my opinion, the opposition -co this waiver o p the acreage 
limitation in areas where the Bureau would supply supplemental water 
to existing developments was based on adherence to an outmoded style 
of -farming. Much of the opposition, in my opinion, lacked sincerity. 

This hearing was my first close contact with Senator Downey. Like 
many Californians I had wondered about his qualifications ^or the 
position when he was elected with the support of the Townsend 
group. He was originally favorable to the l6o acre limitation in 
the Reclamation law. When in California on a Senate Committee 
hearing relating to agricultural labor he saw the conditions in the 
C.V.P. and recognized that the statutory limitation was not 
suited to this project. Having become convinced of this, he became 
a strong supporter of its change, although this resulted in 
opposing the position of the groups largely responsible for his 
election. As I came to know Senator Downey I acquired an admiration 
for his adherence to what he thought was right rather than merely 
what appeared to be expedient. We could use more with his strength 
of principle over politics in the present Congress. 

The "family sized farm," as assumed to be represented by the 
l6o acre limitation in the Reclamation Law, has now become so 
strongly imbedded by its support by the federal administration that 
it has become a position from which a retreat would represent 
a major admission o^ error. Such admissions are not made voluntarily 
by politicians. It has received so much attention that the Bureau 
cannot operate without attempting to enforce it. Various subterfuges 
have been proposed. The only consistent remedy is its renewal so that 
each new project can have its own terms defined in its authorization 

act. There does not appear to be any reasonable chance in sight o^ 
securing its repeal. Its advocates have aroused extensive oppostion 
to its change among those who are guided by their emotions rather 
than their recognition o* facts. Neither political party is liable 
to sponsor its repeal against the opposition it vould now have to 
face . 

A prominent claim of advocates o f the acreage limitation is 
that the unearned increment resulting from the construction of 
Bureau projects should be distributed among many smaller farmers 
rather than going to fewer large owners. This position assumes 
that there are such unearned returns to the land owners whose 
lands may be included in Bureau projects. 

No landowner would be interested in a project whose costs 
would absorb all of its benefits. Unless there is a prospect 
o r bene r its in excess of costs the only agency which might gain 
"rom the construction o^ the project would be the constructing 
agency desiring to keep itself employed. A profit incentive 
is an essential to any new development. Any such profit should 
be recognized and equitably divided between those who furnish 
the capital for construction and those who use the project. This 
is now done in projects privately financed without subsidy. 

Landowners in USER projects secure the advantage of interest 
free "unds for costs allocated to irrigation. They have a liberal 
repayment period. The present law permits limiting the charge 
"or water to the irrigators abilit.y to pay if surplus repayment can 
be secured from other project features. These are all substantial 
advantages to the landowner. There is no reason why such advantages, 
i. f excessive in an individual project, should be made available to 

either small or large landowners. There are now few remaining unbuilt 
irrigation projects in the western states which can meet their 
actual costs without material amounts of subsidy. We are approaching 
and may have passed the point when the remaining projects exceed the 
costs which can be justified. 

The USBR has the means for controlling the unearned increment 
on any project. If the ability to pay for irrigation water is set 
to absorb nearly all of the payment capacity there will be little 
unearned increment remaining for the landowner. Such prices for 
water would remove the main incentive for the landowners to place 
their lands in Bureau projects. The ability to pay rates as defined 
by the USBR, have been fixed to leave a large part of the net 
returns from the use of project water with the landowner. In 
practice "ability to pay" has been interpreted to mean "ability 
to collect." 

I was asked to talk to the Commonwealth Club s Friday luncheon 
meeting on May 22, 1953, on the above subject. I based my talk 
on a prepared paper which is No. 11 in Item 135 of my bibliographical 
*"ile. It was generally well received, but did not change the course 
of human events to any noticeable extent. 

This talk covered the various problems of the C.V.P. and their 
status. The principle hassle then current was in regard to the 
taking over of the C.V.P. by the state. The USBR in California, 
as well as elsewhere, had deteriorated under its management during 
the 19Uo s, but improvements were under way by 1953- The taking 
over of the C.V.P. tythe state is the subject o^ another portion 
o r these memoirs. 


I was a member of the Commonwealth Club from my early years in 
California until the early 1930 s. My Interest and activity were 
mainly in its Water Resources section. When the weekly luncheons 
of the whole club were changed from Saturday to Friday, I hed 
little opportunity to attend. The Water Resources section sessions 
were lergely taken over by lengthy talks by J.R. Mason and Louis 
Bartlett. I lost interest and resigned from the club- I have 
talked several times in later years to this section on various 
water matters, but have not rejoined the club. It is a worthwhile 
organization, but it has the common problem of avoiding, without 
appearing to censor discussion, use by those who have difficulty in 
3ov ir .tirx audiences. 



In 193^, the National Water Resources Committee undertook to 
prepare e. six-year plan for national water development. The country 
was divided into regions and a consultant appointed to prepare the 
report ^or each region. I was asked to undertake this work for 
region 8 which was the Missouri River Drainage area down to and in 
cluding the Platte River. 

Caas. Eliot was the Executive Officer of the National Water 
Resources Committee. Abel Wolman was chairman of the group in 
charge o p this study. Ed Hyatt was a member o* this group. Fred 
Bowler o S.F. was appointed the Director for the actual work of 
preparing the report. Donald Baker was an assistant director for 
the western states. 

The program called r or selecting regional consultants for the 
preparation of the report for each region who had not had previous 
experience in their region. The theory of this was that the 
-: onsultants would not have been connected with any projects in 
their region and consequently would ;e neutral in regard to the 
projects that might be proposed. The fact that the consultants would 
also be unacquainted with the conditions in their regions, and that 
the time p or the completion of the reports was p airly short, was not 
apparently given weight. 

Ralph I. Meeker of Colorado was appointed as consultant for 
the California area. He did not spend much time here, and Hyatt 
practically wrote his report. Hyatt s main interest at that time 
was the C.V.P., and it received favorable comment. Jack Stevens 

o r Portland had the Colorado River Basin -which he said he took 
Because he wanted to get acquainted with it. I came nearer 
knowing the background conditions o^ 1 my region than the others as 
I had previously worked in Montana and Colorado and had had 
contacts in the other states. 

In April, 193^, I took a once-over trip over Region 8 with 
Don Baker. Baker made the appointments and handled meeting the 
brass. I did what I could in talking to the engineers whose 
help I would need in assembling the material for the report. 

As a result of this trip, I outlined to Fowler what I thought 
;ould be worked out in the time available in Region 8. Region 8 including 
parts of eight states. It figured out that, at the maximum, 
I only had an average of 10 days work to spend on the report on 
projectr .In each state. I agreed to go ahead with my work on 
Region j with the understanding that the results would be what 
ould be accomplished under the time limits of the work. 

The particular function and responsibility of 
Don Baker in relation to my report was indefinite. To 
clarify this I advised Fowler that I would be tilad to have Baker 
handle the outside contacts in Region 8 so I could concentrate on 
the essential "ield work, but that I was not willing to have Baker 
review and possibly modify the engineering conclusions which I might 

Baker had done a lot of work for the Water Resources Committee 
on the adequacy of existing programs for stream measurements and 
related subjects, and had been given the appointment on the 193^ 
survey in recognition of this work. He was also active in the 
California Planning Commission and apparently hoped to be made its 


chairman. Others with similar desires secured control of the 
California Commission end Baker lost out. He was given another 
assignment in 1936 by the National Water Resources Committee and 
did not participate in ray work in Region 8. 

The purpose o." this 193^ survey was to assemble a list of* 
available water projects on which work could be started promptly 
i p further public works to relieve the Depression should be 
undertaken. Each region was to prepare a list of such projects 
listed in the order of tiieir recommended priority. All types of 
water projects were included. In Region 8 there were numerous small 
town water supply projects, but the main problems in my work related 
tc the proposed irrigation projects. 

While no adequate report could be made in the time available, 
I pitched in to do the best I could. My personal acquaintance with 
the USBR personnel was a material aid in getting the essential 
information quickly. The states had some ^orm o*" planning agencies 
which usually had information on the municipal projects. There was 
practically no industrial use of water proposed in this area in 

I worked over available reports until the end of the University 
term. I made fl ield trips in May, and from June IT to July 12 and 
^rom July 20 to Aug. l4 I travelled over the area using my own 
car. Time was also spent in the Denver office of the USBR. 

At Berkeley, I had a secretary and an office engineer. I did 
not use any field engineers as there was not time to collect our 
own information, and I had to use my own judgment in appraising the 
proposed projects. 

I spent my available time in late August and in September in 


preparing my report. 1^ was completed under date of Oct. 15, 

and transmitted to the Committee. It is Item 69 in my bibliographical 

^ile. The main report contained 171 pages. Included were 9 

appendices on individual projects. Tae appendices had been 

prepared by Vincent A. Palmer, a Cal graduate o^ 1936 who had 

been the office engineer, Mrs. Betty Dunlap of Berkeley was the 

secretary in my office 

The general committee had the job of coordinating the regional 
reports. They did this and made some revisions in my order of 
priority for Region 8. These revisions were sent to me for my 
acquiescence together with the portion of the report giving the names 
of the regional consultants and credit for their work. 

There were two irrigation projects in Region 8 which were 
controversial in 1936. One was the Casper-Ale ova project, 
now the Kendricks in Wyoming, and the other was the present Colorado- 
Big Thompson project in Colorado. I had put the Casper-Alcova project 
at the bottom of my priority list and the Colorado-Big Thompson at 
the top. The Conwrttee reversed this order. 

Senator Kendricks of Wyoming had been one of the group which had 
been for P.D.R. before Chicago. This term was in use to describe 
those who supported F.D.R. before his first nomination. They 
outrated those who joined later. When F.D.R. was given emergency 
funds to allocate to combat the Depression, he made available 
$18,000,000 to Wyoming with Senator Kendricks to select the projects. 

Oil had been found near Casper and it was a thriving town. There 
was concern, however, over its permanence if the oil ^ield declined. There 
was a strong desire to construct an adjacent irrigation project to 
broaden the supporting base. Senator Kendricks approved putting all 

of this emergency allotment into the Casper-Alcova project. This 
was done. 

When I did my work in 1936, about $3,000,000 had been spent on 
the project. This had been used on the diversion dam and some 
canals. The project had been reported on unfavorably by the USBR. 
It was opposed by the prior water rights on the North Platte who 
claimed there vas not sufficient unappropriated water for its needs. 
The . project included about 60,000 acres. This was located about 
20 miles from Casper. The soils were generally derived from shales 
similar to those which have been difficult to reclaim on the 
Riverton and Shoshone projects. The altitude is high and the 
climate limits crop adaptability. I recommended that the project 
be abandoned and the expenditures to -date written off. 

The Colorado-Big Thompson project was then under investigation 
by the USBR. It proposed to direct water from Grand Lake on the 
upper Colorado River by a tunnel to the Big Thompson River, a 
tributary o^ the South Platte. The project would provide supplemental 
water to the highly developed and productive lands in the South Platte 
Valley. The increase in ground water pumping had begun to show its 
e-ffeet on the return ^low to the South Platte. This return flow 
was the source of the water supply of the lower diversions. A 
difficult situation was developing unless additional water could 
be secured. Estimates of cost indicated that a feasible 
project could be developed to meet this need. There was an available 
water supply in Colorado s share of the Colorado River run-off. 
I put this project at the head of my priority list. 

When I received the results o: p the changes made in my results 
by the Committee, I wrote expressing my disagreement and requesting 


that my name be omitted ^"rom any report that approved the Casper- 
Alcova project. I had ^urther correspondence with Abel Wolman in 
which he sought to find some wording i;hat would meet my objections. 
However, no change in the Casper-Alcova project was proposed, and 
I maintained my position, My request was granted, and my name is 
not included in the published report. 

The general report is entitled "Drainage Basin Problems and 
Programs - Dec. 1936, National Resources Committee." This was a high 
powered committee o f which Ickes was Chairman. The letter of trans- 
mittal to this committee is signed by Abel Wolman as Chairman of 
the Water Resources Committee. The Casper-Alcova was listed, 
(p. 62) or Immediate consideration, and the Colorado-Big Thompson 
was in the deferred list, (p. 64). 

It is my understanding that the presidential approval given 
to trie Casper-Alcova project made the committee unwilling to consider 
the project on its merits. It is also my understanding that Secretary 
Ickes was reported to have expressed a personal dislike for inter- 
mountain diversions and that the committee was unwilling to oppose 
what they may have taken to be an official opinion. I considered 
such reasons political rather than factual and did not care to be 
a party to any report on other than an engineering basis. 

It is now (1965), nearly 30 years since all this activity 
took place and perhaps the issues can be reviewed in perspective. 
The National Water Resources Committee made several reports which 
were contrary to practical conditions, and was eventually abolished 
by the New Deal which had created it. It has now been generally 
forgotten. In my opinion, it missed the opportunity to assist in 
directing national water policy along sound lines in the public 

interest. It could have been constructive, but it was dominated 
by those lacking practical experience and influenced by those 
those who had projects of their own to promote. Its reports are 
still available in reference libraries. 

The results on the Casper-Alcova and the Colorado-Big Thompson 
project can also now be reviewed. The distribution system on the 
Casper-Alcova project was completed for part of the area and the 
project was placed in operation. For some years it had the lowest 
value per acre "or the crops produced of any of the Bureau s projects. 
The area to be served has been reduced by about one-half. A power 
plant has been built at the diversion dam to recover its construction 
cost. The effect o p the project on the city of Casper has been 
very limited. At the time of my work I commented that Senator 
Kendr-U .iiS could have selected three project in Wyoming of the size 
of the Casper-Alcova which could have been built for $18,000,000 
and would have produced over three times the benefits to the state. 
Wyoming has been the main loser by the selection of this project. 
In later years, its name was changed to its present title, the Kendricks 
project. This name appropriately recognizes the responsibility for 
its selection. 

The Colorado-Big Thompson project has been constructed and has 
been in successful operation for several years. Its actual costs 
exceeded those estimated at the time the project was authorized, but 
the project is meeting the terms of its repayment. Power is developed 
on the East Slope as the water descends to the South Platte Valley. 

The preceding account of this work in 1936 has been quite 
lengthy. This length is greater than the present importance of any 
of the matters that are discussed justifies. This represented a 


very interesting assignment on my part and a chance to see how 
water policies were handled on a national scale in the 1930 s. 
While the condition under which the program was set up made it 
impossible to produce worthwhile reports, I gave it a good try in 
Region 8. I feel that, at least, I did as thorough a job as the 
conditions would permit. 

It is also interesting to compare the present program of 
development on the Missouri River Drainage Basin with the planning 
in 1936. In 1936, Fort Peck Dam was under construction. Reports 
that had been made on the potential power development of other dams 
lower on the river had been generally unfavorable, partly as a result 
of a predicted lack of market for the power they could produce. Flood 
Control had only been accepted as a federal responsibility very 
recently and had not been generally applied. In 1936, no program 
such as that authorized in the l^kk Flood Control Act had ever 
been proposed. The Pick-Sloan Plan was created after 1936. 

This record illustrates the rapidity with which water resources 
policies may change and the scale of work undertaken may be enlarged. 
The individual and generally local projects on which I reported in 
1936 are still in the picture, but they have been overshadowed by 
the larger projects since undertaken. This situation could have value 
to the 50 year planners who think they can foresee and forecast the 
future . 


From 193^ into the 1950 s, I worked on several matters in 
Arizona in the Salt and Gila River areas. The principal item was 
as negotiator 4 or the Buckeye Irrigation Company in the settlement 
o the general adjudication case involving all riyhts on the Salt 
and Gila Rivers above t,heir junction. All o p these activities 
in Arizona are discussed togetaer as a matter of convenience, 
although they extended intermittently over about 20 years. 

The Verde Irrigation District covered lands north of Phoenix. 
It had made an application "or storage on the Verde River at the 
Bartlett site and desired to proceed with its construction. This 
application had been recognized by the Arizona Land Commissioner 
as being prior to other storage rights on Verde River. 

When the Emergency Relief Funds were made available to the 
President in 193*S he assigned funds for the construction of the 
Bartlett reservoir on Verde River by the USSR for the Verde Irri Cation 
District. This resulted in a protest by the Salt River Valley Water 
Users Association. By that time it was becoming recognized that the 
Salt River Valley already was attempting to irrigate more land than 
its water supply could support. 

At the recommendation of Richard Coffey, then the regional 
counsel o* the USBR, the Verde Irrigation District asked me to 
investigate their situation and advise them on the actions they 
should take. I undertook this work. R.B. Williams of the USBR was 
already assigned to this pro.ject and had established his office in 


The Arizona Congressworaan at this time aad secured this grant 
and expected to receive the support and commendations of the area. 
When the S.R.V.W.U.A. opposed it, there was a Change of view in 
Washington. Means were sought to find grounds r or withdrawing 
the grant. These actions were underway when I started my work. 

I went over the records and concluded that if the Verde 
Irrigation District had a valid prior permit to storage on Verde 
River they could develop a dependable supply *"or a district o p about 
hal p their area. I reported this verbally to the District with 
the added recownf ^ vtion that they limit their expenditures until 
they had a binding utireement with the USER. 

This ended my direct work on this natter. My activities 
extended iiits - uttently - ? rorn March to June, 193^- 

The Verde Irrigation District incurred costs during the period 
the grant o" funds was in effect. When the U.S. cancelled the 
grant, the District made a claim p or reimbursement o* these costs. 
The District had issued warrants ^or its expenditures. I was 
paid in such warrants, but I sold them as I received them under 
arrangements made by the District with a local bank. Eventually, 
the U.S. reimbursed the District ^or much o^ the costs it had 
incurred in the period the grant was in e-^ect. 

An interesting incident in this work was the ground water invest 
igation that the S.R.V.W.U.A. sought to arrange with the U.S.G.S. The 
Verde Irrigation District was not on this program. The Association 
was to supply the U.S.G.S. with its records and the U.S.G.S. was 
to report on the ground water conditions, the safe yield and the 
overdraft, i f one was **ound to exist. I got wind o p this program 
and the date at wiich Mr. N.C. Grover, then chief of the water division 


o" the U. S.G.S., would arrive in Phoenix. In those days, arrivals 
in Phoenix could be expected to stay at the Adams Hotel. By chance, 
I was in the lobby when Grover arrived. I had met him previously 
at state engineers meetings. I greeted him and told him what I 
was doing. I offered, ""or the Verde Irrigation District, to supply 
all their records in such an investigation and asked to have the 
area o r the Verde Irrigation District included. This evidently 
was not included in the program which had been discussed between 
the U.S.G.S. and the Association, and Grover did not give me a 
definite answer. I then reminded him that the USER working in 
this area had not been Consulted in his program and that it 
would be unusual for two agencies in the same federal department 
to be working independently in the same area. 

My comments evidently got to the Association, as I was invited 
to attend a dinner at the Arizona Club to dis :uss this program. 
The Verde Irrigation District was accepted as a party. It was to 
make available its records similarly to the Association. The 
Verde Irrigation District could o^er its records freely because it 
did not have enough to -ount. With the withdrawal of the grant to 
the Verde Irrigation District, the ground water program was not 
carried out. 

From today s point of view it is ^ortunate that the Verde 
Irrigation District did not proceed with its project. Its result 
would have been to increase the water using area when the existing 
uso already exceeded the available supply. It would have aggravated 
the overdraft. 

Shortly after the Verde Irrigation District plan was shut o r f, 
the S.R.V.W.U.A. built the Bartlett reservoir and the water it made 

available went into the supply of the association. 

Much o^ the overall benefit that resulted from not building 
the Verde Irrigation District system in 193^ has been lost by 
the extension of Phoenix into the southern part of the former 
Verde Irrigation District. This has increased it total demand on 
the water supply, as such extension serves lands formerly dry. When 
Phoenix expands in ottier directions on land previously served by the 
S.R.V.W.U.A. , one use replaces another. 

My work for the Verde Irrigation District might be classed 
as political rather than technical engineering. It was interesting 
and resulted in no lasting actions adverse to the local public 
interest. The grant of emergency funds in 193^ to the Verde 
Irrigation District is an illustration of the basis on which funds 
were distributed. The initial funds to the USBR for the Central 
Valley Project in California in 1935 came from this same fund. 

The Buckeye Irrigation Company diverts from the Gila River just 
belcw its junction with the Salt River. It irrigates almost 16,000 
acres on the north side of Gila River around the town of Buckeye. 

The company had a pre-1900 water right. Its diversion was 
around 230 second feet. In the very dry years in about 1900, it 
had a full water supply, coming mainly from the "rising water" in 
Salt River. At that time the ground water in the Salt River Valley 
was high enough to supply return water to the River. In the later 
procedure this return flow was generally designated as"e:"fluent ^low." 

The Buckeye Canal continued to receive an adequate water supply 
as Ion..; as the ground water in the area served by the Salt River 
Valley Water Users Association remained high. In the 1920 s, the 


S.R.V.W.U.A. made contracts with the Roosevelt Water Conservation 
District under which the District lined some of the canals of the 
association in return ^or a right to the salvaged water. It also 
made contracts with the Roosevelt Irrigation District permitting 
the District to construct wells in the association area and have 
title to the water pumped. Both of these projects were beneficial 
to the S.R.V.W.U.A. at the time they were made as the lands of ttie 
association were being damaged by high ground water. The association 
also installed wells of their own both for drainage and to supplement 
the river supply. 

When the years of deficient stream flow occurred in the 1930 s, 
the com ined effect of the ground water pumping "began to show on 
the return flow and the supply of the Buckeye Canal diminished 
below its needs. 

A general adjudication suit was brought by Buckeye against 
all users from the Salt and Gila Rivers above its point of diversion. 
This included the Indian reservation on the Gila River. In order 
to secure Jurisdiction to sue their diversion without suing the 
U.S. who operated the system, each individual Indian was made a 
defendSnt. As a result, there were 3500 named defendents. 

It was recognized that such a suit would be difficult to try. 
Necessarily, much time and cost would be involved in any contested 
court action. Efforts to compromise the issues were started and 
considerable progress had been made when I was retained on the 
case by the Buckeye Irrigation Company in August, 19*H. 

Some personality conflicts had developed among some o^ the 
representatives o-f the parties and a fresh start appeared to be 

(A/vJ 4 *V.lij > 

advisable . 

I undertook the work and began the preparation of a report on the 
Buckeye position. I completed this report and it was argued at 
a meeting of the representatives of the parties in 0:;tover, 19^1. 
Naturally, my claims were not accepted by the other side, but tuere 
was a sufficient recognition that Buckeye s rights had been invaded 
that there was agreement that further efforts should be made to reach 
an out of court settlement of the case. 

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation was indirectly involved through 
its work for the S.R.V.W.U.A. and agreed to provide a mediator to 
preside at the meetings of the parties. Judge Clifford Stone of 
Denver was appointed as mediator. The U3BR also provided an 
engineering advisor for Judge Stone. M.E. Bunger was this engineer 
in the earlier part of the proceeding. The Chief Engineer of the 
Indian Service Walthen also represented that Service. 

The other interests had their engineers and lawyers. The 
lawyers attended the initial meetings of the mediator. As the 
discussions were mainly on engineering facts, the lawyers soon 
dropped out. The attorney for Buckeye did not attempt to direct 
their position, so I was left practically alone to attempt to reach 
a settlement. The staff of Buckeye was helpful on background material 
and Thornton Jones, their manager, was of material help in my work. 

In these meetings there were differences between the engineers. 
There were about a half dozen who were active for the defendants. 
I was the only engineer for Buckeye. Judge Stone did not grasp 
the physical conditions involved and did not understand why, in 
the discussions, it was usually one against all of the others. He 
kept proposing that the engineers involved settle their differences 
by a majority vote, apparently without realizing that I would be out- 


voted by about six to one. He reserrced by refusal to accept a majority 
decision and became critical of my attitude. After this bad occurred 
three or four times, I stopped the discussion of the issues and unloaded 
myself of the facts of life. After this Judge Stone appeared to 
recognize the conditions of the case. This difference might have 
been avoided if Bunger had been more aggressive in advising Judge 
Stone. Bunger appeared to regard himself as an observer for the 
USER to report progress to them. 

Raymond Hill represented the S.R.V.W.U.A. The association had 
nearly all of the essential records. Salt River was the main stream 
involved. Tentative terms of a settlement had been reached with Gila 
River before I began ray work on the case. The S.R.V.W.U.A. made 
their records available and I used them to make my case. This 
was the only case in my experience in which I had to use the 
opponents records to support my conclusions. The Buckeye record 
was limited to their own use. 

We argued along for a couple of years. We would meet and 
present additional engineering results and argue for a few days and 
then adjourn to catch our breath and prepare for the next meeting. 
The war came along and I had trouble travelling to Phoenix for these 
meetings, but made it after the usual train delays. 

Finally, in December, 19^3, I reached an agreement with Hill 
on terms of settlement with the S.R.V.W.U.A. These were approved 
by the principal parties and a stipulated judgment was prepared and 
entered on these terms. This broke the deadlocks, and settlements 
were made with the Roosevelt Irrigation District and the Aqua Fria 
users. My work on this case was completed in Phoenix in September, 


This case is a good example of vhat can be accomplished by 
negotiation of controversies over water rights. If this case had 
gone to trial, Buckeye ;ould not have financed its costs for the 
necessarily lengthy and ,-ostly trial. The case might have been in 
court yet. The court could only consider the legal issues involved 
and had no basis for compelling the parties to consider compromises. 
All lawyers in this case recognized the situation and supported 
the out of court settlement. They are entitled to credit for this 
action. Their work was limited to the drafting of the agreements 
that were reached. 

The settlement that was made with the S.R.V.W.U.A. could not 
have been secured in court. Buckeye had only a direct flow right. 
In the settlement, Buckeye accepted a smaller amount of water to 
be made available by the S.R.V.W.U.A. from their regulated supply, 
thus giving Bujkeye the advantages of the Association storage. 
Buckeye received 1.1% of the total supply of the association to 
be taken as desired by Buckeye. 

Settlements with the Aqua Fria were on a lump sum single payment 
basis. They had only an occasional and limited effect on Buckeye. 
The Roosevelt Irrigation District agreed to a continuing payment 
each year of specified costs of pumping which would replace the 
District s depletion of the effluent flow. 

The Indian Service made a single lump sum payment for the 
depletion of the Gila River flow. This depletion was relatively 
small compared to the depletion on the Salt. The amount of this 
settlement had been agreed prior to my work on the case. 

Everyone concerned expressed approval of the terms of this 
settlement at the time it was made. Based on the results to its date 


it was in everyone s interest and avoided court procedures of 
uncertain outcome. It was recognized that the depletions might 
in .-rease in the future, but the actual record since l^kk was not 

The last spill from the Salt Verde River reservoirs occurred 
in 19^2, until some spill occurred in 1966. The 2k years between 
these surpluses were ones of diminished runoff and increased use. 
From a condition of ground water pumping to avoid high ground water 
damage the Salt River Valley changed to pumping for survival with 
a ground water lowering of over 100 feet. This practically 
prevented return flow except in a small amount near the junction 
of the Salt and Gila. Buckeye has survived on its own ground 
water pumping and, in recent years, on some increased use for 
irrigation of the discharge of the Phoenix sewage treatment plant. 

The work on the adjudication case consisted primarily of 
meetings and negotiations. No lengthy reports were made and there 
are no items on this case in my bibliographical file. Both 
sides prepared and exchanged numerous exhibits. My file of these 
was given to Buckeye on the completion of my work for them in 1958. 

The settlement with the S.R.V.W.U.A. included the effect of 
any additional storage that the association might construct. Storage 
on the Verde had been built at the Bartlett site and another reservoir 
was planned at Horseshoe. The Horseshoe reservoir was later built 
and its storage ame within the terms of the settlement with Buckeye. 

The spillway at Horseshoe Dam was about 50 deep below the top 
of the dam. The city of Phoenix onstructed gates in this spillway 
and was given title to the additional storage that these gates might 


provide. This gate storage was filled in 1952. Buckeye did not 
receive any part of this gate storage and filed suit to enjoin its 

I was asked by Buckeye to try to work out a settlement of this 
controversy. I negotiated with the city intermittently until 1958- 

I finally reached an agreement with Mr. Dario Travaini, then 
head of the Phoenix Water Department, that we would recommend to our 
principals a settlement, in which Buckeye would receive a small 
percentage of the water supply made available by the gate storage. 
It would have been necessary for the S.R.V.W.U.A. to have conveyed 
this water to Buckeye through its canal system as it would have been 
lost if it had been released into the dry Salt River. It 
was thought that this could have been worked out with the Association. 

Although Buckeye s position in this case had weaknesses, the Beard 
of the Buckeye Irrigation Company rejected the terms of settlement 
1 had agreed to recommend. In 1958 Buckeye voted to proceed to trial 
of the case. I advised the company that I would not be available 
for such a trial. I turned my records concerning all of my work for 
Buckeye over to Leonard Halpenny, an engineer in Arizona, who took 
over the work I had been doing. 

This concluded my work for the Buckeye Irrigation Company 
extending intermittently over some 17 years. It was an interesting 
ombination of engineering and human relations. I made a number of 
good friends in Arizona. 

In 19^k, as the Buckeye case was being wound up, Carl Anderson, 
the engineer of the San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District asked 
me to investigate and report on the effect of the increasing 


ground water draft in the Safford and Duncan Valleys on the inflow 
to the Coolidge Reservoir. 

The San Carlos I. & D.D. is the system of the whites which 
participates with the Indians in the use of Coolidge storage. I 
made the investigation desired and reported I could not at that 
time find direct evidence of any reduction in the Coolidge inflow. 
The effect, if any, was obscured in the large losses in the extensive 
area of tamarisk in the upper end of Coolidge Reservoir. My report 
was made Sept. 1, 19^5, and is entitled "Effect of Pumping for 
Irrigation in Dun -an & Safford Valleys on Water Supply of San 
Carlos Reservoir." A copy of this report is Item No. 159 in my 
bibliographical file. 

In 1953, the Gila Valley Irrigation District sued the city of 
Safford regarding damage to the ground water supply of the Safford 
Valley claimed to result from the diversion of water from Bonita 
Creek, a tributary of the Gila River. I was asked by Mr. Fred N. 
Rosenfeld of Phoenix, who was attorney for Safford, to investigate 
tais situation. 

I went over the area involved and participated in a conference 
in Mr. Rosenf eld s office on October 8, 1953- The water supply 
conditions relating to the contested use did not appear to me to 
indicate that the draft by Safford might not have an effect on the 
water supply of the Safford Valley. I expressed this view at the 
;onference. No written report on this work was prepared. 

The case later went to trial. I was not asked to testify. 



Means for securing water for the Madera area had been an active 
subject of local discussion for many years. The early history of 
these efforts is well covered in Bulletin 21 of the State Division 
o" Engineering and Irrigation. An irrigation district for this 
area had been organized in 1888 under the original Wright Act. 
This district was unable to proceed and was dissolved in 1896. 

In 19l6, I made a preliminary office re_; "or the Irrigation 
Investigations of the U.S.D.A. on the possibilities o^ forming 
an irrigation district in Madera C-.ui.r^ . A copy of this report 
is Item 9 o^ binder 37 in my bibliographical file. T ais report 
was intended to aid the local interests in their consideration 
of forming such a district by assembling some of the pertinent 
"actual material. 

The present Madera Irrigation District was organized in 1920. 
As organized, the district included about 350,000 a,:res. The 
history of the reduction of this area in the proceedings of the 
San Joaquiri River W.S.D. has been discussed elsewhere in the account 
of this W.S.D. 

The Madera Irrigation District voted $28,000,000 of bonds, but 
only sold enough of this issue to meet the costs of litigation 
and the acquirement of the Millerton (now Friant) dam site. Borings 
were made at the site and an area of gravel lands bought to supply 
aggregate for the proposed dam. 

The Madera Irrigation District was engaged in efforts to secure 
title to the unappropriated waters of the San Joaquin River from 
its organisation until its mer^r with uhe Sau Joaquiu River W.S.D. 


(See page 97 for account of this storage district. ) After the 
dissolution of this storage district, the Madera Irrigation 
District resumed its efforts to secure vater for a separate project 
for its area. These efforts continued until the USBR undertook the 
construction of the C.V.P. The plans of both the state and the 
USBR for the C.V.P. included a canal extending northerly from 
Friant to serve the Madera area. 

Much of the land in the Madera area was irrigated in the 
1920 s. The main water supply was secured from wells. The draft 
on the ground water exceeded the recharge and ground water lowering 
occurred. The Madera C. & I. Co. was a public utility furnishing an 
irregular service to some lands by diversion from the Fresno River. 
Increasing development made it essential that an additional outside 
water supply be secured. 

Harry Barnes had been the engineer of the Madera C. & I. Co. 
prior to the organization of the Madera I. D. He later worked for 
the state and assisted me in the Kern County investigations in 1920. 
After the completion of that work, he returned to Madera as engineer 
for the Madera I.D. The district also retained consulting engineers 
to make the report on which the bond issue was based. These con 
sulting engineers included Louis Hill and Thomas Means. 

Barnes was the engineer for the Madera I.D. who represented the 
district in its procedure relating to the compromise which resulted 
in the organization of the San Joaquin W.S.D. in the late 1920 s. 
When the storage district dissolved, Barnes returned to the Madera 
I.D. as its engineer. He continued with the district through the 
investigations relating to the C.V.P. by the state and the USBR and 


the negotiation of the sale of the district properties at Priant to 
the USBR. Internal differences resulted in his replacement prior to 
the completion of the contract with the USBR for the construction 
and repayment for the Madera Canal of the C.V.P. and the local 
distribution system. 

After the completion of my work for the state relating to 
the procedure of the S.J.R.W.S.D. I had no further direct contact 
with the Madera area until 1936 after the C.V.P. project had been 
begun by the USBR. 

When the USBR took over the C.V.P. it was a new agency in the 
area. The local units had not had experience dealing with the USBR 
and were not familiar with the Reclamation Act and the procedure of 
the Bureau. I had had such experience in my work in other states 
and served as the source of information on USBR practices. Much 
of my activity in this regard was informal advice to the state 
engineer or to friends who represented local units. 

I was asked to begin work as consulting engineer for the Madera 
I.D. in January, 1936, and continued intermittent activity for the 
district until August, 19^7. My vork was mainly in supplying material 
for use by Barnes in his reports to his Board of Directors. I made 
some reports which are included in Binder 37 of my bibliographical 
file and are discussed later. 

To understand the record of the Madera I.D. during these years 
it is necessary to understand the procedures and policies under which 
Barnes operated. He was English with a stubborn adherence to the 
principles which he considered should control his relations with his 
Board of Directors. He regarded his duty to be the compiling of the 
information essential to making sound decisions, to present reports 

containing this information to the Board and leaving it to the 
members of the Board to study the reports and make the decisions 
for which they had the final responsibilities. 

In theory Barnes program was sound, but it overlooked the 
practical conditions involved. The members of the Madera Board were 
local individuals anxious to serve the interests of the district, 
but Taking in the background to analyze the problems the district 
faced. In addition to the information in Barnes 1 reports the Board 
needed his conclusions on what should be done, presented, fully 
explained and advocated by Barnes. The result of his procedure was 
indecision in district matters. The failure of the Board to act 
in some instances forced Barnes to proceed on his own. This was 
contrary to Barnes theory of hov the district should function, but 
was essential to meet the necessities of daily actions. 

In all my working experience I have not found a more sincere 
person than Barnes. He leaned over backwards to be sure he did not 
withhold any information, even though it might be unfavorable to 
his Interest. 

While Barnes method of district operation was theoretically sound 
and would work with experienced directors devoting adequate time to 
district matters, in my opinion it was not adapted to the conditions 
in the Madera I.D. in the early years of the C.V.P. operations by the 
USER. The directors should not only receive adequate Information 
regarding the matters on which they need to act, but they should be 
told the action they should take on technical matters rather than be 
left to their own conclusions. A district board needs engineering 
and lgsl advice on which it can rely for the technical decisions 
the board members may not be qualified to make for themselves. 


Working vith Barnes on Madera I.D. matters was a frustrating 
experience. The larger part of my work consisted of Barnes coming 
to my office to review matters then under discussion, my advice to 
him on what should be done; his reporting to his board without 
strongly supported recommendations; and uncertain action by the board. 
I seldom had an opportunity to present my conclusions directly to 
the board and to support them by my recommendation. Stephen 
Downey of Sacramento who was the attorney for the district tried 
to operate on legal advice, submitted through Barnes, similar 
to my efforts on engineering matters. 

This continued for about 10 years. I accepted it because 
of my close friendship with Barnes and my high regard for his 
integrity. Finally, after some 10 years, I insisted on meeting 
with the board on some matters relating to the proposed draft 
of a contract with the USER. Such a meeting was held. The board was 
generous in their thanks to me for having taken the tine to meet 
with them and explain the matters then under consideration. It 
apparently did not occur to the members of the board that I had been 
in their employment for 10 years and was being paid for my attendance 
at their meeting. 

Soon after this meeting I concluded that I was not useful to 
the district under the program that was being followed. I 
terminated my work for the district in August, 19^7. 

I made some memorandum reports for the Madera I.D., usually on 
items relating to general USER policies. The USER tended to claim 
that practices they desired to follow in the C.V.P. represented general 
3licies. As I was acquainted with their previous policies 


and actions on their other projects, I was able, in some instances, 
to contradict such claims. 

In May, 1936, I prepared a memorandum for the Madera I.D. on 
the "Basis of Repayment of Projects of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. " 
This traced the history of the reclamation lav on this subject. Its 
conclusions were based on the form of the Reclamation Lav. This 
was prior to the passage of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939- 
In 1936, there vere no provisions in the reclamation lav for the 
9e types of contract. Also in 1936, the draft of contract under 
discussion vas that then proposed vhere the state water project 
authority would make an overall repayment contract with the USER and 
then make its own contracts with the areas to be served. 

In this 1936 memo for the Madera I.D., I concluded that the 
terms of the reclamation lav vould be applicable to the C.V.P. The 
main purpose of the memo vas to analyze the support that might be 
found in the reclamation lav for treating the Madera I.D. as a 
separate division or unit of the C.V.P. and only liable for its share 
of Joint costs such as Friant storage and the actual cost of its own 
canal system. This vould have resulted in a lover cost to the 
Madera I.D. than the average cost of all service from Friant. 

By the time the repayment contracts in the C.V.P. vere finally 
executed, the 1939 Act vas in effect. As repayment of the main delivery 
vorks vas to be made under the 9e form of contract vith the price per 
acre foot of vater delivered based on the ability to pay, arguments 
regarding allocation of main system works betveen different irrigated 
areas or project divisions vere no longer pertinent. 

A reading today (1966) of this 1936 memo emphasizes how much 
change has occurred in repayment policies of the USBR in the last 30 


years. The larger part of the memo is a history of USBR repayment 
with examples of the practices used on named projects. This history 
Is still valid, but the practices followed to 1939 are no longer 
applicable . 

This 1936 memo was also made while the fiction of the C.V.P. 
being built for the state Water Project Authority was still being fol 
lowed under the general terms of the state s C.V.P. Act. This fiction 
now seems like ancient history- 

I made another memorandum for the Madera I.D. in January, 
1938, on the practice of the USER in dividing its projects into 
divisions. This subject had also been included in my May, 1936 memo. 
In the 1938 memo, the conditions on each existing USBR project were 
analyzed. No projects were found in conflict with the position 
that the Madera I.D. should be a separate division. Ten projects 
having separate divisions under conditions comparable to those 
of the Madera I.D. were listed. This memo was also made prior 
to the passage of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 providing 
for 9e type of contracts with the price based on ability to pay. 
The ability to pay may not vary in the different divisions of a 
project while the cost of service may differ. This memo served 
a purpose at the time it was made in supporting the claim of the 
Madera I.D. that it should only be charged with the cost of the 
Madera Canal and not the average cost of all areas to be served 
from Frlant. 

One of the issues in the contract negotiations of the Madera I.D. 
and the USBR related to the amount of water Madera needed. I 
prepared notes on the water requirements of the Madera I.D. in 
November, 19^2. These notes reviewed the results available on 


individual crops in areas comparable to the Madera I.D. The results 
were expressed in terms of the consumptive use. With the recovery 
of any percolation losses by pumping from the ground water the 
requirement for the imported supply could be based on the consumptive 

These notes represent a reasonable consensus of the 
available records. In my opinion, they vould still represent rates 
of use that are applicable under similar conditions. Changes in 

conditions have occurred, however. 

Since 19**2, the average yields in this area have increased 
materially. This is the result of the greater use of fertilizers 
and the better general standards of practice. The consumptive use 
results I derived in 19^2 are lower than the similar results that 
are being used now for consumptive use. The results in my 19^2 
notes, in my opinion, correctly reflect the requirements for 
the areas to which they were applicable. 

The results used in 19^2 were from areas having generally only 
limited ground water movement into or out of the areas for which 
values were derived. Consequently, the overall consumptive use 
could be derived from the difference in inflow and outflow and the 
total crop area for periods when there was no change in the underlying 
ground water. Depths to ground water were generally relatively small 
in the periods used. 

This condition has now changed in some of the areas used in these 
19U2 notes as overdraft has lowered the local ground water. The 
large ground water lowering that has occurred on the west side of the 
Valley has induced a ground water outflow in some areas that did not 
exist in the 1930* s. 


My notes on water requirements in 19^2 are still, in my 
opinion, a useable assembly of the information then available on this 
subject. Their present use, if any, should be limited to their 
value as a basis of comparison with results that represent present 
conditions . 

In 19^3 Friant Reservoir was ready to divert into the Madera 
Canal and the Canal was about ready for use to Fresno River. The 
Friant Kern and Delta Mendota Canals were not ready for operation. 
Madera proposed that it should receive deliveries into the stream 
channels available for such use for purposes of percolation until 
more complete service could be received. No distribution system 
had been built in the Madera area at that time. 

Under date of September 28, 19^3* I prepared a report on 
"Water Rentals on Projects of U.S. Bureau of Reclamation." This 
discussed the practice on the other projects relating to such water 
rental service. 

Madera contended that the charge for such water should be 
based on the cost of operation only without any repayment toward 
construction. While the 9 form of contract was then in the reclam 
ation law, all past practice had been under the 9^ form of contract. 
The results in my report for other projects represented 9d experience. 

This report had some usefulness at the time it was made. It 
applied to a temporary condition which no longer exists. It may 
have some historical interest in its compilation of the practice 
of the USSR. 

Originally the ground water in the southern part of the Madera 
I.D. sloped toward the San Joaquin River on the south. The river was 


a gaining stream receiving water from both sides in this area. As 
pumping from wells in the area north of the river lowered its ground 
water, there was a reversal of ground water slope and the river 
contributed seepage into the area. This condition continued until 
the beginning of delivery of C.V.P. water. 

In 19^3 Barnes assembled the records on this situation with 
his comments which he sent to me for review. I replied under date 
of October l4, 19^3 in a letter memorandum which is Item 1 in Folder 
37 of my bibliographical file. 

The contribution from the San Joaquin River was a factor 
in the water supply and requirements of an area that grew to about 
l|-0 ,000 acres. This item of supply would be replaced by a loss if 
enough C.V.P. water was used to restore the original slopes toward 
the river. This matter was still under discussion at the time I 
ended my work for the Madera I.D. It was not settled when Barnes 
was replaced. The form of contract accepted by the Madera I.D. 
after Barnes left gave the District no future credit if it should 
restore the ground water and produce a return flow to the river. 

One of the early negotiations between the Madera I.D. and the 
USER involved the sale to the USER of the Friant Dam site and the 
gravel pits. I did not participate in these negotiations directly, 
but at various times went over the items Involved with Barnes. A 
sale was eventually negotiated. Out of these negotiations, in addition 
to payment of money, the Madera I.D. secured an agreement that the 
Madera Canal from Friant would be constructed and put into operation 
at least as soon as the Friant Kern Canal. There was concern that 
the larger area to be served under the Friant Kern might be able to 


influence the USER to build that canal first. 

Another early matter under discussion between Madera I.D. and 
the USBR was the capacity of the Madera Canal. The Bureau desired 
to build a smaller capacity than Madera considered would be needed. 
A compromise was reached in which the Bureau built the canal as it 
desired, but all pipes and crossings that would be expensive to 
enlarge were built to Madera s size. I helped Barnes on these 
matters, but did not participate in his negotiations with the USBR. 

The delays in progress by the Madera I.D. finally led to the 
northern part of the Madera I.D. withdrawing from the district and 
forming the Chowchilla Water District in 19^9- This occurred after 
the end of my work for the Madera I.D. The initiative and leadership 
of the Chowchilla area is largely the result of the work of Harold 
V. Eastman who has been the secretary of the Chowchilla Water 
District since its organization. The Madera I.D. and the Chowchilla 
W.D. make Joint use of the Madera Main Canal of the C.V.P. which 
remains under the operation of the USBR. 

Contract negotiations for the purchase of water from the Madera 
Canal and for the construction of the Madera distribution system were 
begun during the period of my work for the Madera I.D. I helped 
Barnes assemble material for use in these negotiations such as the 
amount of water to be purchased and the lay out of the distribution 
system. These matters did not reach a final contract during my 
work. Here again, I did not take a direct part in the negotiations 
as Barnes preferred to handle such matters alone. 

The Madera Canal and Irrigation Company system served some lands 
from Fresno River. It was essential that its system be acquired and 
incorporated in the distribution system to be built to deliver C.V.P. 


water. The negotiations for this purpose dragged along for several 
years, mainly because the Madera I.D. would not take specific action. 
I worked with Barnes informally on valuations of the Madera C. and 
I. property, but did not participate directly in the purchase 

The contract negotiations of the Madera I.D. and the USSR 
reached the stage where the USBR offered the district the choice of three 

contracts in 1950. These differed in some optional features. The 
district selected one of the three contracts and put in motion the proced 
ure for its adoption. 

Some of the Madera land owners objected to the terms of the 
accepted contract. One of the objectors was Arnold Sallaberry 
who owned a large area of generally hardpan land in the north 
easterly portion of the district. 

Sallaberry had been a director of the Madera I.D. He protested 
the approval of the contract by the California District s Securities 
Commission and asked me to appear at their hearing in support of 
his position. I did this and argued that the resulting costs of 
service under the distribution system contract would be more than 
such hardpan type of lands could meet. The hearing was held in 
Sacramento on September 25, 1950. These hardpan lands had been 
dry farmed for grain. They would require levelling for irrigation 
unless sprinkler systems should be used. 

On October 2, 1950, the California District s Securities 
Commission made its Order No. 5> Report upon examination of 
Contract to the Board of the Madera I.D. In this decision the 
Commission disapproved without prejudice to later contracts that 
might meet the objectives to the one reviewed in this decision. The 


Commission found that all lands in the Madera I.D. had acquired 
a claim on water for their irrigation under the 1939 contract 
with the USBR for sale of the Friant Dam site and other District 
property, and that the class 3 lands in the northeasterly part 
of the District should be recognized as participating in this right, 
to be used at some future tine when service at a cost they could 
afford might be made available. The Commission also found that the 
area in question could be excluded from the Madera I.D. without 
an adverse economic effect on the District, but that if these 
lands should be excluded, they should have preserved to then a 
right to later participate in the use of C.V.P. water from the 
Madera Canal. 

My only part in these proceedings was the one appearance before 
the Commission. It assisted in securing recognition of the 
conditions affecting these lands and the disapproval of the contract 
under review which did not meet these conditions. Later the Salla- 
berry lands were excluded from the Madera I.D. and a contract for the 
distribution system for the remaining lands was approved. 

My work for the Madera I.D. extended over a period of 12 
years from 1936 to 19^7- I came back into the picture briefly 
in 1950 in the Sallaberry proceedings. This was the period when 
the areas in the C.V.P. were having to deal with the USBR and 
were learning the procedures applicable to Bureau projects. The 
Madera I.D. was in a better position in negotiating with the Bureau 
than the units under the Friant Kern Canal, as Madera owned 
properties at Friant essential to the C.V.P. To some extent, Madera 
secured advantages from this position. In my opinion, a better 


organized and more assertive representation of the Madera I.D. might 
have secured even better terms. 

The Madera I.D. was organized in 1920. It took 30 years to 
secure a contract for its canal system as a part of the C.V.P. This 
30 year period included the efforts to fight Miller and Lux, to work 
with them in the San Joaquin River W.S.D. , to fight them again until 
the USBR came into the C.V.P. Even holding its organization together 
over this long period represents a creditable performance by the 
Madera I.D. In this Barnes played a leading part. 

In my opinion, it is regretable that when the USBR took over 
the C.V.P. the organization of the Madera I.D. did not, or could not, 
adapt itself to the new conditions and proceed more actively and 
aggressively in its own behalf. The failure of the Madera I.D. to 
meet these new conditions resulted in the separation of the Chowchilla 
area, the replacement of Barnes and the acceptance of a less 
favorable C.V.P. contract than might have been secured. 

When I worked on Sallaberry s exclusion I found the Madera I.D. 
staff lacking background in such procedures and operating with 
out adequate advice, either engineering or legal, in making its 
decisions. The changes made after Barnes had been replaced, in my 
opinion, did not improve the situation. 

My own attempts to be of assistance to the District were in 
effective under the program on which Barnes operated. This is the 
only employment in which I have worked under such limitation. I 
remained In it longer than I would have with anyone else because of 
my long association, friendship and high regard for Barnes. We had 
worked together in 1912 on the investigation of the state s water 
resources resulting in U.S.D.A. Bulletin 25^. Barnes had worked 


with me on the Kern County invest igations for the state in 1920. 
We had gone through all of the San Joaquin River W.S.D. where he 
was engineer for the district and I represented the state. I was 
willing to undertake anything I could to help in the solution of 
the problems of the Madera I.D. as an aid to Barnes. 

Barnes was probably the only one who could have held the Madera 
I.D. together during its long period of frustration from 1920 to 
1935 In my opinion, it is regrettable that when the opportunity 
to proceed in the C.V.P. became available, the Madera I.D. did 
not adapt itself more effectively to the changed conditions. 


In 1935, Utah Lake went dry for the first time in its recorded 
history. This was the result of a series of years of below average 
runoff and of the increased use of its inflow. The resulting 
shortages in water supply for those pumping from the lake led to the 
filing of a general adjudication case to determine the rights of all 
users of its surface inflow and outflow. The plaintiffs in this 
case were the Associated Canals. This term is used for the five 
main users of the outflow from the lake who own the pumping plant 
at the outlet. The Associated Canals include Salt Lake City, the 
East Jordan Canal Co., the North Jordan Canal Co., the Utah & Salt 
Lake Canal Co., and the South Jordan Canal Co. The Associated 
Canals operate through a Board of Canal Presidents consisting of 
the presidents of the boards of each of these four canals and the 
city engineer of Salt Lake City. The city engineer has been the 
president of this Board. 

In 193^, I had been a witness for Oregon in the interstate 
case involving Washington and Oregon over the use of the waters of 
Walla Walla River. Mr. William W. Ray of Salt Lake City was the 
special master for the U.S. Supreme Court who heard this case. Mr. 
Ray was also the attorney for the South Jordan Canal Co. When the 

Utah Lake adjudication case reached the stafe in 1936, that testimony 


was being planned, Mr. Ray wrote to me regarding my availability to 
prepare the case on its water requirements for his client. I met 
Mr. Ray in San Francisco on November 27, 1936, and we discussed a 
program for this work. We agreed that field work should not be 
undertaken until the irrigation season of 1937- 


I met with the attorneys of the Associated Canals in Salt Lake 
City on April 8, 1937, and later vita the Board of Canal Presidents. 
I was employed to direct the preparation of testimony for all of the 
five systems working under the direction of the Board. Each canal 
had its own attorney. Philo T. Farnsworth had been retained as 
chief attorney. Salt Lake City had an engineering staff, but the 
other four canals operated with a superintendent whose main duties 
were the delivery of water to each user. David I. Gardner had 
recently been appointed as water master under an older decree to 
administer the division of the outflow from Utah Lake. 

The program had two main parts. Each canal would have to 
establish its own water requirements to support its case. The 
water supply obtainable from Utah Lake would also need to be 
established so that the lake could be managed to meet the needs of 
those using its outflow. The users of the inflow to Utah Lake 
were the defendants in this case. Their rights and priorities would 
also need to be defined so that Utah Lake could be administered as 
one water system. 

We selected fields under the Associated Canals of representative 
soils and crops and measured their use of water and yield in 1937. 
We also measured use under selected laterals as a whole in 1938. 
Gardner with an assistant handled this part of the work. 

Utah Lake received inflow from nearly 100 sources varying 
from Provo River to small tributary springs and drains. A inflow- 
outflow balance for the lake was needed. We established measuring 
stations on the inflows and secured records of these stations for 
four seasons through 19^0. Henry R. Watson was employed to handle 
this portion of the field work. I had general charge and spent such 


time as was needed or available on this work through the season of 
19^0. Completion of the reports extended into l^l. 

The preceding description illustrates the complexity of the 
organizational set-up. I received full cooperation from all of 
the four canals and received all of their records. Wm. M. Beers was 
the city engineer of Salt Lake City and controlled the city s 
records. I never did succeed in securing their records relating to 
the use of water from Utah Lake from the city and had to meet my 
needs by indirect approaches. 

During this work the USSR was building Deer Creek Reservoir 
on Provo River. Salt Lake City was to be a major user of the new 
water supply made available. The USBR dealt with a group representing 
those who would use Deer Creek water. On this group Mr. Beers 
represented Salt Lake City. One of the main issues of the Utah Lake 
adjudication was the extent to which the flow of Provo River should 
be allowed to come down to Utah Lake before there was storable water 
for Deer Creek Reservoir. This divided interest by Mr. Beers 
affected the decisions of the Canal Presidents. I was caught in 
the middle. 

The five Associated Canals had defined their relative rights 
in Utah Lake as between each other and had operated the pumps at 
the outlet successfully for many years. Success in the pending 
general adjudication required that internal difference between the 
five plaintiffs should be avoided. If I had made an issue of some of 
Beers actions such internal harmony would have ended. I agreed 
with Mr. Farnsworth that conflict among the five canals should be 
avoided. My work was basically to secure the records needed in 
the trial of the case. I kept out of policy matters unless they 


directly affected my work. The field work was completed harmoniously 
and the records secured and compiled. 

When the four years records of inflow to Utah Lake had teen 
secured, I recommended reducing the field work to a few major 
stations. Reports had been prepared on separate matters as the 
work on them was ended. In 19^1 ve had the wind-up reports to 
prepare. I also planned a general report summarizing the results 
and including the conclusions I had reached. 

In order to put on record the results of our work a series 
of reports was prepared. A list of these is Item 70 in my biblio 
graphical file. There were about 15 reports totaling about 1500 
pages. These were prepared to present the record. It was the 
intention to place them on file for future reference. 

In addition, I planned a summary report which would be filed 
with each canal company. When I was about ready to start on this 
summary, Beers had the Board of Presidents direct me not to make 
any report stating conclusions on the matters at issue in the case. 
This was a surprise to me as such conclusions are the normal objective 
of such investigations. 

I had five copies typed of each report on separate parts of 
the work we had done. One copy was sent to Gardner as each report 
was completed. The Board instructed me to purchase a filing case 
and to retain the reports and supporting records in my office in 
Berkeley. In 19^7 when it did not appear that the case would go to 
trial, I took three copies of the reports and the other records to 
Salt Lake City and delivered them to the office of the Board of Canal 
Presidents. I retained one set as my office file. 

At the time I began this work it was the intention to press the 


case to trial. There was delay in completing service to the large 
number of defendants. A motion was made to transfer the adjudication 
procedure. This took time and the motion was granted. Then a motion 
was made to include all users of ground water in the area as parties 
on the ground that their ground water draft affected the ground 
water inflow to Utah Lake. This motion was finally granted. This 
has been the end of the adjudication as far as results are concerned 
although the state engineer has done some further work in securing 
proofs of use from the well owners. 

A general decree involving both surface and ground water users 
in the area tributary to Utah Lake would not be enforceable. Control 
of surface can be made with measurable results as to its effect in 
protecting the supply available to prior rights. Ground water 
users would not be curtailed prior to a period of shortage in 
inflow to Utah Lake. Curtailment after the shortage had occurred 
might and probably would not benefit the users of Utah Lake water 
within the time period of their shortage. 

Another factor that has affected the time program of this case 
has been the generally improved water supply in the years since 
Utah Lake went dry in 1935- Succeeding years raised the lake and 
removed the shortage. At one time there was talk of another suit 
becausethe lake had been allowed to get too high. More recently 
the lake has been very low and dredging to get more water to the 
pumps was required. The adjudication has not been reactivated however. 

It is now over 30 years since the shortage in 1935- At that time, 
an adjudication of the surface rights could have been made and all 
inflow to the lake put under water master control. In the years 
since 1935, Deer Creek has been built and its use established. 


Work is under way on the importation of water from the Colorado River 
drainage. It is improbable that a general adjudication suit will 
ever be tried in this area. 

On several occasions over the years since this work was completed, 
I urged the Associated Canals to file one set of the reports with 
the state engineer to assure that our results would remain available 
in the future. The Reclamation Service made measurements on Utah 
Lake in its early years. All that was obtainable of these results 
in our work was a brief record in the annual reports of the U.S.R.S. 
I offered to make my office file copy available for this purpose. 
Consent to such action was not secured. 

In 1963, the Board requested that I deliver to them my file copy. 
I had no further use for these reports (see exception later), and as 
they were the property of the Board, I delivered them to Dave Gardner 
when he was here on October 11, 1963. This ended my connection with 
this work. I had been on a stand-by basis over the years if there 
had been any action on the case. 

Among the reports made in our work were two relating to the 
evaporation from Utah Lake. A class A pan was in use with a factor 
of 0.8. In earlier years they had used a buried pan at Hephl . 
By measuring the inflow we were able to measure all items in the 
inflow-outflow balance except the discharge of the springs in the 
lake bed and the evaporation. In the winter months when the 
evaporation was small we derived the inflow from springs as the 
remaining items in the balance. As the inflow from the springs 
is relatively constant we could use the winter results on the inflow 
for all the year to derive the evaporation. Consistent results 
were secured. The inflow from springs had been observable in 1935. 


It was, and is, a fairly large item. 

I had worked on the evaporation of other Great Basin Lakes. 
At my request the Board approved my retaining my office copy of 
these reports. These reports are now Items 71, 72, and jk in my 
bibliographical file. 

As I anticipated that my results would not be known beyond the 
office of the city engineer while Mr. Beers held that position, I 
prepared a summary of the reports which I filed, together with an 
index of the reports and the records, with each canal system. No 
objection to this action was made by the Board. The summary 
report is Item 70 and the index is Item 73 in my bibliographical 
file. Some pertinent correspondence is also included in Item 70. 

In 1953 there was some dispute regarding the operation of 
Utah Lake at its high stage. I was asked to examine the 
situation. I made a three day trip for this purpose and made a 
verbal report to the Board. This matter was not pressed to court 

These investigations on Utah Lake were an interesting hydrologic 
study. In my opinion, we secured results whose usefulness extended 
beyond the issues of the litigation for which they were obtained. 
This usefulness has not been secured to date and may never be. It 
will not be unless the results are made available for use in presently 
pending matters. 

The Central Utah project is just getting under way to bring 
additional water into this area. The former talk of a project to 
conserve evaporation on Utah Lake by a dike to restrict its area is 
being revived. Former irrigated areas under the four canals are 
being urbanized. All of these changed conditions will have to be 


reconciled with the old. The records we secured in 1937 -^0 can 
be a helpful factor in these adjustments. 


This case involved the tax on the sale in 1928 of the properties 
of the East Bay Water Co. to the East Bay Municipal Utility District. 
McLaughlin was the U.S. Collector of Internal Revenue. He had 
set the tax on this sale and the suit was brought against him to 
reduce its amount. The U.S. was represented by the U.S. attorney 
in San Francisco, Frank J. Hennessy. The case was tried for the U.S. 
by Esther B. Phillips, a deputy U.S. attorney. My work on the case 
was arranged with Mr. Clack of the Internal Revenue Field Division. 

In its purchase of the properties of the East Bay Water Co. 
the East Bay M.U.D. had agreed to pay any income taxes resulting 
from the sale which might be assessed to the East Bay W.C. This 
made the E.B. M.U.D. the active plaintiff in this case. The District 
wy represented by its attorney T.P. Wittschen. 

The District had paid $6^7,602.87 in taxes on June 2t, 1931. 
It sued to recover the whole tax with interest from the date of 
payment. The E.B. W.C. had acquired its main properties in 191?. 
The tax was based on the claimed profit upon the sale of these 
properties in 1928 at a price in excess of its value in 1917. 

The price paid by the E.B. M.U.D. was known and not at issue. 
The case turned on the value of the properties of the E.B. W.C. at 
the time of their acquirement by that company. The E.B. W.C was the 
result of combining several early small companies serving parts of 
the local area. The tax at issue depended on the difference in 
value of the properties of the E.B. W.C. when acquired by it and the 
price at which they had been sold to the E.B. M.U.D. 

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue had found a value of the 


properties of the E.B.W.C. as of January 1, 1917 of $16,5^8,5^1,000. 
This was his finding on the "fair market value" of the "fixed capital 
assets." The tax had been computed on this value, less later re 
tirement and allowed the depreciation plus additions. January 1, 
1917 was adopted as the date of the acquirement of the purchased 
properties by the E.B.W.C. The parties had agreed on a 1917 
valuation of the lands and interest in land of $7,558,731.95- This 
left the valuation of the physical system and, in general, the in 
tangibles to be determined in the trial. 

My work was limited to an appraisal of the value of the water 
rights. The East Bay M.U.D. used J.B. Lippincott and Fred C. Hermann 
as its witnesses on the value of the water rights. They found a 
value of $100,000 per M.G.D. for iQ.k M.G.D. safe yield of 
developed sources and $50,000 per M.G.D. for 17.6 M.G.D. owned, 
but undeveloped sources. San Pablo Dam had not been built in 1917. 

The total valuation by Lippincott and Hermann for the total 
water rights sold was $2,720,000 as of January 1, 1917. My appraisal 
of the 1917 value of the water rights involved was $500,000. The 
difference in these two results was caused by different methods of 
appraisal that were applied to the water rights involved. The values 
found by the witnesses for the U.S. for the water rights varied 
from $3^0,000 to $530,000 depending on the basis used. I recommended 
$500,000 as a fair value for the purposes of this case. 

In my work on this case I assembled the results of sales of 
water rights or other procedures from which the values used for the 
water rights could be derived. These results and their applications 
to the water rights involved in this case were included in a report 
on the "Value of the Water Rights of the East Bay Water Co." which 


I made in June, 1938. This 10^ page report also discusses the 
different methods which were in use in the valuation of water 
rights. A copy is Item 6A in my bibliographical file. 

^Hte E.B.W.C. secured its water supply from a variety of local 
sources, so that the appraisal of the value of the water rights required 
more detail work than would be usual in such cases. 

The E.B.M.U.D. purchased the E.B.W.C. system in 1928. The 
trial of this case took place in 1938. The time between these 
dates represents the time taken to assess the tax, that spent in 
efforts to compromise the issues, and delays in actually getting 
to trial. 

The trial was held before Judge Lindley of Chicago who had 
been assigned to this case, apparently without his approval. Judge 
Lindley was very critical in his attitude, restricted the witnesses 
to yes or no answers whenever such answers could be made, and ruled 
severely on questions of admission of evidence. In his favor it 
can be said that he was equally discourteous to both sides. 

Miss Phillips had been active in admiralty cases and had little 
background in the subject matter of this case. Wittschen had been 
attorney for Miller and Lux and was at home in the subject matter 
here. Miss Phillips had difficulty phrasing her questions in a 
form which the judge would sustain over Wittschen s objections. 
The U.S. witnesses had to adjust what they could cover in their 
testimony to this condition. 

The E.B.M.U.D. had voted bonds for the construction of the 
Mokelunne system to bring water to the area of the District. It 
later voted additional bonds to cover the cost of local distribution 
either by the purchase of the E.B.W.C. or by the construction of a 


new system. There was the usual bargaining resulting from this 
situation, the E.B.M.U.D. seeking to buy the E.B.W.C. system as 
cheaply as possible, and the Water Co. seeking to get as much of 
the funds which the District had available as it could. 

Dr. Geo. Pardee was the president and the dominant individual 
on the Board of Directors of the E.B.M.U.D. He made many 
speeches on the purchase of the E.B.W.C. He claimed it would be 
bought for much less than the available funds and that the re 
mainder of the funds would be used for improvements in the distribu 
tion works. 

Meanwhile, the construction of the Mokelumne system was 
approaching completion. The E.B.W.C. had been meeting an increasing 
delivery demand without enough new sources of supply and might not 
have enough water to meet its load until the Mokelumne water 
arrived. It appeared for a while that the E.B.M.U.D. might have 
to deliver Mokelumne water into San Pablo Reservoir in order to 
avoid a shortage in its area even if it had not acquired or built 
a distribution system. 

Finally, the situation became sufficiently critical that the 
District and the Company reached an agreement on the purchase of 
the Company system. In substance, the E.B.W.C. sold everything which 
it owned to the District for all of the funds which the District had 
available for the purchase. These funds were nearly twice as large 
as the price for which Dr. Pardee had predicted the system could be 

In view of the overall conditions this purchase of the E.B.W.C. 
worked out advantageously for both parties. The District paid a 
relatively good price, but it could not have secured the local 


distribution system by condemnation within the time available. 

The E.B.W.C. had acquired large areas of land in its water 
sheds to protect the quality of its supplies. The E.B.M.U.D. 
acquired these lands. Some of these areas vhich were no longer 
needed for watershed purposes have been sold to the Regional Parks 
system. Tilden Park is an example of this. The E.B.M.U.D. still 
owns large areas of land. As the treatment of the water supplies 
is extended, these lands may no longer be needed for water supply 
protection and may be sold for parks and other uses. 

Comments on the acquirement of the properties of the East Bay 
Water Co. are contained in the Annual Reports of the East Bay Municipal 
Utility District. The report for 1928 (p. 65) states the $26,000,000 
in bonds were voted in November, 1927 to be used for the acquisition 
of a local distribution system. As the District had been unable 
to secure a price for their properties from the Company, the amount 
of this bond issue was based on the estimated cost of constructing 
an independent system, so that the District would be in a position 
to buy or to duplicate the existing system. The District report 
states, "Every consideration of economy and public conscience, 
as well as urgent public necessity, dictated the acquisition of 
the existing properties of the Water Co., if it were possible to do 
this. It had become increasingly evident that if a purchase were 
made, it must be for all of the properties of the Water Company." 
Negotiations continued to August 19, 1928, and a compromise was 
reached on September 26, 1928, when the District agreed to buy the 
entire assets of the Water Company. The title was transferred on 
December 8, 1928, and the District took over the operation of the 


The first Mokelumne water reached the District on June 23, 
1929. At that time the storage on hand in the District s local 
system was only sufficient for 21 days use in the East Bay area. 
This was a close margin. 

This tax case was tried in June, 1938. 

The decision is dated August 21, 1938 and is reported in 2k 
Fed. Supp. 222. Judge Lindley commented, "Evidence of historical 
cost and various other elements, all competent and relevant in 
determining valuation, were submitted and a formidable amount of 
testimony on both sides presented." 

"The parties are in sad disagreement as to the value of the 
water rights. Plaintiffs witnesses testified to a valuation of 
$100,000 for each million gallon per day of developed water and 
$50,000 per million gallons per day of undeveloped supplies, or a 
total of $2,720,500. The witnesses for the Government testified 
to a minimum value of $3^0,000 and a maximum of $530,000. That 
consideration must be given to such water rights is evident from 
the decisions." Cases are then cited. The decision then states 
that the Government attacked the validity of some rights, but its 
objections were not sustained. 

The decision states: 

"Again I am of the opinion that plaintiffs witnesses were 
too liberal, and those of the defendant too conservative in their 
estimates of the value of water rights. That they had value is 
admitted, but prior to 1917 it was contemplated that some of these 
rights should be superseded by various others. Considering all of 
the evidence bearing upon this subject offered by both parties, I 
find that the fair value of the water rights, both developed and 


undeveloped, on January 1, 1917* was $1,320,000. In reaching this 
conclusion, I have valued the undeveloped water rights at one-third 
of the developed price. While these rights had not been fully 
developed they had actual existence. They vere property rights in 
the nature of chattels real, and plaintiff had a right to include 
them in the value of its property, though necessity for their enjoyment 
had not yet come into existence." 

The decision on the value of the water rights involved in 
this case was nearer to the value claimed by the Government than 
that claimed by the E.B.M.U.D. 

If the decision is applied to the extent of these rights claimed 
by Lippincott and Herrmann with the Judge s valuation of undeveloped 
rights at 1/3 of developed rights, it results in a value of $53,300 
per M.G.D. for developed rights. The E.B.M.U.D. claimed 18.U M.G.D. 
developed supply and 17.6 M.G.D. undeveloped in 1917- San Pablo 
Reservoir was constructed after 1917. Giving the above amount of 
undeveloped supply a value of 1/3 of the developed water and applying 
the judge s total value of $1,320,000 for both types of supply gives 
the above value per M.G.D. of developed supply of $53,300. 

This case is one of the few cases involving the value of water 
rights in which the decision enables the value per unit of supply 
found in the case to be derived. 

On the overall issue in this case, the total value of the acquired 
properties on January 1, 1917, the court found $18,373,732. The 
Government had based its tax on a value of $16,51*8,57^. This increase 
in the total value reduced the tax based on the difference between the 
1917 value and the 1928 sales price so that the E.B.M.U.D. secured 
a reduction in the tax as a result of this suit. 


My work In this case is my only experience in trying to work with a 
woman attorney. While the confusion that occurred cannot be blamed 
entirely on the sex of Miss Phillips, it was more difficult to argue 
out differences of opinion, or to explain matters not understood by 
the attorney, under the restrictions that are usual in discussion with 
ladies. Miss Phillips was a good lawyer who was working outside 
her field of experience in this case. 

The wide difference in the conclusions reached by the 
different witnesses testifying on the value of water rights 
illustrates the difficulty of placing market values on a commodity 
not free to move to an open market and seldom sold. Water rights 
are rarely moved from one use to another. Sales are infrequent 
except under individual factors which limit the application of the 
price paid to other proposed sales. Isolated sales can be found 
over a wide range of values, but seldom represent the required 
willing seller and informed buyer standards required to establish 
real market value. 



This conference was held at the Stevens Hotel in Chicago. 
It was attended by representatives of 29 states. It resulted from the 
common interest of the vestern and the eastern states in two bills 
then pending in Congress. 

The adoption of flood control as a federal responsiblity by 
Congress in 1936 led to many problems in federal-state relationships 
and in competition between the federal agencies having activities 
in the development of water resources. There was fear among the 
western states that flood control would be combined with navigation 
to restrict the use of water for irrigation. There was also concern 
that flood control projects might be authorized on interstate streams 
which might be opposed by some of the states involved. The most 
definite example of this fear of injury to some of the states was 
illustrated by the Missouri River where the large reservoirs to be 
built by the Army Engineers for flood control might be operated to 
maintain navigation. The superior right of navigation over consumptive 
uses could be used to prevent use of water from such streams in the 
upper states in the Missouri Basin. The Pick-Sloan Plan had not yet 
been adopted by the U.S.E.D. and the USER. 

In the eastern states in l^bk , Vermont was opposed to some proposed 
flood control reservoirs in Vermont which would submerge some large 
areas of land then in use. The state under procedures obtaining 
had no ready means for asserting its interests in such federal projects. 

The Interstate Commission on the Delaware River Basin (popularly 
known as Incodel) was also concerned with the federal position 


relating to the plans of the states comprising this Commission. Incodel 
vas anxious to have a greater state say regarding federal projects. 

The National Reclamation Association had an active Committee 
on Preservation of Integrity of State Water Laws. Judge Clifford H. 
Stone of Denver wa the Chairman of this committee. The Secretary- 
Manager of the IfRA, F.O, Hagie, handled much of the organizational work 
preparatory to the Conference. 

As the result of the interests in these issues, the basis for 
the Chicago Conference that is stated in its notice calling the 
meeting was worked out. There were four sponsoring organizations 
as stated in the call. There were five items on ^he agenda as 
follows : 

1. To assure local and state participation in plans for water 
resources development; 

2. To preserve the integrity of state water laws; 

3. To perfect amendments to the Omnibus Rivers and Harbors 
Bill (H.R. 3961) and the Omnibus Flood Control Bill (H.R. M*85) now 
pending before the United States Senate; 

k-. To insure adoption of such amendments by the Congress; and 

5- To consider such other matters as may properly come before 
the Conference. 

The record of the Conference is well presented in the report of 
Raymond Matthews who was Secretary of the California delegation and 
in Senator O Mahoney s report to the U.S. Senate. These and other 
materials relating to California s part in the Conference are included 
in Item l6o of my bibliographical file. The comments included here 
are a supplement to that record. 

California had a particular interest in H.R. 39^1 because of its 


inclusion of the so-called Elliott Amendment which would exempt the 
Central V a lley Project from the provisions of the l6o acre land 
ownership limitation. This rider had been attached to H.R. 39^1 in 
the House "by Congressman Elliott. It had no direct connection to 
the main purpose of H.R. 39^1 (an Omnibus River and Harbors 
authorization act). H.R. 3961 had passed the House with this rider 
and was then before the Senate. 

California also had a direct interest in securing recognition 
that irrigation took precedence over navigation in arid states. 
While there were no pending projects in California in which this was 
a direct issue at the time, it was a potential point of conflict 
in the C.V.P. 

California was also directly interested in the amendment to 
H.R. M*85 which had been proposed by Senator Millikin of Colorado. 
These amendments would require federal agencies proposing projects 
for authorization to submit their reports on ;such projects to the 
states involved. The states would be given 90 days in which to 
comment on such reports and their comments would accompany the 
department s report when it was transmitted to Congress. 

In California, there was an informal working committee of 
water interests which Hyatt had brought together so that a single 
California position might be presented on Congressional matters. 
This committee later became the California Water Council and then the 
present California Reclamation Association. Hyatt s committee met when 
meetings were needed. Hyatt s working committee was functioning 
when the Chicago Conference was proposed. Meetings were held to 
formulate the position California would take at the Conference. 

The California committee had considered the earlier forms of 

2 9 6 

the Mlllikln Amendment. There were some differences of opinion 
regarding its wording. These were ironed out among the California 
members before the Chicago meeting so that the Calif ornians had their 
own program to propose. The committee also agreed upon and adopted 
a position on the other matters at issue that would be discussed 
at the Chicago Conference. I was a member of the working committee 
and helped Hyatt draft its statement of position which was used 
at Chicago. I do not have a copy of this statement in my files. 
It should be available in the state engineer s records. 

I participated in these procedures directly as representing 
the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District. I also acted as an 
informal assistant to Hyatt in drafting statements of position, etc. 
I attended the Chicago Conference as a representative of the T.L.B.W.S.D. 
Due to the war restrictions on travel, the U.S.E.D. secured 
permits enabling me to get to Chicago. 

When the Conference opened in Chicago there appeared to be 
general agreement on the objectives of the meeting, but not much 
coordination or planning on how to define and secure them. After 
it began to look as if the meeting might talk for two days without 
concrete action, the previously prepared California program was 
presented by Hyatt. It expressed the position and purposes of the 
other states. It received general approval and the succeeding 
discussions were directed toward adapting it to the needs of all of 
the states. 

As this was a grass roots meeting, federal representatives 
were not admitted to the general sessions. The federal agencies 
had been asked to have representatives available for conference 

at the Stevens Hotel. This was done, but their participation 


was limited to conferences with them outside of the main meetings. 
There were numerous factual questions which they were helpful in 
answering, but it was the purpose of the meeting to reach positions 
on policy matters independently of the ambitions of the federal 
agencies concerned. 

I have compiled correspondence and items relating to this 
conference in a folder in my bibliographical file. This is Item 
No. l6o. It does not contain anything that I had written except 
some correspondence. Judge Clifford H. Stone of Colorado had been 
active in calling the Conference. He was then serving as mediator 
in the Buckeye Case in Arizona. I was the negotiator for Buckeye 
in this case. I used this contact to secure for the California 
committee additional information regarding the Conference. 

There was a good representation of the eastern states at the 
Chicago Conference. Alban J. Parker of Vermont was paricularly active 
and served as Chairman of the meetings. Representatives of Incodel 
were also active. 

The Chicago Conference had two particular features that 
differed from previous similar meetings. One was the exclusion 
of federal speakers to allow direct expression of local views. The 
other was the inclusion of eastern and western water interests having 
and interest in water policy in a joint session. 

While the Chicago Water Conference has now been largely forgotten, 
it served a useful and constructive purpose while it operated. The 
final wording of H.R. kk&5 followed generally the recommendations 
of the Conference. Senators Millikin of Colorado and O Mahoney of 
Wyoming attended and worked with the group on what became known as 
the O Mahoney, Millikin Amendment to H.R. 


The Chicago Conference had an essential part in drafting and 
in securing the passage of Sec. la and lc. of H.R. 4485- These 
are the sections covering state review of federal reports. It has 
been in effect since 19^- with varying results in the different 
states. It gives the states an opportunity to express their views 
on federal projects before they are authorized by Congress. 
California made much use of this provision. Under Hyatt, when he 
was State Engineer, federal reports were reviewed carefully on 
both engineering and policy matters. His reports were effective 
in presenting the state s position. At one time Strauss is reported 
to have told Governor Warren that Hyatt s comments were delaying 
authorization of California projects as a result of his criticism. 
Considering the quality of some of the reports put out by the 
Bureau when Strauss was Commissioner, Hyatt s criticisms probably 
prevented actions which would not have served the states interest. 
They did not hold up authorization or appropriations. 

Other states generally have tended to rubber stamp approval 
of federal reports that would authorize federal expenditures in 
their areas. California s more critical attitude under Hyatt did 
not result in any essential loss of federal funds for California and 
secured projects better adapted to the needs of the state. Since 
Hyatt s time his standards have not been fully maintained. 

Sec. Ib of H.R. M*85 was also extensively discussed at the 
Chicago Conference and wording satisfactory to all participants worked 
out. This wording was used in the act as passed. This section 
related to the preference for irrigation over navigation in the 
states partly or wholly west of the 97th Meridian. 

The Chicago Conference was not successful in securing the inclusion 


of the Elliott Amendment in H.R. 39^1 . The exemption of the C.V.P. 
from the acreage limitations was a single state action. The Conference 
actions were limited to matters of national scope. The U.S. Senate 
removed the Elliott Amendment from H.R. 39^1. In the Conference on 
the Senate and House versions of H.R. 396l, the House accepted the 
Senate s action. This was not a repudiation of the purpose of the 
purpose of the Elliott Amendment. The desire to pass H.R. 39^1 and 
to secure the authorizations it contained was too wide-spread for other 
states to be willing to delay passage of H.R. 39^1 by arguing over any 
local matters. 

A second Water Conservation Conference was held in Kansas City 
on September 18 & 19, 19^7. I attended. A more definite organ 
ization with a constitution was adopted. There was a California 
group in attendance. This Conference did not have as specific 
objectives as the one in Chicago. The main objectives of the 
Chicago Conference had been accomplished in the passage of H.R. UU85- 
The lack of specific items on which to press for action was apparent 
at Kansas City and little definite result vas secured. 

The Chicago Conference resulted in the Appointment of a 
Continuing Committee to follow up on its recommendations. Each 
state had a member on this committee. W.R. Bailey, then of Vlsalia 
was the California member. This working committee was active for 
a few years. It called the Kansas City meeting. Other organizations 
gradually replaced the one formed at Kansas City and it ceased to 

The Chicago Water Conservation Conference is a fairly typical 
example of a need for concerted action by some group of interests, action 
in meeting that need and gradual loss of interest after the need has 


been met. The Conference was a success in meeting the needs it sought 
to solve. The gradual loss of interest later represents a painless 
method of avoiding the perpetuation of organizations beyond the period 
when they are needed. 



A reservoir on the Rio Grande in Colorado at the Wagon Wheel 
Gap site and one on the Conejos River had been found to be feasible 
in a report by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation published as H.D. 
693, 76th Congress 3d Sess. in 19UO. The Conejos is a tributary 
of the Rio Grande entering a short distance above the New Mexico 

The Wagon Wheel Gap Reservoir would serve lands in the San Luis 
Valley. This is a large areanoted for the production of high quality 
potatoes. Its irrigation practice included the sub-irrigation of 
crop lands by raising the ground water by excess diversions in the 
early season and maintaining it through the growing season. This 
practice had resulted in damaging areas of lower lands, but was 
successful in the lands in which the ground water was controlled. 
Unlike most areas similarly sub-irrigated, the amount of diversion 
required was relatively small, averaging about 2 acre feet per acre 
per year. 

Opinion in the San Luis Basin regarding the Wagon Wheel Gap 
Reservoir was divided. The engineering reports had been based on 
making available additional water by storage of surplus flows and 
also by changing the practice by reregulating the then early 
season diversion for use in the later season. A Joint Investigation 
Committee had been established including members from the different 
parts of the Valley to represent the land owners in negotiations 
regarding the project. 

This Committee was not satisfied with the available report 


which recommended construction of the reservoir on the basis of 
the Joint benefits of the new water and the regulation of existing 
use. It desired a report which would analyze the project on the 
basis of the new water only, leaving the local practice to 
remain as it had been. 

I was asked to make a report on the Wagon Wheel Gap Project 
by the Joint Committee. An agreement was reached and I began work 
on the report in 19^. 

An interesting item in the agreement to make the report was a 
clause, insisted upon by the Committee, that the report be written 
in language the land owners could understand. The previous reports 
had discussed the results that might be obtained from the project 
without too much attention on the items which the land owners 
could use to compare their preproject and project conditions. The 
local interests also wanted to continue their present practices. 

I made a trip to Monte Vista June 12 to 1^, 19^. I signed the 
agreement to make the report. I mailed my report on October 7 and 
was in Monte Vista on October l6 and 17. My report was accepted, and 
I discussed it at an open meeting. 

I had some hesitation in agreeing to prepare a report subject 
to a requirement that unnamed individuals could or would understand 
it. However, the Committee were high type individuals, and I was 
in sympathy with their position. I wrote the report with a non 
technical summary and conclusions at the start and followed with the 
water supply analyses in usual engineering form. No complaint was 
made that I had not met the terms of the agreement. I have had other 
occasions when a non-technical discussion of technical results has been 
desired, but this is the only instance in which it was a point of 


the employment agreement. 

The Rio Grande compact between Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado 
had been made in the 1930 s. The need for this compact resulted 
from the increased diversions in New Mexico and Colorado depleting 
the water supply for Elephant Butte Reservoir in Texas. Under 
the compact, Colorado was obligated to deliver a defined amount of 
water at the Colorado-New Mexico line. There were provisions for 
credits and debits to take care of excess or deficiencies in the 
delivery in any year. This compact requirement reduced the remaining 
water available for new development in Colorado and was a major 
factor in the storable water at Wagon Wheel Gap. 

War time restrictions were in effect on travel and I had 
difficulty in getting to the San Luis Valley. After I had collected 
the information needed, I did my work on the report in 
Berkeley. I was able to work in side trips to Monte Vista when 
I was in Denver on other matters. 

The remaining water supply available for storage at Wagon Wheel 
Gap was limited mainly to surplus flows in years of excessive runoff . 
This made the safe yield a relatively small per cent of the constructed 
storage capacity. I estimated the new water supply obtainable to 
average 82,000 acre feet per year from a storage capacity of 9^0,000 
acre feet to be available for irrigation. 

The benefits from the regulation of the past diversions were 
debatable. The local users did not accept the estimates that had 
been made by the USBR. I found such benefits to be limited as much 
of the soils to be served were coarse and would require heavy, late 
irrigations if the sub had not been raised by heavy early use. 

In general, I concluded that the project was marginal. It might 

be justified if its costs were low enough, but did not represent a 
necessity for the Valley. 

Njy personal relations with the Coannittee were very pleasant, I 
received their full support and retained the friendship of some 
of the members over the years. 

There was an opportunity to increase the water supply at Wagon 
Wheel Gap by diverting water from the drainage area of Weminuche Creek 
at costs which appeared to be feasible. The water supply obtainable 
by such a diversion was analyzed in my report. Weminuche Creek is 
in the drainage area of Pine River. Such a diversion was discussed 
in H.D. 693. If Wagon Wheel Gap Reservoir should be constructed, the 
Weminuche diversion would be a feasible addi-Uon to its water supply 
under I$kk condition. 

In my report on the Wagon Wheel Gap Reservoir, I did not make 
a direct recommendation regarding whether it should be built or not. 
The previous reports had shown the benefits it was claimed could be 
secured from the reregulation of the then diversions. The Committee 
desired results showing what service could be secured without changing 
the current practices. I derived such results. Jfy conclusions in 
my report were as follows : 

"It is concluded that Wagon Wheel Gap without the Weminuche 
diversion can make available 68,000 acre feet per year without 
disturbing or changing present uses. With the Weminuche diversion 
the similar usefulness is 82,000 acre feet per year. In addition, 
voluntary modifications in present diversion practices may make 
available an additional 20,000 acre feet per year. Other smaller 
items, not included in the main studies in this report, may add 
as much as 10,000 to 15,000 acre feet more. 


"These amounts of usefulness of storage at Wagon Wheel Gap 
should be used in comparison with the costs of storage which may be 
charged to irrigation in determining the desirability of the project. 
These results apply to the operation of Wagon Wheel Gap without 
changing present methods and amounts of use of the natural or unre 
gulated flow and do not include reregulation of present uses." 

At the time of my report the cost allocation between flood 
control and irrigation had not become final and the costs that would 
be charged to irrigation were indefinite. I covered only the water 
supply features of the project and did not attempt to express a 
conclusion on its economic feasibility. At the meeting with the 
committee to discuss ray report, I made this clear. I did state 
that the project was marginal as nearly all of the runoff at the 
Wagon Wheel Gap site was already in beneficial use. My conclusion 
appears to have agreed with that of the local interests as the 
project has not received sufficient local support to result in its 

At the time I made this report, the Rio Grande Compact was in 
effect. Both Colorado and New Mexico had met their delivery require 
ments, and Texas had received its compact supply. Later, both 
Colorado and New Mexico fell behind in their deliveries and Texas 
brought suit to enforce the Compact. I reveiwed the issues of this 
case for New Mexico. My results are discussed in another item in 
these memoirs covering this subject. 

The Conejos storage was constructed after my work on Wagon Wheel 
Gap. It was built for flood control without a contract for its use 
for irrigation. For several years the Conejos irrigators received the 
benefits of the improved stream flow without cost. The waters stored 


for flood control were released after their storage at rates which 
improved the divertability over that obtainable under the previous 
natural flow. 

Since ray work in the San Luis Valley on the Wagon Wheel Gap 
Reservoir, there have been efforts to get the project constructed. 
None of these efforts have been successful. In the meantime the 
irrigators have turned to ground water pumping from wells on the irri 
gated lands. This has lowered the ground water in some areas and 
reduced the sub, but to date it is my understanding that no serious 
overdrafts have developed. 

Colorado is now in material arrears on her required deliveries 
at the New Mexico line under the terms of the Compact. Any storable 
water at Wagon Wheel Gap would now have to be delivered to the New 
Mexico line until the deficiency in delivery there had been met. 
This condition makes the Wagon Wheel Gap even less attractive to 
the local users as its use for their benefit would be deferred until 
the Compact terms had been met. To date there have not been attempts 
to restrict use in Colorado to meet the Compact deliveries. 

I drove through the Valley in 1962 on the way to sites of my 
earlier work. I was there on a Sunday and took to the water master 
the various materials I had collected in my work. I did not anticipate 
that I would have further use for these results. The only records I 
retained were copies of my report. A copy is Item 80 in my biblio 
graphical file. 


When the state was unable to finance its plan for the C.V.P. and 
the federal government began its construction in 1935> the project passed 
from state control to the USER. Initially the state tried to tz"t the 
USER as a contractor building the project for the state. In the sarlier 
years the Water Project Authority passed on and approved the USSR s plans 
and programs. Gradually the realities of the situation became clear and 
the C.V.P. was recognized as being a federal project being built and operated 
in accordance with the terms of the reclamation law. 

The state did not reconcile itself to this loss of control of the 
C.V.P. and efforts were made to have the project turned over the the 
state for operation as its several parts were completed. These efforts 
were most active while the C.V.P. remained essentially the same project 
proposed by the state. When the original C.V.P. became merely the 
nucleus of a general water resources plan for the Central Valley, it became 
even more apparent that transfer to the state would be unworkable. 

The proposals for transferring the C.V.P. back to the state were 
most active in the latter 19^0 s. They were mainly sponsored by 
A.D. Edmonston both while he was in charge of the state s water 
resource investigations and later when he became state engineer. 
Ed Hyatt also supported such a transfer while he was state 

There was much general support for the return of the C.V.P. 
to the state. This was based on various grounds. One was the 
hope that such a transfer could be made under conditions so that the 
C.V.P. would not be subject to the acreage limitation. Another was 
the general dissatisfaction with those then in control of the USER. 


A third reason was the general preference for local control. 

The interest in the return of the C.V.P. to the state led the 
State Chamber of Commerce to appoint a committee in 19^5- I was 
asked by Chairman Carl F. Wente of the Chamber s State -vide Comm 
ittee on Utilization and Control of Water Resources to act as 
Chairman of a subcommittee on this subject. I accepted and 
acted as the Chairman for the next five years. Hie other members 
were Harold Hedger of the Los Angeles Flood Control District, 
George Henderson of the Kern County Land Co., Burnham Enerson, 
a San Francisco attorney, and Ronald B. Harris, a Fresno attorney. 

My records relating to the activities of this subcommittee 
are included in my bibliographical file in the folder entitled, 
"Proposed Transfer of the Central Valley Project to the State, 
191*5-52." This is Item No. 158 in my bibliographical file. 

The State Chamber had adopted a policy favoring the transfer of 
the C.V.P. to the state prior to the appointment of the subcommittee. 
The editor of the San Francisco News, Mr. Frank Clsrvoe, sent a 
copy of the Chamber s statement to Secretary Ickes. Ickes replied 
on October 31> 19^5> expressing his opposition to such a transfer. 
Ickes 1 letter includes some of the record relating to previous 
dealings with the state relative to such a transfer. 

Hyatt replied to Ickes letter of October 31, 19^5, to Clarvoe 
on December 12, 19^5 . Ickes replied on January 11, 19^6, and Hyatt 
wrote Ickes again on February 8, 19^6. These letters did not produce 
an agreement between their authors. 

I made a progress report to the entire state-wide committee at 
its meeting on March 28, 19^-6. The committee instructed the sub 
committee to prepare its report and that the state proceed as quickly 


as possible to complete arrangements for state control and authority 
to make repayment contracts. 

The subcommittee made a progress report for the Annual Meeting 
of the State Chamber on Dec. 2, 19^7- It reviewed progress and 
recommended that the Chamber continue to advocate the early completion 
of the C.V.P. It also recommended that further consideration of the 
feasibility of transfer to the State be deferred until the completion 
of the state s report on this subject. This state report was then 
in the process of preparation. 

I continued as chairman of the subcommittee in 19^9 and 1950- 
There was much public support for the idea of state operation of the 
C.V.P. if a workable basis could be found. 

The State Water Project Authority had been created in the C.V.P. 
Act and would represent the State in any transfer of the C.V.P. and 
in its operation by the state. The Authority consisted of designated 
state officials having other major duties. Such a group has never been 
found to be effective in matters outside of their major responsibilities. 

After a preliminary meeting of the subcommittee, I prepared a 
ten page statement of the matters which I thought the committee should 
consider and the background information available on them. This 
was dated February 20, 19U6. 

I considered that the first step needed in preparation for the 
state s possible taking over of the C.V.P. was a revision of the 
membership of the Water Project Authority. I proposed to Hyatt that 
he support state legislation which would provide for representation 
of the areas to be served by the C.V.P. as the members of the Authority. 
Hyatt felt that to remove the members of the Authority would be 
considered by them as a personal expression of disapproval. He would 


only agree to support legislation enlarging the membership of the 
Authority to include representatives of the areas to be served. He 
would have gone along on increasing the membership of the Authority 
to ten or more, thus making available a majority of local represent 
atives. I felt that any serious attempt to transfer the C.V.P. 
to the state should have as its first objective an adequate state 
board for its administration. When the efforts to secure such a 
board did not develop sufficient support for its accomplishment, I 
lost interest in the program. 

I also felt that the state should only take over the C.V.P. if 
such a takeover was favorably advocated by the area to be served. 
The activity relating to such a transfer had been mainly sponsored 
by the state engineer and such public organizations as the State 
Chamber of Commerce. 

I expressed my views in a letter to Hyatt on April 20, 1950. 
Enerson and Stewart attended the meeting of April 28, 1950, which 
I C^uld not attend, and from then on took over the main activities 
of the committee. I finally resigned as Chairman on November 28, 1950- 
Mr. Enerson presented the 1950 report of the subcommittee at the meeting 
of the state-wide committee on December 1, 1950. The pending report 
of the state engineer had not been issued. 

My last item on this subject is a letter to Stewart on May 12, 
1952 replying to his notice of a meeting to be held in Fresno on 
June 20, 1952. In this letter I reminded him of my resignation from 
the committee in 1950. 

Later progress on the taking over of the C.V.P. included reports 
by the state. The major state report was published as Bulletin 2 of 
the State Water Project Authority in March , 1952, entitled, "Feasibility 


of State Ownership and Operation of the Central Valley Project of 

In Bulletin 2 the state engineer found that the transfer of 
the C.V.P. to the state would be feasible and desirable. He 
recommended that the Project Authority should adopt a policy favoring 
acquisition by the state and that it should seek Congressional action 
directing the USER to enter into negotiations for such acquisition. 

The work of the state engineer on the acquisition by the state 
of the C.V.P. had been conducted mainly ; rom the point of view of 
the state regarding the desirability of the transfer of the project 
to the state. The state had not maintained close contact with the 
units which were contracting for C.V.P. water and did not recognize 
that the transfer would be desirable only if it resulted in 
advantages to such units. 

After Bulletin 2 was completed and distributed, a meeting was 
called in Fresno on June 20, 1952, with the C.V.P. contracting units 
to secure their reaction to the state s acquiring the project. At 
that meeting nearly all of the contracting irrigation districts 
indicated that they preferred to have the USER continue to 
construct and to operate the project. This ended active efforts 
to secure the transfer of the C.V.P. back to the state. 

Looking back now it is easy to see that a transfer back to the 
state of the C.V.P. would not have been practicable. If the C.V.P. 
had remained as the project adopted by the voters of the state in 1933, 
its transfer to the state after its completion would have given a 
greater extent of local control and could have had advantages. 
However, the C.V.P. has now become a regional plan both importing 
water to the Central Valley and planning exports from the Valley (San 


Felipe Unit). It would be very difficult and impracticable to transfer 
the present extended project unless the state assumed the responsibility 
for financing the remaining costs of construction. 

For all practical purposes the questions relating to transferring 
the C.V.P. back to the state appear now to be dead issues. The adoption 
of the cooperative basis for the construction of the San Luis Unit 
of the C.V.P. and the state s Feather River Project has established 
the pattern which future federal-state relations will follow. 

Part of the interest in the possibility of the transfer of 
the C.V.P. in the 19^0 s was the result of the deterioration in the 
organization of the USER in this period. Relations with the 
administrative heads of the USER were difficult and made any alternate 
additionally attractive. 


The Palo Verde Irrigation District includes about 100,000 acres 
in the vicinity of Blythe. It has the earliest priority of any of 
the recognized diversions from the Colorado River in California. 
It had the usual difficulties in its early history. This history, 
to 1928, is covered in Bulletin 21 of the Division of Engineering 
and Irrigation, page 327 > by Frank Adams. 

The District had issued bonds for irrigation canals, for levees 
for flood protection and for an interval drainage system when the 
depression of the 1930 s occurred. The total financial load was more 
than the landowners could carry and the District went through re 
financing under the various programs then available. As a result 
the District compromised its bonded debt in the form of a single 
general bond issue of reduced amount. 

The depression of the 1930 s was followed by the restrictions 
of the period of World War II. The District managed to keep its 
canals in operating condition, but neglected its drainage system, 
in the 1930 s for lack of funds and during the war from restrictions 
on the availability of essential equipment. 

By 19^6, the drainage system had become only partly effective. 
An expansion in irrigation during the favorable crop price years 
resulted from the then moderate land prices and the expected 
favorable returns. 

In 19*4-6, Travis who owned a tract which had been developed at 
the north end of the district, brought suit against the district 
alleging negligence in providing drainage in its area. Under the 
irrigation district law in California, an irrigation district is 


responsible for both water service and drainage of its included land. 

This suit focused attention on the drainage problem of the entire district. 

In 19^6, I was asked to assist the district in its defense against 
Travis and to advise it regarding policy and actions which 
the district should take to rehabilitate and extend its drainage 
system. I undertook this work. Arvin B. Shaw, Jr. was the attorney 
of the district and in charge of the defense against the Travis 

C.P. Mahoney was the engineer-manager of the district and in 
charge of the general operations including drainage. 

My first work was directed toward the Travis case. This consisted 
of observations to develop the factual situation. Travis claimed damage 
from seepage of the district canals in or adjacent to his land. Losses 
from his own distribution systems and percolation from his irrigation 
appeared to be more important sources. After field work to develop 
the facts, the Travis case was settled by negotiations. Travis had 
built drains in his own land. These were included in the district 
system and a cash payment made to Travis. This settlement, over all, 
was to the benefit of both parties in avoiding expensive litigation 
of uncertain outcome. 

The Travis case served to alert the district board to the 
district s liability if it should be negligent in providing drainage. 
The board desired to adopt a drainage program which would be adequate 
to avoid any claims of negligence and also restrict the costs to what 
the district could afford. I was asked to act as consultant for the 
district in developing such a program. 

The district had secured equipment and was proceeding on the 
rehabilitation of its drains when I began my work on their general 


drainage system. A reasonably adequate drainage system had been 
constructed in the early district work and the obvious first need was 
to clean out and restore the effectiveness of this system. This work 
was under way in 19^8- My work consisted mainly in advising regarding 
the scale at which it should be done and recommending the sequence 
in which the various drains should be cleaned. I became in effect 
an engineering auditor of the district s budget for drainage, review 
ing what had been accomplished and proposing the next year s budget. 
I made annual reports of this type each on this basis. The earlier 
reports were less formal. Copies of my annual reports from 19^9 to 
1956 are in Item 110 of my bibliographical file. This item also 
includes other reports which I made during this period. In addition 
to the actual drainage work accomplished during these years, my work 
for the district provided a defense for the board against claims of 
negligence that might be made by any landowner whose lands needed 
drainage. The board could assert that it had a drainage program 
actively under way on which they were following the recommendations 
of their consultant. This was probably the major consideration of 
the board in having me make my earlier reports. In the later years 
when the drainage had become more nearly adequate, my reports also 
served to avoid internal differences regarding what drain should be 
built next. 

Mr. C.C. Tabor, who had been assistant engineer for the district, 
was appointed engineer following Mr. Mahoney s death on November 18, 
19^8- O.E.Simmons was appointed superintendent. No general manager 
was appointed. This division in the organization worked reasonably 
effectively as long as Tabor and Simmons made it work. Later some 
conflicts resulting from this divided authority resulted in the 


resignation of Mr. Tabor. This occurred after my work for the 
district had ended. I worked directly with Tabor in my drainage 

While I was the consulting engineer on drainage, I did only 
limited actual engineering work. Tabor would prepare the drainage 
program for each year, I would spend a week in the area reviewing 
it, prepare and present my recommendations to the board, they 
would adopt my report, and it would be the program and budget 
for the coming year. My report usually agreed essentially with what 
Tabor had proposed. 

Among the actions of the board in the early part of ray work 
for the district was the formulation and adoption of a statement 
on district policy on drainage. I participated in the drafting of 
this statement. It was printed and a copy mailed to each land 

When the drainage program was begun the district had only 
limited funds available. It was the general opinion that not over 
$1 per acre per year could be afforded for drainage. I used this 
as a guide in my annual plans. This limit was met during my work for 
the district. It enabled a reasonable rate of progress to be main 
tained. This resulted from having the original drainage system 
already available. Its cleaning and extension could be handled 
within the $1 per acre limitation. 

I also worked on and testified in a case brought against the 
district by a former president of its Board. The district had 
enlarged a canal across the plaintiff s land. It was claimed that 
this enlargement destroyed the silt seal of the canal and increased 
the seepage. Claims regarding payment for the enlarged right of 


way were also involved. In general, the plaintiff won on his right 
of way claim and lost on the drainage claim. This case was tried in 
Riverside in April, 1955- Mr- Shaw had died and had been succeeded 
as attorney for the District by Frank Jenney. Mr. Harry Horton of 
El Centro was the principal attorney for the District in this trial. 

When I first began work for the P.V.I.D. the district area 
presented an unfavorable appearance. Water logged areas were 
interspersed with lands being irrigated. There were large areas 
of alkaline land not in use. Much of this was unlevelled and over 
grown. The contrast that occurred in the years after 19^6 was 
quite marked. The irrigated area has increased, the eye-sore areas 
have been improved, and the district presents a well kept and 
successful appearance. The former river levee had been set back for 
as much as a mile or more from the actual river channel to shorten the 
length of the levee and to leave room for the shifting river channel. 
With storage at Hoover Dam, the danger of floods has been largely 
removed. Lands outside of the old levee have been cleared and 

The silts deposited in the Palo Verde Valley by the Colorado 
River are coarser than those that have reached the Imperial Valley. 
The Palo Verde soils leach more readily and can be reclaimed from 
alkali that make the raw lands appear to be hopeless. 

There is an area to the west of the P.V.I.D. known locally 
as the Mesa. This has attractive soil and favorable temperature 
conditions. It has been planned for irrigation for a long time. The 
land title has been sought by means of desert land entries. The water 
rights of the P.V.I.D. recognized by other Colorado River users in 
California include water for the Mesa. The distribution system 


for the Mesa has not been built as yet and may be further delayed 
by the terras of the decision in Arizona vs. California. 

When Hoover Dam began operation it stored the silt in the 
Colorado River flow. The clear water below the dam had eroding 
capacity and lowered the downstream river bed. This lowering 
extended to the diversion of the Palo Verde I.D. Diversion had 
previously been made without requiring a diversion dam to raise 
the water into the District canal. A temporary rock weir, dumped 
from a cable across the :.-iver, was first used. The USER was 
finally authorized by Congress to build a permanent weir to over 
come the result of its storage at Hoover. The P.V.I.D. paid part 
of the costs for the additional benefits it received. I made one 
trip to Washington for the District in the procedure relating to this 
permanent weir. 

The excess diversion by the Palo Verde I.D. returns to the 
Colorado River within or just below the district area. There has 
always been flow in the river at the point of diverison in excess 
of the needs of the district. As a result, diversions have been 
made liberally and the amounts diverted per acre have been large. Lower 
divertors had not objected to such large rates of use as they considered 
that the excess returned to the river. The apparent return flow has 
been about one -half of the diversion. Such return flow occurs both 
as canal spills and general ground water discharge from the drains. 
There has also been surface water which has been discharged into 
the drains. As a result, diversions have been at the rate of 8 
to 10 acre feet per acre irrigated. 

Various efforts were made to improve this practice. Rules were 
passed prohibiting surface waste to the drains. Enforcement of such 


rules would have required night patrolling of the canals and drains. 
The district did not feel it could afford the cost of such additional 
ditch rider service and these rules were not enforced. In one field 
investigation that was made the worst violators of the no surface 
waste rule were found to be some of the district directors. 

At various times it was suggested that I should investigate and 
recommend to the board means by which the amounts of water being 
diverted could be reduced. I generally evaded these suggestions as 
I felt that any regulations relating to the use on the lands would not 
be enforced. Also, efforts to improve canal operation methods would 
not be effective under the then superintendent. I did recommend that 
the diversion record of the district should be secured as a cooper 
ative station with the U.S.G.S. so that this record would have greater 
standing. The conditions for measurement near the headgate involved 
submergence of the flow through the gates and the methods of measure 
ment used benefitted from this outside impartial cooperation. 

Finally in 1957, I was asked by the president of the board to 
investigate and report on methods of reducing the amount of water 
diverted by the district. The Arizona vs. California case was under 
trial at that time. I declined to make such a report telling the 
president that it would necessarily show a high rate of use which 
would be adverse to the district in this trial and that in my opinion 
any recommendations regarding changes in the local practice that I 
might make would not be enforced. My conclusions were recognized 
to have a sound basis, but my frankness in stating them was resented. 
I was not asked to make further annual drainage reports or do other 
work for the district. Since January, 1957 > I have not engaged in further 
activity for the Palo Verde Irrigation District. 


My personal relations with the members of the staff and the board 
of the district have remained cordial. There have been numerous 
personnel changes and I have worked with only a part of the present 
staff and directors. Mr. Simmons died and Mr. Tabor is now the 
manager of the Wellton Mohawk I.D. in Arizona. 

The land in the Palo Verde I.D. slopes to the west from the 
Colorado River to the trough of the valley. Like other alluvial 
streams subject to overflow the Colorado River has built a ridge 
on which it flows. The drainage of the trough in the district dis 
charges into a trough channel which is known locally as the Lagoon. 
This channel discharges into the Colorado River several miles south 
of the south line of the district. As a result of backwater condi 
tions from the Imperial Dam or other factors there has been a rise 
in the Colorado River in the area in which the Lagoon discharges. 
This had raised the elevation of the flow in the Lagoon and 
restricted its usefulness for drainage. The USER has a project 
for rectification of the Colorado River in this area (the Cibola cut) 
which is expected to lower the river channel and improve drainage 
conditions in the district. Since 1957 > the district has dredged the 
lagoon in an effort to secure a better outfall for its drainage. I 
had no part in planning or carrying out this program and have not 
observed its results. 

No account of my work for the Palo Verde I.D. would be complete 
without a reference to Mr. Ed. Williams. He was a pioneer in the 
valley who was the district assessor when I first worked for the 
district. He was regarded with affection by all who knew him. He 
had high and unbending standards of personal conduct that influenced 
all who worked with him. His death on June 17, 195^, was a distinct loss. 


Williams had been a cowboy in his earlier years and had participated 
in many early phases of the cattle industry throughout the West. He 
was a most interesting narrator of these experiences. It is unfortunate 
that his reminiscences were not put in written form before his death. 




Late in 19^8 > I was asked to become the consulting engineer of 
this district. I accepted and remained in this position until April, 
1959- I have also assisted on a few minor matters for the district 
in later years. 

At the time of my appointment Mr. Howard Cozzens was County 
Engineer and also acted as engineer for the district. On his retire 
ment in 195^> he was succeeded by Chester Dudley. Early in my work 
Loran Bunte Jr. became assistant engineer and was appointed District 
Engineer when Mr. Dudley retired. The greater part of my work for 
the district was in association with Mr. Bunte. 

My work for the Monterey County FC & WSD began in Dec. 1948. 
I signed an employment contract which the supervisors had had 
drafted. The work in 19^-9 consisted in getting myself up to date 
on Salinas River reports and results, meetings with the U.S.E.D. on 
flood control, and preparation of applications to appropriate the 
water supplies that would be needed in plans for the development of 
the Salinas River runoff. 

In 1950, my work was related mainly to a study of the ground 
water conditions. In August, 1950, arrangements were made with State 
Engineer Edmonston to have the state make a flood control report on 
the Salinas River. The state report recommended storage at the San 
Lucas site.flis there was no gaging station with a long record of the 
total flow of the Salinas River above San Lucas y A constructed flow 
was designed which all parties used. This work extended into 1951- 


In 1951 & nd 1952, progress was slow as we were waiting on the Army- 
Engineers for their San Lucas report. August Kempkey was retained 
to review the cost estimate in 1952. 

In 1953, my work was more active. The main item was the pre 
paration of a general report on "Water Supply of the Salinas Valley 
and Storage Project for its Additional Use." This was the supporting 
material for the brief Sec. 10 report on the Nacimiento project. The 
detail report was dated Oct. 1953 but the letter I transmitted to the 
district is dated Dec. 28, 1953. This report is Item 98 of ray- 
bibliographical file. 

The principal work I did for the district related to storage and 
led to the selection of the Nacimiento reservoir on the river of that 
name as the first project to be constructed. My work included the 
water supply studies and the procedural matters relating to the selection 
of this site for the first construction project of the District and 
continued until its completion and the acquirement of the lands in 
the reservoir site. I advised the District that I did not care to 
participate in the design or the construction of Nacimiento Dam. Mr. 
A. Kempkey was appointed the District s consulting engineer for this 
work and the Bechtel Corporation selected to do the design and super 
vise the construction. The Nacimiento River is the largest tributary 
of the Salinas River. 

I also made the water supply studies and did preliminary work 
relating to the San Antonio Reservoir. This included extensive activities 
relating to the controversy with San Luis Obispo County over securing 
a permit for this storage. 

These activities are described in more detail in the discussion 
which follows. 



Prior to the time of my appointment, the Division of Water Resources 
had completed its Bulletin 52 in 1946. This report covered the re 
sults of a two year field investigation of the water supply of the 
Salinas River. T. Russel Simpson has been state 1 s engineer on this 
work and was the author of Bulletin 52. He had lived in the area 
during this work and had become familiar with the local conditions. 

Simpson found an overdraft in the ground water and salt water 
intrusion in the strata from which the pumping draft near the ocean 
was then occurring. The District desired a review of these results 
and the preparation of plans for increasing the ground water supply. 
My earlier work for the District related largely to these questions. 

Simpson had recommended that a comprehensive adjudication under 
the water code should be initiated covering both surface and ground 
water rights. One of my first recommendations to the District was 
adverse to this conclusion by Simpson. 

The Salinas Valley is a narrow area extending along the Salinas 
River for over 100 miles in Monterey County. It has been divided 
into five ground water divisions for convenience in discussion but 
these are not separate basins. Any restriction on the use of a late 
priority well in one part of the valley would have a limited, if any, 
proveable effect on wells in the other divisions. 

An effort to adjudicate the ground water rights would have placed 
each land owner in competition with the other owners and have led to 
internal controversies. An adjudication would not add to the available 
supply. I urged all owners to pull together toward securing additional 
water so that an adjudication would not be needed. This was done and 
storage was built to provide water which was spread to increase the 


ground water supply. 

If an adjudication had been started after 19*^8* it is doubtful 
if it would have been concluded by the time Nacimiento became operative 
in 1957 and relieved the need for it. In addition the entire area 
has worked together on a general water plan for the present and 
future need of the Valley. 

Prior to 19^8, salt water intrusion had occurred in the north in 
the 180 foot aquifer near the coast at the mouth of the Salinas 
River. This is a valuable area growing artichokes and other crops. 
The search for a substitute water supply for this area was a first 
order of business. As the Salinas River becomes dry in the summer 
season such a substitute supply required storage. Storage investi 
gations were made of the sites which had been proposed. 

My work on the water supply of the Salinas River occurred during 
the period the State was making its studies of a state water plan. 
The state s work extended to all parts of the state, including the 
Salinas Valley. 

It was generally recognized that any additions to the use of the 
Salinas River would require storage of its surplus winter flows. This 
need had been foreseen in the earlier reports on the Salinas Valley 
even though at the time such early reports were made no overdraft 

The Army Engineers had an authorized channel improvement project 
on the Salinas River. This was planned to reduce overflow and bank 
erosion. This project might not be needed if adequate flood control 
storage could be secured. The Army Engineers also conducted storage 
investigations in this period. 


State Engineer Edmonston became convinced that the best over 
all storage could be secured at the San Lucas site on the Salinas 
River. A report on this site was made by the state in November, 

1950 which found an estimated cost of about $15,000,000. The 
state was expected to contribute $2,500,000 for rights of way and 
movement of the railroad and highway in the reservoir site. A state 
appropriation of this amount was secured for this purpose in the 

1951 legislature. The state estimated that the Army Engineers would 
recommend a federal contribution of $7,500,000 leaving $5,000,000 
for the local interests. 

The Army Engineers made a study of the San Lucas storage . Their 
report in March, 1953 increased the estimated cost to $25,000,000 
of which they recommended a federal contribution for flood control 
of $7,716,000. This would have increased the local cost to about 

When the results of the Army Engineers relating to the San Lucas 
reservoir site became available to the District it was recognized that 
the proposed project had local costs larger than would be voted. The 
San Lucas site also would flood a large area of valuable land. The 
then prospective San Ardo oil field also extended into the area that 
would be submerged. 

Preliminary studies of storage on the Nacimiento, San Antonio 
and Arroyo Seco had also been made. Further study was given to the 
Nacimiento site. I recommended the construction of a reservoir there 
for joint use for conservation, flood control and recreation. Water 
supply studies were made to derive the desirable capacity and operation 
program of such a reservoir. As previously stated, Mr. A. Kempkey was 
retained in 1952 to check the cost estimates. 


There were two available dam sites for the proposed storage on Nacimiento. 
One, the lower one, was within the Camp Roberts military reservation. 
Federal legislation was secured granting the use of this site to 
Monterey County. This grant included some reservations regarding 
future use of the area within the reservation. The upper site was 
about two miles upstream from the lower one and was outside of the 
reservation. Bechtel Corporation was employed to supervise drilling 
at the upper site. Some drilling was also done at the lower site. 
Cost estimates were prepared for both sites. Little difference 
was shown. As the upper site was free of any military restrictions 
it was recommended. 

The flood control and water conservation act under which the 
District was organized is a special act for Monterey County. Local 
improvements can be built by zones within the district. Zone 2, 
covering the Salinas Valley, had been established to carry out any 
work in its area. The costs would be assessed against the lands in 
the zone only as they would receive the benefits. 

The Army Engineers held a hearing on Feb. 24, 195^ on their 
report on the San Lucas project. I appeared for Monterey County and 
stated that the district considered that it had a more feasible 
project in storage on Nacimiento River. The San Lucas report of the 
Army Engineers was placed on file without action. 

Prior to this hearing I had heard that the U.S. Soil Conservation 
Service planned to appear and propose a plan they had prepared consisting 
of a number of smaller and scattered reservoirs. Such a plan for part 
of the drainage area had been submitted to the state some time previously. 
The state review of. this plan was unfavorable. I secured copies of 
the state s review and made my own analysis of it. Prior to the 


hearing I advised Col. Walker, district engineer of the U.S.E.D. who 
was to conduct the hearing, that if the S.C.S. opposed the district s 
project, I would be prepared to take them on and oppose their plan. 

At the hearing about a half dozen S.C.S. staff entered their 
appearances. When called upon to present their position, their 
spokesman stated they were there as observers only. Any controversy 
with the S.C.S. that might have developed was thus avoided. 

The basis for the Nacimiento Project had been worked out in 
1953. Plans for the dain were authorized to be prepared in 195 1 )-. 
The report on the project in accordance with Sec. 10 of the MCFC 
and WCD act was submitted by Kempkey and myself in Jan. 1955- The 
District s hearing on this plan was held March 8, 1955- The bond 
election was held on April 26, 1955> and carried by a vote of 11 to 


1. The construction contract was let in October, 1955- The project 
was completed on time late in 195^ within the estimated cost. 

The district act requires in Section 10 that an engineer s 
report shall be submitted on the district projects before they can 
be adopted by the district board and an election called on the issuance 
of bonds for the projects costs. The County Board of Supervisors are 
the board of directors of the MCFC and WCD. 

I prepared the Section 10 report in joint authorship with 
Kempkey. It was. a condensed version of the report containing the 
supporting material previously referred to. The supporting material 
report was in detail (21^ pages). A copy is Item 90 in my bibliographical 
file. The Section 10 report was entitled "Water Supply of Salinas 
Valley and Storage Projects for Its Additional Use," dated Jan 10, 
1955- A copy (56 pages) is Item 104 in my bibliographical file. 


Recognizing the wide spread interest in the recreational features 
of such projects, provisions were made for a minimum pool in Nacimiento 
of 10,000 acre feet. This pool was secured by setting the outlets so 
that the lake could not be drawn below this level except by installing 
pumps and pumping it out. At the minimum pool elevation the lake 
area is k20 acres. At this elevation the lake has a length of 
45 miles. 

In support of this recognition of recreation in the project, 
I prepared a report on "Recreational Opportunities at Proposed 
Nacimiento Reservoir of the Monterey County Flood Control and Water 
Conservation District." This report was dated Dec. 195^, and discussed 
recreational features at other existing reservoirs. The recommendations 
of this report regarding recreational features at Nacimiento have 
been generally followed. A copy of this report is Item l6l in my 
bibliographical file. 

An election on the issuance of the bonds for the construction 
of Nacimiento was called on April 26, 1955- As the major vote in 
Zone 2 was in the Salinas area which would receive limited conservation 
benefits from the project, the favorable vote on the bonds has generally 
been credited to the sportsmen groups that were in support of the 
project based on its recreational features. 

An unique feature of the Nacimiento project is the lack of any 
federal or state contribution toward the cost of the reservoir. A 
federal contribution for its flood control benefits could have been 
adequately supported and probably obtained. However, it would also 
have taken several years to secure the necessary reports and authoriza 
tion. I urged that no effort be made to secure such federal aid and 
was supported by the District in this position. The amount of federal 


contribution that might have been obtained for storage on a tributary 
of the Salinas River vould have been much less than the Army Engineers 
had recommended for San Lucas on the main stream. Preliminary 
discussions indicated that about $2,000,000 might eventually be 
secured as a federal flood control contribution at Nacimiento. It 
was my conclusion that the time that would be required to secure 
such a federal contribution and the restrictions that would be 
imposed on the storage operations did not justify attempting to secure 
such federal aid. Naciraiento was completed within 2 years of the 
date of its bond election and has been in full use under local 
control ever since. 

There were no state facilities within the Nacimiento site and 
no state contribution to its cost was sought. The cost of relocation 
of county roads, telephone lines, etc., were met from the bond issue. 
The Naciraiento project was completed at a cost within the amount of 
the bond issue voted for its construction. The Bechtel Corporation 
was retained to supervise the construction. They had also prepared 
the plans. Favorable contract bids were secured. The construction 
was completed on time and free from controversy. 

Nacimiento reservoir got off to a favorable start. It was 
completed in time to catch the flood runoff that occurred in the 
late spring of 1957- This runoff filled the reservoir practically 
to the spillway level. It occurred late enough in the season that it 
was stored in the top 150,000 acre feet of storage space reserved 
for flood control. This started the project with a full water supply 
in the first year of its operation. The visible results in this 
first year in flood control, conservation and recreation secured 
strong local support for the project which has continued to date. 


This fortuitous result contrasts with the experience of the state in 
its construction of its Whale Rocks project near San Luis Obispo which 
was not completed in time to store the 1957 runoff and has not 
filled for several years after its completion. 

When Nacimiento was completed, I prepared a report entitled 
"Operation Program for Nacimiento Reservoir" dated Feb. 21, 1956. 
A copy of this report is Item 108 in my bibliographical file. This 
report was designed to serve as a general guide to the operations 
for flood control and conservation until experience with the actual 
operation under varying conditions of runoff could be secured. It 
served this purpose. 

Nacimiento is operated by the release of storage to maintain 
percolation from the Salinas River at times when the runoff from 
the remainder of the drainage area is insufficient to maintain flow 
to Spreckels Bridge near Salinas. The absorption capacity of the 
Salinas River is about hOO second feet. The conservation storage 
space at Nacimiento exceeds the release that can be absorbed in 
years of better supply. This increases the storage and improves 
the recreational usefulness of the reservoir. 

Necimiento Reservoir is in San Luis Obispo County. Its construction 
required the relocation of some county roads. A joint meeting of 
the Board of Supervisors was held in 195 1 *- in Paso Robles to discuss 
such road matters. At this lunch, San Luis Obispo County expressed 
a desire to secure water from Nacimiento for use in Paso Robles and 
the adjacent areas. Without consulting their engineers, Monterey 
County spokesmen indicated a willingness to supply some such water. 
The San Luis Obispo County representatives claimed that the offer 


to supply this water was made for delivery at Nacimiento without cost 
to San Luis Obispo County. 

Articles were published in the San Luis Obispo County papers 
regarding this free supply. When clippings of these articles were 
shown to me, I urged an immediate action by the Supervisors of 
Monterey in explaining their lack of authority to give away any part 
of the Nacimiento supply. Such action was not taken by the Monterey 
County Supervisors. I understand that Arnold Frew tried to correct 
this misunderstanding at a Farm Bureau meeting in Paso Robles but 
this was not an official statement. 

This matter did not come to my attention again until another 
joint meeting of the two boards of supervisors was held in Paso 
Robles on June 28, 1955- This was after the Nacimiento bonds had 
passed. I was asked to attend. The San Luis Obispo board wanted 
to secure an understanding regarding how much Nacimiento water they 
were to receive. I started explaining that there was no provision 
in the Nacimiento bond issue or in its plans for the operation for 
any service to San Luis Obispo County. In response, they showed 
me a copy of a letter they had written to the Monterey board shortly 
after the first meeting accepting the offer that had been made. In 
reply, the secretary of the Monterey board had written that the 
matter had been called to the attention of the Monterey board and 
would receive their early attention. A year had elapsed between the 
two meetings. The SLO County board naturally wanted an answer and my 
statement regarding Nacimiento water being limited to use in Monterey 
County did not receive a friendly reception. I had not known of this 
correspondence . 

No Nacimiento water was made available to SLO County. The project 


had proceeded too far to change its program of operation. The state 
ments made by representatives of Monterey County at the first meeting 
and the failure to answer the SLO County letter left bad feelings in 
SLO County when they were told the facts of the situation. This 
feeling extended to and affected the proceedings later relating to 
the San Antonio reservoir. 

The acquirement of the lands in the Nacimiento reservoir site 
was handled by the local staff. I assisted in two cases in which 
condemnation had to be used. In some of its earlier negotiated 
purchases the district acquired only flowage easements. With the 
increased interest in recreation it was found to be essential to 
acquire fee title to the land below the high water line and for a 
reasonable margin above. 

Two owners refused to accept a negotiated sale and condemnation 
suits were brought. One owner was De Vries who owned land on the south 
side of the reservoir. De Vries contested the necessity to condemn 
all of the land sought and I was asked to present expert testimony on 
t he need for the taking. I prepared and presented such testimony. 
The court approved the extent of the taking that was sought and then 
proceeded to a jury trial to determine the price to be paid. I also 
testified before the jury on the need for the taking. The jury s 
award was in agreement with the District s appraisal. Only an 
easement had been sought for part of the area in the complaint. An 
effort to amend to full fee taking was unsuccessful. 

The other owner taken to condemnation was Hughes on the north 
side of the reservoir. He resisted the right to take and the price 
offered. Here again I testified on the need to take above the high 


water line for access and maintenance. The court again accepted the 
taking sought by the District and the award of the jury was in agree 
ment with the District s appraisal. Hughes took an appeal and 
eventually lost. 

These cases illustrate the changing conditions resulting from 
the recreational use of reservoirs. Flowage easements may be 
adequate where thereis no use of the water for recreation, more complete 
control is need for policing and clean up if there is recreational use. 
The district may be liable for the damage in accidents to users of 
the reservoir even if they secure access over easement lands which 
the district may not control. The district cannot enforce regulations 
on easement lands where the main purpose of the residual estate may 
not be affected. 

An application to appropriate the water to be stored in Nacimiento 
Reservoir was made. It was advertised and some protests were filed. 
Some of these were by the owners of land in the reservoir site 
objecting to its acquirement. These protests were rejected by the 
Division of Water Rights in the State Department of Water Resources. 
A protest by a riparian owner below the dam in the Salinas Valley was 
also rejected without a hearing on the ground that he would be bene- 
fitted rather than injured. 

The way was thus cleared for the issuance of a permit without 
having to have a hearing. The Division of Water Rights discussed with 
the engineers of the district the terms which should be included 
in the permit. Mr. Harvey 0. Banks was then head of the Division 
of Water Rights and William Gianelli, the chief administrator. The 
Division wanted to include requirements regarding the records to be 


kept. There was no objection to this as the district wanted to main 
tain adequate records for its own use. These records related to 
the operation of the reservoir and the effect on the ground water 
of the percolation from the released storage. An engineer of the 
state came to the field and a list of observation wells was agreed 

The Division also wanted to include in the permit its approval 
of the plan of operation each year. The district was to submit the 
record of the storage available for release and its plan for its 
use. I bucked on such terms. The district was paying for the 
storage with its own funds and would be in the best position to 
judge how to get its money s worth from its operations. After 
considerable argument such terms were omitted from the permit. 

The Nacimiento Application is no. l6l2U, the Permit is no. 
10137 and the license secured in 1965 is no. 75^3- 

As the full capacity had been used in 1957* when the reservoir 
filled, the District could make the proof of use needed in applying 
for a license. The conditions relating to the license and the 
provisions that might be included in it were discussed with the State 
Water Rights Board. Such matters as the definition of the area of 
service were worked out and the license was issued in 19&5- 

The issuance of the license for storage at Nacimiento completes 
the procedure relating to its water right over which the Water Rights 
Board has jurisdiction. The license is the deed to the water right. 
Any future controversies that may arise regarding the water rights 
of Nacimiento will be within the jurisdiction of the courts, rather 
than the administrative discretion of the Water Rights Board. 

Although I had ended my active work for the District in 1959> 


I assisted the District in its procedure relating to its license 
in 196U and 1965* thus completing the process from the original 
application through to the final license. 

On March 12, 1956, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution 
authorizing me to make a preliminary study of the present and future 
water supply of Monterey County. Previous work had been limited to 
the Salinas River. Working vith Bunte the investigations were 
widened to include the coastal streams from the Carmel River south 
and the Pajaro drainage on the north. A draft of a report was 
prepared. This was not presented to the Board and remains 

Overall we found that the total water supply of Monterey County 
was about equal to its estimated future needs except for some of the 
higher areas in the eastern portion of the county and perhaps for some 
areas in the Pajaro drainage. Interest in irrigation had not been 
shown by the dry farming areas in the eastern valleys. If such interest 
should develop, these areas could be served physically from the state s 
project middle coastal branch if water could be delivered at a price 
irrigation could pay. The Pajaro areas also were within the pros 
pective service area of the San Felipe Unit of the USBR Central Valley 

Other than these two areas, Monterey County will not need to 
secure imported water to meet its ultimate needs. Its local supplies 
are adequate for its own needs and can be developed more economically 
than any of the imported sources so far proposed. Monterey County, 
however, does not have surplus supplies within its area which can 
be made available for export without causing a deficiency in its own 


ultimate demands. 

The District had made an agreement with the State Department of 
Water Resources under which the Department would prepare a report 
on the water resources of the county. This work was under way while 
I was preparing my results on the need for storage and the reservoir 
recommended for first construction. When the District decided not 
to construct the San Lucas project but to build the Nacimiento, 
the state s report was nearing completion. 

The state prepared its report mainly in Sacramento with only 
limited field contacts. Edmonston, the state engineer, felt 
strongly that the San Lucas reservoir should be built. He had found 
the site and was, in my opinion, prejudiced in its favor. 

The agreement for the state report included a provision that 
any published report was to have the approval of the county. Howard 
Cozzens was the county engineer, a member of the State Water Resources 
Board, an experienced and competent engineer and greatly respected by 
all. He was generally mild mannered. We had tried to get an oppor 
tunity to examine the draft of the state s report before it was 
finished so that any views we might have could be considered in 
its preparation. We had been assured that we would be given such 
an opportunity. 

One Monday, Cozzens received a phone call from Sacramento asking 
us to be there on Thursday to approve the report so it could be 
presented to the Water Resources Board at their meeting to be held 
on Friday. This is about the only occasion on which I have seen 
Cozzens blow his top. We agreed to be there Thursday but Cozzens 
assured Bill Berry we would take adequate time to examine the report. 


We received a copy of the draft of the report. I made an 
analysis of its results and found several items with which I disagreed. 
I prepared a list of these. A meeting was arranged with Banks and his 
staff to discuss these differences. Banks had succeeded Edmonston 
as state engineer. The differences were discussed at the meeting. 
Banks asked me to put my criticisms in writing which I did after 
the meeting. These were sent to Banks. 

This report would have been known as Bulletin 19 of the State s 
Department of Water Resources. We asked that it either be materially 
revised or else not published. No essential action was taken for 
some time. Finally I proposed to Banks that I thought the county 
would relieve the state from the obligation to complete and publish 
this report if he would agree not to publish Bulletin 19 in its 
then form. Banks made a request on this basis and this procedure 
was followed. 

The draft of Bulletin 19 has remained as an office report of the 
Department not having standing as an official publication. It has 
been quoted in some controversies but does not commit the Department. 
The time when a good report could have been useful has passed and 
Bulletin 19 should now be forgotten. 

My statement of disagreements with the draft of Bulletin 19 was 
a report by itself. The draft of Bulletin 19 contained a report on 
the San Lucas site proposing an increased state contribution in order 
that the local cost could be kept within reach of that in the earlier 
estimates. Such an increased state contribution would have been 
difficult to support and to secure if it could have been secured at 
all. The draft attempted to derive the county of origin of the flow 
at Nacimiento although this issue had not arisen in local procedures. 


There were other matters in which the draft indicated the unfamiliar! ty 
of its author with local conditions. 

Monterey County and the state have maintained cooperative ground 
water observations ever since the completion of Bulletin 52- This 
work has been beneficial to both agencies. It has been free of con 
troversy as it is a fact recording operation. Both agencies are free 
to draw their own conclusions from these records. 

The cooperative work representedby Bulletin 19 is the only 
instance in which Monterey County has had difficulty with the state 
engineer s office. Joint securing of records has been of benefit 
to both parties. The work on Bulletin 19 was done at a time when the 
Department of Water Resources was making several similar reports for 
other areas. In my opinion, the volume of such work undertaken by the 
Department exceeded the capacity of the staff for adequate consider 
ation of the local conditions involved in the different areas. This 
condition was aggravated by the concentration of the preparation 
of these local reports in Sacramento without close contact with the 
local water interests. 

In my earlier work for Monterey County, storage had been invest 
igated on the San Antonio and Arroyo Seco as well as at San Lucas and 
on the Nacimiento. Storage on the Nacimiento was selected as the 
first reservoir to be constructed. It controlled about kO% of the 
total stream flow and was the lowest in cost in relation to its 
capacity. It was always recognized that storage on San Antonio 
would be needed later. Storage on the Arroyo Seco would be desirable. 
However, there were so many summer residences in the available storage 
sites on the Arroyo Seco that a feasible project did not appear to 

be available. 

When the controversy with San Luis Obispo County over Nacimiento 
arose, rumors reached Salinas that SLO County was planning to make an 
application to appropriate for storage on the San Antonio. An 
application for such storage was hurriedly prepared by Monterey County 
and Loran Bunte Jr. was sent to Sacramento to file it. He arrived after 
closing time but was at the door when the office opened the next 
morning. He succeeded in filing the Monterey County application 
prior to the one later filed by SLO County. In later proceedings 
Bunte s trip to make this filing has been referred to as a modern ride 
of Paul Revere. In any event, it accomplished its purpose in securing 
a priority for the Monterey County application. 

SLO County also filed an application on the same San Antonio 
reservoir site. Their project would have conveyed the water supply 
to Paso Robles for municipal use there and irrigation of adjacent 
lands. SLO County also has a county wide flood control and water 
conservation district and a zone was established to handle this 
proposed project. 

Both San Antonio applications were processed. Each county 
protested the others application. In an effort to avoid conflict a 
series of meetings were held by the two counties seeking to reconcile 
their differences. I was brought into these meetings and SLO County 
engaged Harold Conkling as their consulting engineer. Conkling 
claimed Monterey County did not need storage in addition to Nacimiento. 
We argued ground water and other matters without reaching any 
agreement. Several meetings were held in 1958. A preliminary 
hearing on the contested applications was held in Sacramento on 
June 10, 1958. 

Eventually, a full hearing was set at Sacramento on the conflicting 
San Antonio applications. This hearing extended over about three weeks 
in January and February, 1959- 

The State Water Rights Board at the time of this hearing 
consisted of Henry Holsinger, Chairman, Penn Rowe and Ralph J. 
McGill- They had just completed a lengthy hearing on San Joaquin 
River applications. Holsinger 1 s health was not good; he was 
approaching retirement and wanted to complete the San Joaquin 
decision before he retired. He advised us that he would not sit 
in the San Antonio hearing. 

That left us with Rowe and McGill. Rowe had done work for San 
Luis Obispo County which could have been used to disquality him from 
sitting in the San Antonio case. If Rowe had been disqualified we 
would have had only McGill left. McGill at that time was a fairly 
recent appointment on the Board. His background had not been in 
water matters. Rather than have the hearing conducted by McGill 
alone, Monterey County did not object to Rowe sitting in this case. 

As it was recognized that the legal issues might be complicated, 
Monterey County desired special counsel for this hearing. On my 
recommendation, Ralph Brody was appointed to assist the county attorney 
in this case. 

Gov. Brown had just been elected to his first term and was actively 
pushing to secure legislation for the state s Feather River project. 
He recognized his need for an experienced advisor on water matters and 
appointed Brody to this position. 

Brody had been an assistant regional counsel for the USER for 
Region 2. I had dealt with him in Kings River negotiations and had 
found him well informed. I had also found that reliance could be 

placed on any statements he might make. This was quite different 
from some of those in the USSR in the 19^9-51 period when I was 
active on Kings River negotiations. On this basis I had recommended 
Brody to Monterey County. 

The San Antonio hearing got under way in an atmosphere of conflict 
between the two counties and difficulty with its conduct. Rowe 
presided. He interrupted witnesses and injected his personal views. 
In my testimony Rowe would ask me questions, would interrupt my 
answers and then complain that I had not answered his question. 
I had to assert that I would be glad to answer his questions if I 
could have a chance to do so. His questions were generally partisan 
in favor of SLO County. 

After I had completed my main testimony and a succeeding witness 
was on the stand a question arose regarding a comparison of my 
position and that of this witness. Rowe made a statement regarding 
my position in my testimony that was contrary to my actual evidence. 
I was in the audience. To prevent such a statement by Kowe remaining 
in the record, I interrupted to state that Rowe s statement was not 
in accord with my testimony and that the record of my testimony should 
be used for my position. Rowe said his comment should be stricken 
from the record but it was in the transcript. 

The main factual conflict in the hearing involved the need for 
more ground water storage in the Salinas Valley. Conkling asserted 
that the ground water along the Salinas River was filled and no 
additional storage to that at Nacimiento was needed. I presented 
the records relating to this issue. The witness for the state engineer 
also presented the point of view of the state. 

After SLO County had completed its case I presented rebuttal 


testimony and summed up the physical situation. Monterey County had 
need for the San Antonio water for additional flood control and to 
provide additional ground water recharge. I also commented on the 
proposed use in SLO County. 

As the hearing reached its end, the Board recommended that the 
parties meet off the record and see if they could not reach a com 
promise. It was suggested that the engineers stiould not take part 
in this meeting so that the arguments over the engineering items 
might not interfere with the other discussions. I expressed my 
desire to be omitted from any such meeting. I could see no basis 
for a compromise which could only take something from Monterey County 
as SLO County, in my opinion, did not have valid claim in this 
proceeding. I did not participate in any further San Antonio 
proceedings after the close of this hearing. 

Meetings of the parties were held. It was reported that the 
parties were advised by representatives of the Water Rights Board that 
mless a compromise was reached both applications would be rejected. 
As the availability of unappropriated water had been conceded by all 
parties, it was my opinion that there was no basis for such a denial 
of any permit under these applications. 

As a result of the meetings of the counties an agreement was later 
reached under which SLO County was given an option to acquire part 
of the new water supply to be developed at the San Antonio site. A 
permit was issued to Monterey County which included the terms of this 
agreement. The San Antonio reservoir was completed late in 19^5 
SLO County still has a period of time in which to exercise its option. 
To date (early 19^7) SLO County has not acted on this option. 

There is one item in the San Antonio agreement for which I may 

be mainly responsible. In the discussions it was recognized that SLO 
County had no claim on the storage at Nacimiento. To secure San 
Antonio water, SLO County would have to convey such water practically 
past Nacimiento storage. I agreed that if SLO County should become 
entitled to any San Antonio storage the equivalent water should be 
delivered to them from Nacimiento. There was no need of incurring the 
additional costs of conveyance from San Antonio as Monterey County 
would use the storage from both Nacimiento and San Antonio for 
artifical recharge in the Salinas River. 

How San Antonio will be operated remains to be seen. It has 
a larger capacity in relation to its inflow than Nacimiento and will 
be the more economical site to use for carry-over storage. While 
the cost to SLO County of conveying its option water to Paso Robles 
will be relatively high, such a supply may have a lower cost than 
water from the state s project. If SLO County should exercise its 
San Antonio option my forecast is that it will be done in a project 
in which the use is mainly, if not vholly, municipal. This could 
include conveyance to the coastal portion of SLO County. 

From the point of view of Monterey County the SLO County compromise 
represents the end result of a fev carelessly spoken words at a friendly 
luncheon called to discuss other matters. Any water SLO County may secure 
from San Antonio or Nacimiento will reduce the supply available to 
Monterey County. 

While Monterey County is generally self sufficient in her local 
water supplies, the margin for future demand is limited. The San 
Antonio supply represents a more favorable source than other alternate 
sources available to Monterey County. 


When Rove s term on the Water Rights Board was approaching its end, 
I tried to find a good nan who could be interested in accepting appoint 
ment on the Board and someone whom the governor might appoint. I 
had no influence with the acteinistration and any direct approach 
to Gov. Brown on my part would have been useless. In such (situations 
it is necessary to have an available and competent replacement. After 
several discussions, W.A. Alexander of the Lower Tule River Irrigation 
District agreed to serve if appointed. I had worked with him on Lover 
Tule District matters and had formed a high opinion of his ability and 
integrity. Support for Alexander s appointment was secured from the 
Irrigation District s Association and other water groups and he was 
appointed. His replacement of Perm Rowe, in my opinion, was a major 
item in retaining the standing of the Water Rights Board. Alexander 
was reappointed at the end of his first four year term. While any 
such appointments are the result of group action, I was glad to have 
had a ;part in securing the results. Without support for a new 
appointee, Rowe might have been reappointed. While this activity on 
my part was the result of my work for Monterey County, it was entirely 
personal and had no official support from Monterey County. 

The details of the Water Rights Board procedure relating to 
San Antonio storage have been discussed. The securing of the permit 
for Nacimiento has also been described. 

In the early studies of the ground water conditions in the 
Salinas Valley it was recognized that it would probably be necessary 
to convey water directly to the wider valley area lying east of Salinas. 
Plans for such a diversion were made. I prepared an application to 

appropriate water for this use. This application is discussed elsewhere . 

An East Side diversion vould have no dependable surface water 
supply until upper storage was available. To maintain diligence on 
the East Side application I suggested that all Monterey County appli 
cations should be considered to be a Joint project where work on 
any unit would be considered as diligence on the whole. The water 
code has provisions for such proceedings. 

This suggestion was discussed with the Executive officer of the 
Water Rights Board at different times. It was not favorably received 
and no joint project has been recognized. 

The advantage to Monterey County in having all of its water 
development on the Salinas River treated as a joint project vould be 
the avoidance of the need to apply for extensions of time on the 
applications for deferred units. There is little danger that applications 
conflicting with the East Side diversion will be filed. 

In my opinion, Monterey County has a sound basis for having 
Nacimiento and San Antonio combined with an East Side diversion in a 
joint project permit,but the advantages to be gained did not Justify 
making it an issue with the Water Rights Board. 

The 19^5 legislature directed the state engineer to prepare a 
comprehensive plan for the development of the waters of the state. 
This work was to be done by the state engineer under the general 
direction of the State Water Resources Board. The investigations were 
made and Bulletin 3 on the resulting plan was completed in 1955 

In the publicity and the publications relating 

to the results of this work the references were to THE state water 
plan. Monterey County is nearly self sufficient for its water needs 

by the use of its own local water supplies. There was concern that a 
rigid state water plan might be used to place the state in full 
control of all water development in the state. It was considered 
that any state plan could only be a guide to what appears to be 
desirable at the time of its adoption. No plan made at any one time 
can be expected to be carried out without change in the future. 

This concern expressed itself in opposition to designating the 
results of the work in Bulletin 3 as THE state water plan. I had 
appeared as an individual at an earlier meeting of the Water Resources 
Board in Sacramento and protested this term. There was only partial 
attendance of the members of the Board at this meeting. 

The Water Resources Board later held meetings around the state 
to hear comments on Bulletin 3 A meeting for the central coast area 
was held in Santa Barbara on Sept. l4, 1956. I attended and presented 
a statement for the Board of Supervisors of Monterey County in which 
I again objected to the adoption of any fixed water plan for our 
water development. At that time it was proposed that the legislature 
should adopt Bulletin 3 as THE water plan for the state. I raised the 
question of whether such an adoption by the legislature would require 
future legislative action whenever any change was made in THE plan. 
I had an interesting discussion of this question with Phil Swing 
who was then a member of the Board. He admitted he did not know 
what such an adoption would mean. 

When Bulletin 3 came before the legislature for its consideration 
it was approved with sufficiently broad wording to avoid the issue I 
had raised. 

This matter would probably have taken care of itself without my 
protest. However, Monterey County had had some unfavorable experiences 

in regard to state attempts to direct its water development and wanted 
to be sure that the point was not overlooked. 

Salt water intrusion in the 180 foot aquifer started over 20 years 
ago. It was restricted by shifting the draft in the intruded area 
from the l80 foot to the 1*00 foot aquifer. 

Adequate records are secured to keep informed on any progress 
that may occur in the intrusion. These records are secured in 
cooperation with the state. Readings of ground water elevation are 
secured in the Spring and Fall at the times similar records are 
secured in the whole valley. Special observations are made in the 
threatened area in August of each year. These include the elevation 
of the ground water to define the trough in both the 180 and UOO foot 
aquifers. Samples of the ground water are analyzed to define the 
area having water with a content in excess of 500 ppm of chlorides. 
The annual reports made by the district include the results of these 

The salt water intrusion in the Salinas River area has been 
discussed in the reports of the state on this subject. Fears regarding 
its consequences have been expressed and this area has been included 
in the problem areas subject to such intrusion. 

Locally the danger of damaging salt water intrusion has been 
fully recognized since it was first found to have occurred. Plans have 
been made to counteract its effect should such steps become necessary. 
To date salt water intrusion has not been a material cause of crop damage 
in the coastal area of the Salinas Valley. 

When I began work for the County, Bulletin 52 had recently been 
published. It presented the salt water intrusion as it had occurred 


to that time. Pumping in the affected area had been shifted to the 
400 foot aquifer. The situation appeared to be under control, at 
least temporarily. Work was undertaken to determine what might be done 
if the situation should become adverse. 

There did not appear to be practical opportunities to increase 
the ground water supply in the intruded area by any local works. The 
ground water in the area occurs in pressure strata. There were not ab 
sorbent overlying areas even if there was no underlying impervious 
strata. The recharge in this area comes from distant movement from 
upper areas of recharge. Such movement is slow and the records 
indicate a time lag of a year or more between increased upper input 
and its effect near the coast. 

To supply additional water in the intruded area will require some 
form of surface delivery to replace the present overdraft. Plans have 
been made for diversions which could supply such surface service. 
These could be constructed on an emergency basis should the need 

Such a surface water supply obviously requires some source other 
than the surface flow of the Salinas River which is dry for the summer 
irrigation period. Water could be secured by a battery of wells in the 
forebay area. Such a source near Soledad was suggested in Bulletin 
52. I investigated this in 1950 and found that such a supply could 
be secured. I was rather promptly advised locally that any such 
concentrated draft would not be permitted by the overlying owners 
who would be affected. 

This made it necessary to seek some other source. This meant 
storage at some upstream site. Nacimiento was built for general ground 
water recharge along the Salinas River and to provide a new source of 


of supply which could be used to supply surface flow for diversion or 
to replace ground water which might be pumped to the coastal area. Since 
the completion of Nacimiento there has been a source from which the area 
of salt water intrusion could be given a surface delivery either by 
direct diversion of surface flow released from Nacimiento or by 
exchange with forebay ground water. 

No actual construction to deliver surface service in the coastal 
area has been undertaken as salt water intrusion has not advanced in 
the UOO foot aquifer. Such an advance is a continuing menace but 
direct intrusion has not, as yet, occurred. Until it may occur 
other sources of supply can be deferred. There is little danger that 
extensive intrusion will occur suddenly and there should be time 
to take remedial steps when the need for them may arise. 

No account of the Nacimiento project would be complete without 
comment on its recreational features. Public interest in such water 
recreation was becoming strong when the bond issue for Nacimiento was 
planned and recreational use was included in the project plans. This 
has previously been described. It was recognized that the large 
majority by which the bond issue carried included the votes of many whose 
interest was in its recreational features. 

The expectations regarding the recreational use of Nacimiento have 
been exceeded. To date recreation has not conflicted with conservation 
use of the reservoir. An interesting situation might arise if the 
conservation use resulted in the reservoir remaining at or near the 
minimum pool levels for an extended period of time. To date the 
run off has been sufficient so that the reservoir has generally been 
above the minimum pool elevation. 


Grants from the state have been received for recreational facilities 
at Nacimiento. These are the only outside funds contributed to this 
project. They have provided facilities that were not planned in the 
original project. As the records show a large proportion of the users 
of the recreational facilities are from outside of Monterey County such 
a state or federal contribution has a more valid basis than similar 
contributions for local benefits. 

The Pajaro River is the north boundary of Monterey County. Lands 
in its valley are dependent on this river for their ground water supply. 
The areas near the coast are subject to a menace of salt water intrusion 
if heavy overdraft occurs. 

During my work for Monterey County records were secured in this 
area but plans were not made for any local works. An Army Engineers 
channel improvement and levee project had been built to restrict over 

The so-called Tri -County Water Authority act was passed to enable 
Alameda, Santa Clara and San Benito counties to participate in Joint 
water projects. Later Santa Cruz County was added and Monterey has 
become a member on a limited basis. It is known as the Tri-County 
district. At my suggestion, Monterey County kept in touch with its 
operations as it might develop sources of water supply useful in the 
Pajaro Valley part of Monterey County. 

Since my work for Monterey County the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 
has developed plans for the San Felipe Division of the CVP which would 
convey CVP water under Pacheco Pass into the Pajaro River drainage. 
Authorization for this project is being sought (1967). 


If constructed, the San Felipe Unit would be a potential source of supply 
for the northern part of Monterey County. 

The hearing and actions of the Water Rights Board and the 
negotiations with San Luis Obispo County regarding the San Antonio 
project were in such a contrast with the procedures relating to 
Nacimiento that I concluded that I did not desire to continue with 
work on San Antonio. I remained with the District until the acquirement 
of the lands in the Nacimiento site had been completed. 

On April 7,1959, I wrote to the Board stating I was terminating 
my work under the 19^8 employment agreement. I expressed my appreciation 
for the cooperation I had received from all with whom I had worked in 
Monterey County. The Board accepted my resignation with regret at 
its meeting on April 13, 1959. In transmitting this action to me 
the clerk of the Board stated: "The Board expressed the opinion that 
outstanding progress has been made in the District under your super 
vision and your services have been invaluable." 

My experience as consulting engineer for Monterey County was 
one of my most pleasant professional engagements. I always received 
full support from the Board of Supervisors. There was a Water Committee 
which consisted of prominent individuals in the county, 

formed to advise the supervisors on matters of water policy. My relations 
with this committee were also most pleasant. 

My original employment was arranged by Howard F. Cozzens, then 
County Engineer and C.L. Pioda, then Chairman of the Water Committee. 
Mr. Pioda died soon after I started my work. Mr. Cozzens was always 
a strong supporter of my efforts. After his retirement I received 


equally good support from Chester Dudley, his successor. When the 
water vork expanded, Loran Bunte Jr. became assistant engineer and 
later engineer for the WC and FCD. Bunte and I have worked together 

The Nacimiento project has some claims to distinction other than 
its direct usefulness as a source of water supply. It construction was 
entirely locally financed by its initial bond issue. Not only was 
no state or federal contribution made to the cost of the original 
project, but the project as presented to the voters was completed at 
a cost slightly less than the $7,000,000 bond issue. 

Projects should be built within their estimated costs although 
many are not. Those participating in the preliminary and construction 
stages of Nacimiento have the satisfaction that they were not subject 
to restrictions based on state or federal funds and that they made 
good to the voters on the costs that were presented in the bond 

Nacimiento has been in operation since 1957- This period has 
included years of both large and small run off. Over these years, the 
project has delivered the service for which it was planned. It has 
provided ground water recharge which has reduced overdraft on the 
ground water. It has also provided partial flood control in the years 
when flood flow has occurred. Its recreational use has exceeded all 
expectations. The project has been a good investment for the county. 
It is now generally recognized for these results. 

Other matters of particular satisfaction to myself relating to 
Nacimiento are the water right permit that was secured and more recently 
the water right license. In these days of increasing effort to intrude 
the state into local affairs, a permit was secured which limited the 


state requirements to the securing 01* adequate records. The project 
can be used each year in the way which the local people think will 
produce the best results without interference from the outside. Those 
who paid for the project would decide on its use. The license which 
was secured in 1965 is similarly free from outside restriction. The 
Nacimiento license may be the last one issued by the State Water Rights 
Board for a project of this size that is ss free from outside restrictions. 
To me, this is as gratifying as the success in the construction of the 



The following discussion of this subject covers my participation 
in this field from 19^9 to 195^- It begins with my appointment as a 
member of a Board of Direction Committee of the ASCE in 19^9- It 
includes my activity on the Engineers Joint Council report of 1950 
and continues with the follow-up procedures resulting from that 
report through 195 1 *. 

The effort of the EJC to make a constructive contribution in 
the field of national water policy has historical interest as a public 
service by engineers who were in the best position from their training 
and experience to appraise the existing practices and recommend changes 
that were needed. 

The efforts of the professional engineering societies to define 
and support a sound public policy relating to national water resources 
represents, in my opinion, a creditable attempt by the profession in the 
best position to formulate such policies and to propose criteria for 
the use of public funds in this field. 

This account of the activities in 1950 needs to be reviewed in 
the light of the conditions existing at that time. There was much 
public concern among those active in the field of national water policy 
in regard to the extensive efforts made by federal departments to expand 
their activities and control. The diversion of the interest earned in 
power rates on the costs allocated to power to increase the subsidies 
for other uses was a perversion of the intent and meaning of the 
reclamation law. The agitation for the creation of Valley authorities 
under Federal control to supersede the states in their functions relating 


to water resources in their areas was another item of concern. 

The Federal agencies concerned with the development of water 
resources had been rapidly expanded in the depression years after 
1933. The Army Engineers had begun to realize their possibilities 
under the flood control legislation of the 1930 s. The Bureau of 
Reclamation was using its power developments to carry the irrigation 
features of its projects. The Soil Conservation Service was the 
youngest Federal agency in this field and was seeking to find a place 
for itself in which it could expand its activities. 

The lowered standards in the reports of these agencies resulting, 
at least in part, from this competition was a cause for concern among 
engineers operating in the water resource field. It was also becoming 
a cause for general public concern. 

Recognizing these conditions the engineering societies began to 
give consideration to actions which might be taken to improve the policies 
and practices in the field of national water policy. These activities 
resulted in the report on "Principles of a National Water Policy" 
published by Engineers Joint Council in 1951. A major part of what 
follows describes my part in this program. 

This effort has historical interest for itself as it represents 
the conditions relating to national water policy. These conditions 
can be compared with the present (1966) standards. This comparison 
can best be made at the end of this discussion after the 1950 conditions 
have been described. 

Sometime there may be interest in a definitive account of the 
development of the national water policy in the United States. If this 
is done the record of the EJC s part in the period 1950-195^ will be 
an essential item. 


As I had an active part in this procedure, both from ray member 
ship on the ASCE Committee and as chairman of the sub -committee on 
Irrigation of the EJC, this account attempts to record the history of 
this effort and its results. 

The main effort of the EJC activity vas directed toward improving 
the economic standards used in project selection. This was a needed 
change in existing federal practice. This effort had some chance of 
acceptance in 1950. However, the work done by EJC did not secure the 
hoped for results. Even so, it was, in my opinion, a worth while effort. 
Its history is worth preserving as an example of team work by the 
engineering profession which succeeded in presenting a united front 
until federal engineers were able to blunt its conclusions. 

One of the main recommendations of the EJC report was the creation 
of some form of board of impartial review to screen the projects proposed 
for federal financing. To be impartial the members of such a board 
should not include engineers who were working or had worked for the 
promotional departments whose projects were being reviewed. Some 
federal engineers opposed such an independent review of their reports 
and were able to split the force of the EJC recommendation. 

Like other similar efforts this record is a mixture of correspondence, 
committee reports, policy adoptions and compromises of conflicting points 
of view. It is arranged generally as a chronological recital of my 
part in it. As the individual items vary, the result is a collection 
of miscellaneous material bearing on the main subject. 

Two volumes of the supporting material arranged by date 
from 191*9 to 1954 have been included in my bibliographical file, 
although only a portion of the contents were written by myself. These 
volumes include preliminary draft siAiich were used in the preparations 


of the final report, correspondence relating to the programming and 
preparations for the organization of the Task Committee on Irrigation, 
and some brief reference materials. The items included from 1951 to 
195^ relate to the follow-up activities after the completion of the 
EJC report. 

During ay work on the EJC report, I also accumulated various 
reference materials such as the report of the President s Commission, 
etc. These have been assembled and are being given to the Water 
Resources Center Archives in Berkeley. 

The account of the various parts of this EJC activity in which 
I had a part follows. As previously stated, this is arranged generally 
in chronological order. 

At its meeting in Mexico City in July, 19^9, the Board of Direction 
of the ASCE authorized the appointment of a Committee on National Water 
Policy. This committee was appointed. Henry J. Sherman, then a 
vice-president of the ASCE, was its first chairman. Pour directors 
of the ASCE, Edmund Friedman, S.T. Harding, Julian Hinds, and H.C. 
Woods were the other members. This was the beginning of my activity 
in the ASCE s efforts in this field. 

The EJC had a temporary Committee on National Water Policy Study 
in 19^9 which made a report recommending a $1,000,000 study of both 
water policy and an inventory of the water resources of the country. 
The ASCE had been asked to endorse this project and to participate in 
its program. This was the basis for the authorization of the ASCE 

The first activity of the ASCE Committee was to review the report 
of the EJC temporary Committee. I submitted my comments to Chairman 


Sherman on Aug. 29, 19^9. I objected to the costly inventory of water 
resources proposed by the EJC Committee. In my opinion the principal 
need was the definition of a national water policy. A lengthy invoice 
of water resources would detract from the emphasis on policy. 

The ASCE Committee met and prepared a report dated Oct. 29, 19^9- 
This report reviewed the EJC proposal and disagreed with the regional 
form of organization to prepare the inventory of water resources 
proposed by EJC and recommended that efforts be made to secure federal 
funds for a report on water policy prepared either by a special commission 
or by the National Research Council. 

During the same period there was under discussion the appointment 
of a federal commission to prepare a report in the national water 
resources policy field. This resulted in the appointment by President 
Truman of what became known as the President s Water Resources Policy 
Commission. This was created by an Executive Order on Jan 3> 1950. 
Its report is dated December 11, 1950- Morris L- Cooke was the chair 
man of this Commission. There were six other members, well selected 
for experience and geographical distribution. Samuel Morris was the 
only California member of this Commission. 

The appointment of the President s Commission precluded EJC from 
securing federal funds for a concurrent similar report and it was nec 
essary to consider some different program. The time when the President s 
Commission expected to report also set the time limits of any report 
that the EJC might undertake to develop. 

Whether the Jan. 3> 1950 appointment of the President s Commission 
was an effort to beat the EJC in this field or not is immaterial. It 
may have been stimulated by the EJC activity. Both reflect the general 
interest at that time in matters of national water policy and the 


recognition that some reasonable standards of feasibility were needed. 

The EJC appointed a panel on a National Water Policy Study in 
Jan. 1950 and provided a limited fund for its expenses. The societies 
in EJC were expected to augment this fund from their own budgets. 
W.W. Horner, a past president of ASCE, was the chairman of the EJC 
panel. Each of the founder societies had a member on this panel. 

Further discussion of these matters continued in the EJC- I 
wrote to Julian Hinds, who was on the ASCE committee participating 
in these discussions, on Feb. 1, 195 covering my opinion on the organ 
ization of the EJC study. Hinds replied on Feb. 10, 1950, thanking 
me for my comments and stating I had been the only one so far that had 
supplied such a statement. 

On Jan. 27, 1950, Chairman Sherman of the ASCE committee wrote 
to me regarding the tentative program then proposed by EJC- He 
enclosed two letters from Horner for my comment. I replied on Feb. 3> 
1950 expressing disagreement with some features then proposed. 

The EJC program took shape as a result of the comments made on 
the original proposal. Early in 1950 the EJC had decided to 
proceed on an independent report of its own to be submitted to the 
President s Commission for their consideration- It was hoped that 
such a report would be influential in the recommendations of the 
President s Commission. 

Horner wrote to me on Feb. 6, 1950 asking that I serve on the 
Task Committee on Irrigation in the organization being set up to 
carry out the EJC program. I replied on Feb. 10, 1950 stating my 
views on some of the matters then under consideration and suggesting 
that Horner should reconsider his request for me to serve on the Irri" 


gation Committee if he felt my vievs were in conflict with the EJC 
objectives. Homer replied on Feb. 17, 1950 asking me to serve as 
chairman on the Task Force Committee on Irrigation and asking me to 
suggest other members for the Committee. I accepted this chairmanship. 

The EJC set up its National Water Policy Project under the 
direction of its panel including a member from each of the four 
larger founder societies with Mr. Horner as chairman and a coordinating 
committee of seven members with Abel Wolman as chairman. The EJC 
announced its program and schedule. Its purpose was to develop the 
views of the engineering profession on desirable national water policy. 
It was anticipated that engineers would be willing to accept service 
on the necessary committees and to donate the required time. The 
scherh le called for completion of the task force committee reports 
by June 1, 1950 in order that they could be assembled and presented 
to the President s Commission by July. 

The selection and securing of acceptances from the members of 
the Irrigation Committee proceeded, and on March 6, 1950 I was able 
to write to the members outlining our assignment and exploring 
available dates for a committee meeting. Horner wanted to include 
drainage with irrigation. After considerable discussion a separate 
drainage committee was appointed. I felt that drainage was a proper 
subject in the EJC program, but that it was a national rather than a 
regional one limited to the arid areas. I did not want to dilute the 
membership of the Irrigation Committee with members from non-irrigated 

On March 6, 1950 I called a meeting of the Irrigation Committee 
at Denver for March 25 and 26. The meeting was held with all members 
present. The members were J.H. Bliss, State Engineer of New Mexico, 


R.A. Hill, Consulting Engineer of Los Angeles, G.S. Knapp, Chief 
Engineer, Kansas Division of Water Resources, H.P. Rollins, member 
Texas Board of Water Engineers, R.J. Tipton, Consulting Engineer of 
Denver, and W.R. Young, former Chief Engineer of the USER. Julian 
Hinds acted as contact member with the EJC Coordinating Committee. 

I had approached this assignment with much doubt whether any 
group representing diverse interests in irrigation could produce a 
report which all members would sign without making its content so gen 
eral that it would have little meaning or effectiveness. It was a 
most gratifying experience to find at our first meeting that each 
member of the Committee put aside his local interests and joined in 
an effort to define the basic issues and the policies which were in 
the general public interest. 

We had plenty of argument over the content of our report. Our 
differences resulted from the variations in our thinking. We all 
sought and eventually reached agreement on a report which was specific 
and definite . At the start of the work of the 

Committee I thought that the chances of such a result were relatively 
small. It is to the credit of all of the members of this Committee 
that they were able to concentrate on basic issues without trying 
to include something that would promote their local interests. 

As chairman of the Irrigation Committee I was asked to attend 
meetings of the EJC Coordinating Committee. These were held in New 
York. The first such meeting was held March 28, 1950. I went from 
the meeting of the Irrigation Committee in Denver to this New York 
meeting. The discussion at this meeting was very helpful in coordin 
ating the effort of the various task committees. The Irrigation 
Committee was the only one that had met prior to this New York 


meeting. I found that our Committee had a material head start over 
the others both in coordinating our thinking and in progress on the 
reports . 

At the March 25 meeting of the Irrigation Committee we discussed 
the topics to be included in our report and expressed our individual 
views regarding the position that should be taken. We then assigned 
the preparation of a draft on each of the selected topics to be 
covered to the various committee members. On April 3> 1950 I sent 
a list of these assignments to the Committee members and also reported 
on the meeting in New York on March 28. Some of the drafts by members 
of the Committee on the topics assigned to them are in the correspondence 

Horner was in Los Angeles in April, 1950 and discussed with Hill 
the statement of the fundamentals of a national water policy which 
Hill had prepared for use by the Irrigation Committee. Horner was so 
favorably impressed with this statement that he secured copies to 
be distributed to others in the EJC program. These were sent by 
Horner under date of April 25, 1950. 

The Irrigation Committee had its second meeting in Denver on May 13 
to 15 and completed its report. Prior to this meeting I had asked 
Raymond Hill to prepare an introductory statement to our report and to 
coordinate the drafts being prepared by individual members of the 
Committee. I had intended to undertake this, but was involved in 
other matters at this time. Hill did a very good job and his draft 
was accepted with only limited changes by the Committee. A copy of 
Hill s draft of May 10, 1950 is included in my EJC National Water 
Resources Correspondence File. 

At its May 15, 1950 meeting in Denver the Irrigation Sub-committee 

completed its report. This was signed by all members of the Sub 
committee. Copies were mimeographed dated May l6, 1950 under the title, 
"Report of Irrigation Task Force." A copy of this report is also in 
the National Water Resources Correspondence File. 

One of the matters that received much attention in the committees 
was where general principles relating to national water policy should 
be placed on the general EJC report. A separate committee on General 
Economic Principles was appointed and prepared a report under this 
title. This report was circulated under a letter of transmittal 
suggesting that, "only in special instances," should the separate com 
mittee treat general policies. The Irrigation Committee did not 
approve all of the report of the General Economic Principles Committee. 
Also it considered that a discussion of irrigation policy would have 
little meaning if it excluded the applicable economic policies. 
Following the discussion of these matters at the second meeting of 
the Irrigation Committee I wrote to D.L. Erickson of Lincoln, Nebr., 
the chairman of the Economic Policies Committee, on May l6, 1950 
stating the postion of the Irrigation Committee and objecting to the 
report of the Economic Principles Committee. 

The Irrigation Committee transmitted its report to the EJC panel 
with an introductory statement of two paragraphs stating the national 
interest in water policy and the desirable division between projects 
which should be handled, locally by the state, or by the federal 
government. This statement was accepted and used by the panel in 
the general EJC report. This statement was prepared by Raymond Hill. 

Following the completion of the report of the Irrigation Committee 
at Denver, I went on to New York to a meeting of the Coordinating 
Committee on May 18,1950. The Irrigation Committee was the only one 


which had completed its report. I received a number of favorable 
comments on the report. 

When I wrote to the members of the Irrigation Committee on May 23, 
1950 I reported on the New York meeting. I commented that having given 
Hill the credit for the actual drafting of our report, I felt free to 
praise it. This I did and found much agreement from others. This 
completed the specific work of the Irrigation Committee within the 
scheduled date of June 1, 1950. 

The Water Policy Panel of EJC in June, 1950 issued a mimeo 
graphed report on "National Water Policy, A Statement of Desirable 
Policy with Respect to the Conservation, Development, and Use of the 
National Water Resources." This consisted of a 2k page first section 
containing a foreward by the panel, the list of those participating 
in the preparation of the report and a statement of the Coordinating 
Committee. The reports of the individual task committees were included 
as appendices. Irrigation was Appendix IV of l6 pages. This report 
was given limited distribution. Its principal purpose was its 
submission to the President s Commission for their information. A 
press release on this report for July 2, 1950 was used to secure 
attention to it outside of the engineering groups. The report was 
also summarized in the July, 1950 issue of Civil Engineering. 

This statement of desirable water policy was submitted to the 
President s Commission in June, 1950. The full report went through 
the process of editing and completion and was published in printed form 
in July, 1951 under the title of "Principles of a Sound National Policy," 
with a subhead, "Prepared under the Auspices of the National Water Policy 
Panel of Engineers Joint Council." It consists of 233 pages 5 1/2 x 8 1/2. 
The report of each sub-committee was included. That of the Irrigation 


Committee is on pages 97-116. We kept within the 25 page limit that 
had been set for each sub-committee report- The report also contains 
a single paragraph biography of 8l of the engineers who participated 
in its preparation. 

The statement of the Coordinating Committee which opens the EJC 
report states the general conclusions that were accepted by all of the 
committees. This statement is that prepared by Raymond Hill for the 
Irrigation Committee and is credited to Hill. 

Task Committee Nine had as its assignment "Policies of General 
Applicability." Their report states 21 basic policies. The report 
of this Committee in July, 1951 made some revisions in its June, 1950 
report. Some of these changes brought the report on general policies 
more nearly into line with the position of the Task Committee on 

The Board of Direction of the ASCE asked its Water Policy 
Committee to prepare a short statement on national water policy which 
it might adopt. Louis Howson undertook to draft such a statement. I 
prepared a draft of what I termed a "code of national water policy," 
under date of Aug. 10, 1950- I also asked Raymond Hill to prepare a 
one page statement. He did this under the heading "Fundamentals of 
National Water Policy," and sent copies to Howson on Aug. 3> 195. 
Howson prepared a two page statement entitled, "Fundamental Principles 
of a Sound National Water Policy." Howson sent out his statement for 
comment on Sept. 22, 1950. The ASCE committee made a short review of 
the EJC report for the information of the Board of Direction of the 
ASCE. This was published in Civil Engineering for Nov. 1950. 

Water interests in California also took an interest in the work 
of the President s Commission and prepared and submitted statements 


of their "/lews on what the national water policy should be. Among 
these was the State Engineer. In June, 1950, Edmonston submitted a 
statement of the "Views of California on Elements of a National 
Water Resources Policy" to the President s Water Resources Commission. 
This consisted of a 10^ page statement of the views of the State. The 
problems advocated in the views of the state were in broad agreement 
with those in the EJC report. The Colorado River Board of California 
filed a statement dated June 1, 1950 with the President s Commission 
discussing its interest in national water policy in relation to 
the Colorado River as well as generally. 

The Irrigation Districts Association of California took an 
active interest in the discussions of national water policy and 
presented a statement at the hearing of the President s Commission 
in Berkeley. It also had filed a statement of principles previously 
with the Commission. 

While I had no direct part in these comments of either the state 
or the Irrigation Districts Association, I was in touch with both groups 
while they were preparing their reports and kept them informed on the 
progress on the EJC report. 

The President s Commission made available for comment a draft of 
its proposed report dated Dec. 11, 1950. I prepared a draft of comments 
that might be made by the Irrigation Sub -commit tee of EJC and circulated 
it among the members of the Irrigation Sub-committee. 

The final report of the President s Water Resources Policy Commission 
was issued in three volumes. Vol. 1 was entitled, "A Water Policy for 
the American People." It was issued in December, 1950. Vol. 2 was 
a discussion of a selected list of river basins. Vol. 3 was entitled, 


"Water Resources Laws." It was also dated in 1950. 

The report of the President s Water Commission was sent to each 
task committee for comments. These comments were prepared in the 
early months of 1951- As soon as a copy of Vol. 1 of the Dec. 11, 
1950 report of the President s Commission was received, I had pre 
pared a draft of comments for the consideration of the members of the 
Irrigation Committee. This was circulated to the members of the 
Committee with copies to Wolman and Horner on Jan. 8 and 10. While 
the members of the Irrigation Committee generally approved my 
draft of the comments on the report of the President s Commission, 
we were not able to have a meeting and prepare a Committee report. 
Consequently, the response to the request for comments remained my 
individual reactions to the report. I so advised Horner on Feb. 2, 


There was discussion of whether EJC should defer its comments on 
the report of the President s Commission until the Commission drafted 
and released the legislation it stated it would propose to carry into 
effect the recommendations in its report. The Commission had stated 
its intention to prepare such legislation. I supported delaying 
the EJC comments until drafts of the legislation were available. To 
comment on the report first would not reach the members of Congress as 
directly as comments on pending legislation which each member of Congress 
would have to consider. 

Th review of the report of the President s Commission by the EJC , 
originally planned to be issued early in 1951> was not issued. 
The EJC marked time expecting that the Commission would issue its 
proposed legislation. This would be specific and easier to analyze 
than the lengthy and over worded report of the Commission. The 


President s Commission did not draft the expected legislation. In 
July, 1951> the National Water Policy Panel of EJC issued a five 
page statement entitled "A Water Policy for the United States" with 
a subtitle "A Critique of the Report of the President s Water Resources 
Policy Commission." The stated suthors are the five members of the 
EJC panel namely E.L. Clark, R.D. Hoak, C.W. Mayott, W.F. Uhl with W.W. 
Horner- It was my understanding at that time that the critique had 
been written by Abel WoLman, who was the chairman of the EJC 
Coordinating Committee. That Wolman was preparing this statement 
is indicated by his letter to me of April 30, 1951. 

The critique of the report of the President s Commission reviews 
the recommendations of the report. This is almost wholly a reprint 
of the draft of the comments which I had prepared for the consideration 
of the members of the Irrigation Task Force. While this acceptance 
of my comments was gratifying, I did not receive any acknowledgment 
of my material from either Wolman or the EJC panel. 

Mr. F.W. Scheidenhelm had been an active member of the group 
which worked on the EJC report, particularly its power policies. After 
the completion of the 1950 EJC report he continued to press for using 
the report to secure Congressional action. He circulated a letter 
to those who had worked on the 1950 EJC report dated Dec. 20, 1951, 
urging contacts with Congressmen and explanations of the EJC report. 
I joined as one of the signers of this letter. 

Scheidenhelm repeated this effort in Nov. 1952. I did not 
participate actively in his second attempt although Scheidenhelm sent 
his proposals to me. 

The correspondence on this matter is in the file of the EJC committees. 



Activity in early 1951 by the EJC panel consisted of plans for 
issuing its 1950 report in a more formal volume and the consideration 
by each sub-committee of whether any revisions should be made in its 
1950 statement. The Irrigation Committee approved my recommendation 
that no changes should be made in our 1950 report. There was also 
discussion regarding the extent, if any, to which the second issue 
of the EJC report should include discussion of the report of the 
President s Commission. It was concluded that comments on the 
report of the President s Commission be handled separately. 

The EJC report was reissued dated July, 1951 under the title of 
"Principles of a Sound Water Policy" with the subtitle "Prepared under 
the Auspices of the National Water Policy Panel of Engineers Joint 
Council." This is a 5 1/2 x 8 1/2 volume of 233 pages. It contains 
the reports of each of the nine sub-committees or task forces. A 
22 page foreward by the EJC panel reviews the background of the report 
and includes a statement of fundamental principles and their application. 
Copies were sent to each member of Congress. 

Prior to the issuance of the July, 1951 edition of the EJC report 
of 1950, each task committee was asked to review its 1950 report and 
make such changes as it thought might be desirable. The Irrigation 
Committee considered this request and replied that there were no 
changes it desired to have made in its 1950 report. Abel Wolman 
handled the July, 1951 edition of the EJC 1950 report. My views 
are expressed fairly fully in my letter to Wolman of April 11, 1951- 

While the 1951 edition of the EJC report and the critique of the 
report of the President s Commission are both dated July, 1951> they 
did not clear the EJC for distribution until Oct. 1951. 


Late in 1951 those who had worked on the EJC report were asked 
to stand by to be available for work in support of its recommendations. 
I agreed to such continuing activity to such extent as other matters 
would permit. 

Civil Engineering for December, 1951 reprinted the EJC letter to 
members of Congress transmitting the EJC report. A talk by Homer 
before the Sanitary Division of ASCE was also sumnarized. 

In the latter part of 1951 the EJC panel organized a Hearings 
Committee to handle the presentation of the EJC report and to support 
its conclusions in any Congressional hearings that might be held. Mr. 
Richard D. Hoak of Pittsburg, Pa. who was with the Mellon Institute 
was the chairman of this hearings committee. I had considerable 
correspondence with Mr. Hoak and assisted to such extent as I 
could in the work of this committee. I was a member of the 
Hearings Committee. The pertinent correspondence is in the 
Correspondence File. 

The District of Columbia Section of the ASCE prepared a review 
of the 1950 EJC report. Copies were sent to the Board of Direction 
of ASCE and to all ASCE local sections. The D.C. section attacked 
the proposal in the EJC report regarding the composition of the 
Board of Impartial Analysis proposed in the EJC report. The EJC group 
had recognized that to be impartial such a board would have to be 
independent of the federal agencies whose projects were being reviewed. 
The EJC report provided for a board of Impartial Analysis which would 
be composed of members who had not been identified with the projects 
to be reviewed. The Washington D.C. Section took this as a reflection 
on the abilities of federal engineers. The technical qualifications 


of federal engineers for membership on such a board were not in 
question in the EJC report. It is obvious that a board will not be 
impartial if it is composed of members who have served with the agencies 
whose projects are being reviewed. The disqualification rule for 
judges who have been connected with cases reaching their court is 
well recognized and there should be no reasonable objection to its 
application to the type of impartial board that EJC was proposing. 

The protest of the D.C. Section was presented to the Board of 
Direction of the ASCE at its meeting in Louisville in June, 1951. 
It had been referred to the Executive Committee of ASCE who reported 
some recommended changes in the 1950 report. It had not been referred 
to the Board s own Water Policy Committee prior to its consideration 
by the Executive Committee. When presented to the ASCE Board it 
was referred to the Water Policy Committee which made an attempt 
to reconcile the differences. The Water Policy Committee s suggested 
revisions were unacceptable to the D.C. members of the Board. After 
lengthy discussion the revision of the Executive Committee was adopted 
by a divided vote by the ASCE Board. 

This issue was referred to the Committee IX of the EJC report 
to try to find wording that might be generally acceptable. This 
Committee made some changes from its 1950 report, but stood its ground 
on the general specifications for membership on the Board of Impartial 
Analysis. In the July, 1951 edition of the 1950 report of EJC this 
revision is on page 2l6 with a star to a footnote that, "Engineers 
Joint Council does not concur in the statement in the last sentence." 

The correspondence file includes comments on this matter by 
Howson and myself. To some extent it was a tempest in a tea pot. 
In my opinion, the opposition arose entirely from the federal engineers. 


It was, also in my opinion, promoted and stirred up by Gail Hathaway, 
the 1951 President of ASCE. Hathaway was a civilian engineer with the 
U.S. Corps of Engineers. Some of the Corps flood control projects 
were among those that some of the EJC group felt were in need of 
impartial review in the interests of the general taxpayer. 

My term as a director of the ASCE expired in 1951 and I was no 
longer a member of the Board s Committee on Water Policy. My 
participation in water policy procedure after 1951 was mainly through 
Hoak of the EJC panel. I continued as a member of Hoak s Committee. 

Activities in 1952 by EJC consisted of follow-up on its 1951 
report. Work was done on a summary of the EJC position for publicity 
purposes. A presentation was made at one Congressional hearing by 
eastern members of EJC. I participated in correspondence relating 
to these matters. As 1952 was an election year and a change in 
administration was anticipated, work in 1952 consisted mainly in 
holding the EJC group together preparatory for activities in 1953- 
It was recognized that Congress could not be expected to give 
serious attention to water policy definitions in 1952. 

In 1953, I spoke on the EJC report at a meeting of the Division 
of Water, Sewage, and Sanitation Chemistry of the American Chemical 
Society in Los Angeles. Mr. Hoak had requested me to make such a 
talk. He represented the chemical engineers on the EJC panel. 

It was expected that the Eisenhower administration would meet its 
pre-election promise of cleaning up the mess in the Bureau of Reclama 
tion. Commissioner of Reclamation Strauss was sure to be replaced. 
We were relieved of the Regional Director Richard Boke and Asst. 

Regional Director Phil Dickinson in California. Satisfactory replace 
ments of Boke and Dickinson were made. For Commissioner the selection 
of a successor to Strauss became involved in petty politics. Ralph 
Tudor had been appointed Assistant Secretary of the Interior under 
McKay. Tudor was a good engineer, formerly with the Corps of Engineers 
and primarily a bridge engineer. When appointed, Tudor was not 
acquainted with top men in the irrigation field. 

What was needed in the USER was a tough commissioner who would 
unload the political appointees and reduce the over-expanded publicity 
personnel. To do this required someone who knew the Bureau, would not 
be dependent on remaining as Commissioner and who could do the job 
needed without fear or favor. I recommended Raymond Hill to Tudor, 
but he had never heard of Hill. I had found that Hill would accept 
an appointment as Commissioner for a year or two to complete the 
reorganization needed. While Hill was in private practice, his father 
had been an early Bureau engineer and later one of their consultants. 
Raymond practically grew up in the Bureau, worked for it for several 
years and had been the consultant for various Bureau projects. 

Various names were suggested, but anyone who might do the job 
that was needed was actively opposed by the "in group" who naturally 
opposed a house cleaning. Finally, the situation reached the point 
where no one having the stature needed for the job who was not a part 
of the Bureau would accept the appointment. This led by necessity to 
the appointment from within the Bureau. W.A. Dexheimer was appointed 
Commissioner of Reclamation in 1953. He had had responsible positions 
in the Bureau and was a competent commissioner. Dexheimer had the 
Bureau attitude toward securing additional project authorizations to 
maintain the Bureau operations. His most significant contribution 


was his reduction in Bureau personnel. During his term while the volume 
of work handled by the Bureau increased, the number of employed personnel 
was reduced by over one-fourth. The reduction fell heaviest on the 
public relations group. 

An illustration of the willingness of the Eisenhower administration 
to clean up the mess against pressure was the case of Goodrich 
Lineweaver, the then Assistant Commissioner of the USER. Lineweaver 
was an eastern newspaper man, good at running errands for Congressmen 
and securing their good will. He had sufficient support from 
Republican Congressmen that he was not replaced. Lineweaver remained 
with the Bureau until Congress had a Democratic majority when he 
shifted over to adviser to a Congressional committee. 

The EJC Panel sought and secured an appointment with Secretary 
of the Interior Douglas McKay to discuss some of the principles of the 
EJC report which could be put in effect without further Congressional 
action. A group of four for this meeting was worked out on which I 
was a member. The others were Abel Wolman, Scheidenhelm, and Raymond 
Hill. I flew east for this meeting on Oct. 21, 1953. We met with 
McKay, Asst. Secy. Aandahl and Dexheimer. 

Each of the four EJC representatives had his part of the total 
presentation assigned to him and prepared before the meeting. Mine 
related to the incompleteness of USER feasibility reports on proposed 
projects. These had become more largely promotional rather than impar 
tial presentations of all of the facts. I reported to Horner on Oct. 2k, 
1953 on my reactions to the meeting. 

We were cordially received and stayed for about an hour and a half. 
We took about an hour for our assigned material. My report to Horner 


states, "In ray opinion, we made a consistent and well supported case, 
but did not dent the stone wall of resistance to any practice that 
will or may restrict the volume of work available to the USER. 
Dexheimer asked how many projects we thought the eastern members of 
Congress would vote to approve if all subsidies involved were set 
up in the reports. Getting approval in order to maintain the Bureau 
is evidently his controlling principle. No objection to Dexheimer 1 s 
remarks was made by McKay. McKay referred to our presentation as 
idealistic. While he did not directly condemn idealism, I gathered 
that it was something to be considered only if expedient." 

I was reimbursed by EJC for my travel costs to the meeting with 
McKay on Oct. 21, 1953- This expense was not justified by any results 
which were accomplished. I secured personal value from the trip 
and my presentation as it gave me an insight to the inner thinking 
of the USER and its committment to its own self interests that would 
have been difficult to secure in any other way open to one not a member 
of the establishment. 

This interview with McKay illustrates how deeply the principle 
of bureau perpetuation had become established in the USER by 1953- 
It has grown since 1953- No recent administration has been willing 
to install and enforce standards for the protection of the general 
taxpayers who are to be taxed to finance the present and proposed projects. 
Circular A-Vf was prepared by the Bureau of the Budget in 1952 in an 
attempt to standardize the criteria for project feasibility. This was 
approved and issued on Dec. 31* 1952 by the Bureau of the Budget. It 
was generally attacked as too restrictive by proponents of proposed 
projects. Circular A-^7 was replaced in 1962 by S.-Doc 97 approved 
by President Kennedy. S-97 is even more liberal in its standards than 


A-Vf. Under S-97 about the only thing that can prevent a proposed 
irrigation project from being able to show a benefit-cost ratio of 
over unity is the absence of a water supply. Repayment capacities 
are similarly liberally treated in areas having development funds 
supported by excess power revenues. 

Resources for the Future held a conference in Washington Dec. 2 to 
k, 1953 Such a conference had been proposed earlier, but it was 
delayed in order to complete the plans for the meeting and the avail 
ability of some pending reports. RFF is financed by the Ford Foundation. 
It is still active. 

I attended this conference and was asked to attend and participate 
in the section meetings on cost allocation and feasibility standards, 
etc. I did attend these sessions and tried to urge approval of 
sound policies such as those in the EJC report. The majority in 
this section were planners, largely academic, and not much progress 
was made along constructive lines. The general attendance was good 
and the interest of those attending was generally well sustained. The 
meetings did not produce much tangible result. It gave many who 
were dabbling in the water policy field a chance to think that they 
were being recognized and contributing to decisions on the matters 
at issue. 

In late 1953* the second Hoover Commission on Organization of the 
Executive Branch of the Government was appointed. Admiral Ben Moreell 
was appointed chairman of the Task Force on Water Resources. Some 
members of this task force had been on the EJC report committees. 
The EJC committees were asked to review their 1950 reports and to 


consider any changes that should be made for presentation to Moreell s 
committee. The Irrigation Committee stayed with its 1950 report. Time 
was not available in which to have a meeting of the committee to 
work out and agree on changes. I declined the suggestion that I make 
any such revisions for the committee. The 1950 report had been 
agreed to unanimously, and I was not going to make any individual 
revisions. I did prepare a draft of a restatement of the Irrigation 
Task Force of EJC for use in submission to present Hoover Commission 
with a brief on the 1950 EJC report. This was dated Jan. 11, 195^. 
It was a shortening of the 1950 report to meet the program of the 
proposed brief. The preparation of this brief was assigned to R.D. 
Hoak. My draft of Jan 11, 195^ was sent to Hoak. I rewrote my 
draft under date of Feb. 15, 195U as a restatement of the 1950 
report of the EJC Irrigation Committee. Replies to my earlier 
draft on this subject had been generally approved in correspondence 
by the members of the Irrigation Committee. 

Congressman Aspinall of Colorado had introduced H.R. Wt-li-3 in April, 
1953- This bill would authorize the Colorado River storage project 
and participating projects in the upper Colorado River states. No 
action was taken on this bill in 1953, but hearings and probable passage 
were expected in 195 1 *-. This project fell so far short of meeting the 
standards of feasibility which Adm. Moreell s committee expected to 
recommend that the committee was concerned that it might be passed 
before their report was completed and thus largely nullify the hoped 
for results of their report. Moreell was anxious to have the EJC 
send a representative to one of the hearings he was conducting 
around the country to present a statement pointing out the defects in 
this project. On March 20, 195 1 * President Eisenhower issued a statement 


endorsing the Upper Colorado River Project. This was prior to the 
completeness of feasibility reports on some of the units. 

The Moreell Committee held a hearing in San Francisco on May 3 
and k, 195^. I was the most readily available member of the EJC 
group to attend and did so on both days. I entered an appearance and 
asked for permission for EJC to file a later statement covering 
developments since the 1950 report. I mentioned particularly the 
replacement of the interest waiver by the Collbran formula and 
the proposal to authorize projects before feasibility reports were 
completed. I was cordially received and the requested permission 
was granted. 

The Moreell Committee held another hearing in Denver on May 17, 
- I was in Denver at that time on other matters and had a 
chance to attend part of this hearing. Moreell had sent me some 
figures on the Upper Colorado River Project and would have liked 
to have had me present an attack on the feasibility of the participating 
units. I declined to get drawn into such a presentation. The EJC 
effort had been directed toward matters of water policy. To attempt 
to analyze any individual project in rebuttal to the USER without 
adequate time for an engineering study of the project would have been 
suicidal for such a witness. By arguing regarding details of the 
facts relating to the project, the principles of water policy would 
be obscured. I had neither the time or staff to make a report on these 
units. Moreell s Committee had both. I knew enough concerning the 
participating units to recognize that they were marginal, but such 
general knowledge would have been no defense against specific items 
the USBR could claim. 

I had prepared a draft of a statement which I could have presented 


to Moreell s Committee on May 17, 195 1 *. I did not present it as it 
had not been fully cleared with EJC. I recommended that EJC complete 
a statement to file with the Committee or to be presented at a later 
hearing of the Committee. In talking with Adm. Moreell I concluded 
that what the committee wanted was a statement from an organization 
having the standing of EJC which they could quote in their own 
report where it supported the conclusions which the Committee expected 
to reach. I did not care to take this responsibility at Denver. It 
was my opinion that any such statement should carry the approval and 
signature of the top EJC panel. 

The report of Moreell s Task Force was printed in three volumes 
under the title of "Water Resources and Power." These volumes are 
dated June, 1953. This task force report was made to the Commission. 
The second Hoover Commission made its own report on water resources 
and power in two smaller volumes. 

The Denver meeting concluded my activities in relation to the 
Moreell Committee. The second Hoover Commission, including Moreell s 
Committee, completed their reports. These were published, but did 
not lead to any specific revisions in national water policy. By the 
time the report of the second Hoover Commission became available (1955 }, 
the bureaucrats in federal water agencies had become sufficiently well 
entrenched that they were able to override the Hoover recommendations 
in the water field. There was not sufficient support in the Eisenhower 
administration for any controversial action to have been successful. 
DECEMBER 22, 1955 

Before the second Hoover Commission had completed its report, 
President Eisenhower appointed a cabinet committee on May 26, 195U to 


report on matters of water policy. This was an apparent effort 
to secure a report from this cabinet committee before the Hoover 
Commission could report , thus detracting from the recommendations of 
the Moreell Committee in the water policy field. Public protest 
resulted in a delay in the completion of the cabinet committee s 
report. Eisenhower had appointed the second Hoover Commission. This 
action regarding the cabinet committee appears strange. It may 
illustrate a lack of deep understanding of the issues involved. 

The President s Advisory Committee consisted of the Secretaries 
of Interior, Defense, and Agriculture. Their report was relatively 
short (35 pages). It did not receive extensive attention. By the 
end of 1955 there had been so many reports on national water policy 
made that the President s Advisory Committee s report hardly created 
a ripple in the pond. 

% participation in the EJC activity on national water policy 
extended from 19^9 through 195 1 *. It was a most interesting and 
profitable experience to me. The eighty engineers who worked 
on the 1950 EJC report were able to put aside their local and 
personal interests and to prepare a report based on the public 
interest. This is an illustration of the use of those best trained 
in such a field to formulate the most desirable overall policy. 

In 1950, many of those working on the EJC report felt that there 
might be sufficient desire on the part of the public to be advised 


regarding public policies in their interest, so that some beneficial 
action could be secured. In this hope they were disappointed. 

In 1950, it looked as if the country was getting ready to turn 
from the strong tendency to have the federal government do and control 


everything. The expected change in the administration occurred 
in 1953, but the standards of national water policy have continued 
their all federal trend. The entrenchment of the federal water 
agencies was too strong to be overcome by the good intentions, but 
feeble actions of the Eisenhower administration. 

Since 1955, the standards of national water policy, particularly 
in regard to project feasibility, have continued to deteriorate. Cir 
cular A-47 has been succeeded by S-97. The benefits that can now be 
included enable a benefit-cost ratio of over unity to be derived for 
practically any project that has a water supply. The laws governing 
repayment requirements are now about the only restraints remaining. 
Where basin development funds, using power revenues which it is being 
contended will accrue, can be used, there is now no practical limit to 
the costs of units which it can be claimed are feasible. Power revenues 
are being claimed which will pay out the costs allocated to irrigation 
within the statutory time limits. 

Looking back one can wonder whether the effort expended by 
EJC in its 1950 report was justified by the results secured. In 
tangible terms a negative answer to this question can be supported. 
In intangible benefits to those participating this effort was worthwhile. 
A good try was made in a good cause. Not to have tried would have left 
a sense of shirked responsiblity on the profession best qualified to 
advise the public in its own interest. 

Similar future efforts by EJC or other interested groups in the 
field of national water policy offer little chance of usefulness 
under the present public attitude and the active promotional efforts 
of the federal agencies benefitting from the present practices. The 
two recent Pacific Southwest Water Plan reports, in my opinion, represent 


a new lov in presenting the full story of what would be involved if 
the recommendations in the reports should be carried out. Until the 
public demands complete and impartial reporting on the projects 
seeking authorization, there is little chance that the present 
conditions will be improved. In my opinion, there is no present 
indication that such a public demand is developing. The aggresiveness 
of those benefitting from federal water projects at the present time 
far outweighs the effectiveness of the efforts of those still 
supporting public policies in the water field that are in the 
interest of the whole public. The federal taxpayer appears to be 
the only one in this field who has no one to speak in his interest. 
As long as the general taxpayer does not rebel there is scant chance 
for any improvement. 

Someday interest in the U.S. may develop in having a sound 
national water policy. This result may come about from a revival of 
better standards in all federal practices. It could come about 
as the result of the bankruptcy of projects now being authorized under 
claims they cannot expect to realize. The second of these causes appears 
more likely to occur than any popular moral resurgence sufficient 
to have public impact. 

The record of the 1950 EJC work and its results, insofar as I 
participated in these activities, has been assembled in binders on 
a chronological basis. Following through these procedures to trace 
the progress that was made is heavy reading. However, this material 
may have some reference interest if the same issues should again 
become active. It is not popular reading, but it may aid a serious 
student in gaining an understanding of the issues involved and the 
political processes by which our public policies are established. 


The materials relating to national vater policy in which I 
participated are collected in Items ^, 170 and 171 of my bibliographical 
file. This includes my ovn writings, correspondence and other pertinent 



Prom 1Q38 into 1952 I was the consulting engineer of the Tulare 
Lake Basin Water Storage District on its water supply and some other 
matters. This work included the 19^9 Kings River Agreement; procedure 
relating to Pine Flat storage, the general water supply of the district; 
and the acreage limitation of the reclamation law. The history of 
ray part in these matters has been prepared similar to that of other 
work included in this history. However, the account of this work 
is so lengthy that it has been made a separate report with its own 
separate table of contents and page numbers.* 

My work for the TLBWSD included the controversy between the USER 
and the Army Engineers regarding which agency whould build Pine Flat. 
This is an interesting example of federal bureau competition. 

This history of the Kings River procedure from 1938 to 195 2 
has not, to my knowledge, been adequately covered elsewhere. My 
participant s account may have interest for this reason as well as 
to supply a record of these events. 

*Harding, Sidney T. , History of work on Kings River 1938-1952, 
May 2, 196? 122 p. typescript. 



Crocket and Gambogy owned lands which were in the western portion 
of the Lower Tule River I.D. Wells had been constructed on these lands 
by Elmer Von Glahn, their previous owner, and the water pumped had 
been conveyed to lands in Tulare Lake then owned by Von Glahn and in 
1950 owned by Crocket and Gambogy. This draft had resulted in a 
lowering of the ground water in the area of the wells. 

As early as 19^6, suit against Von Glahn regarding these operations 
had been threatened by some of the adjacent overlying land owners 
claiming that the ground water supply was insufficient for the overlying 
lands and that there was no surplus for distant taking. 

In 1950, the Lower Tule River I.D. was organized to buy CVP water 
to supplement its other water supplies. The boundaries of the District 
included the lands containing the wells used by Crocket and Gambogy 
in supplying water to lands in the Tulare Lake area. Crocket and 
Gambogy had acquired these lands prior to 1950- 

The Lower Tule River I.D. in its first assessment wanted to 
place a higher value on the Crocket and Gambogy lands than on similar 
lands nearby on which there was no pumping. This led to threats of 
litigation by both the District and Crocket and Gambogy. I was asked 
by Crocket and Gambogy in July, 1950 to investigate the situation and 
to advise them regarding the actions they should take. There had 
already been some preliminary discussions of these issues between the 
parties. William A- Alexander, formerly an engineer for the USER 
working in this area had become engineer for the LTR I.D. 

A meeting with the District was held July 20, 1950. It was cordial 


with both parties expressing their desire to settle any conflict of 
interest by negotiations. I discussed the results of this meeting in 
a letter dated July 21, 1950 to Albert Armor, the secretary of Crocket 
and Gambogy. I recommended exchange of records with the district and 
an effort to negotiate the conflict involved, with any agreement that 
might be reached limited to a contract with the LTR I.D. without any 
discretionary participation by the USER. 

Exchange of records took some time as the parties had to assemble 
the ones needed. A second meeting was held Sept. 13, 1950 in which 
a main topic of discussion was the rate at which the Crocket and 
Gambogy lands should be assessed for water used in 1950 and 1951- 
Alexander suggested an assessment based on the value of the land 
Crocket and Gambogy had irrigated with the exported water. I made 
a short report on this meeting. On Oct. 25, 1950 Alexander and I 
met with Frink, a geologist of the USER working in this area on ground 
water. It was Frink s work which developed much of the information 
on which the identity of the Corcoran clay was based. 

In the meantime, the district had gone ahead and made its assess 
ment for 1950 and 1951. The Crocket and Gambogy lands were assessed 
at a higher rate than had been discussed at our September meeting. 
This fixed the taxes on these lands for 1951- I used this to defer 
action of my part prior to Dec. 15 when payment to the USER for water 
received in 1950 was due. In 1952, Tulare Lake received a substantial 
inflow which reduced the draft Crocket and Gambogy needed to make on 
its wells in the LTR I.D. Negotiations of a permanent agreement 
covering the draft of the Crocket and Gambogy wells was dormant 

until 1955- 

Alexander and I met April 30, 1955, in Fresno, to discuss engineering 


matters relating to Crocket and Gambogy s pumping. Both expressed a 
desire to agree on a permanent basis for the amount and charges for 
such pumping and agreec to proceed on factual studies needed to 
determine equitable results . 

On Dec. 13, 1955> I prepared notes on alternate terms that might 
be used in a permanent agreement with the LTR I.D. These were sent 
to Alexander and to Albert Armor. Crocket and Gambogy had paid taxes 
to the LTR I.D. from 1951 to 1955 which represented an average cost 
of $1.81 per acre foot for the draft they had made in these years 
from wells in the district. 

Negotiations were continued and finally agreement was reached on 
the terms under which export pumping from these lands in the LTR I.D. 
would be operated. This agreement was completed and signed by the 
parties July 23, 1956. This was prior to the purchase of Crocke J : 
and Gambogy by the J.G. Boswell Co. later in 1956. 

In general, this agreement recognized the right of Crocket and 
Gambogy to pump a defined average amount of water from its wells in 
the lands it then owned in the LTR I.D. each year with provisions 
that a surplus resulting from a smaller draft in any year may be 
carried forward for use in later years up to a maximum of the charges 

for such postponed draft of $30.000. The resulting payments for such 

landowners are defined and are similar to the cost of water to the 
district for use on their district laads. 

This agreement has now been in effect for over 10 years. It has 
operated to the mutual satisfaction of the parties and without further 
controversy. In my opinion, it is an example of how such situations 
should be handled by negotiations between the parties rather than by 

If the LTR I.D. had brought suit to enjoin this pumping the case 
could Tery well still (1967) be in court at large cost to both parties. 


There were issues in this case which could not be fully defined from 
the available knowledge of the physical conditions affecting this 
pumping. The court would have to make a specific finding on what part 
of the variable annual draft had become prescriptive through past use. 
A definition would also be needed of the amount of the draft which was 
supplied from the naturally available ground water and of the effect 
of the added CVP water on the ground water at these wells. Expert 
testimony in such a case could be lengthy and different experts could 
reasonably differ in their conclusions. 

The wells involved were generally deep. The deeper water supply 
was subject to less fluctuation than that in the more shallow strata. 
When these wells were drilled the Corcoran clay had not been recognized 
and the physical separation of the upper and lower ground water was 
not fully understood. The early artesian character of deeper wells 
in this area indicated that there were some relatively impervious 
formations which formed overlying clays and caused the artesian pressure. 
It was the experimental drilling by the USER which identified the 
Corcoran clay. 

The Corcoran clay extends under the lands at issue in this prea. 
Its eastern boundary appears to be somewhere near the eastern boundary 
of the LTR I.D. so that there was uncertainty whether the use of CVP 
water in the LTR I.D. would replenish the ground water below the Cor 
coran clay or whether its recharge comes from further east. 

Since the agreement was made it is understood that Boswell has 
fround a more active response of the upper strate to the recharge 
resulting from the use of CVP water than the response of deeper ground water. 
They have met this condition by installing more shallow wells and pumping 
a larger part of their draft from above the Corcoran clay. 


This was one of the most satisfactory procedures in which I have 
participated. I had a client whose instructions to me were to seek an 
equitable settlement of the controversy without specifying detail 
results that might h^ -? prevented agreement. I also had on the other 
side of the negotiations a competent and fair-minded engineer seeking 
an equitable settlement that would be to the advantage of both the 
district and C & G- The Board of Directors of the LTR I.D. supported 
Alexander throughout these negotiations and deserves credit for their 

The negotiations were conducted by the engineers of the parties. 
Contact with their principals was limited to that required to keep them 
informed on progress and results, and to be sure of their continued 
support. The lawyers were kept advised of progress but did not participate 
actively until called in to review the draft of the agreement r^ched by 
the engineers. After Alexander and I had reached an understanding-; a .c 
agreement on the terms of the settlement, I prepared a draft of a formal 
agreement expressing our results which Alexander epp^rved. TV s draft 
was then reviewed by the attorneys and its. wording put in proper legal 
form. The essential terms to which Alexander r.nd I had ag-.veci were not 
changed . 

A copy of the final agreement is in Item Itfo. 176 of my bibliographical 
file. This item also contains correspondence, etc. leading to ;he 
agreement. This indicates the progress made in reaching final agree 
ment after discussions extending over a period of six years. 


The Vista I.D. San Diego County is an interesting example of 
an area originally developed for agriculture, gradually changing to a 
residential basis. The individual land ownerships were generally 
small and this change has occurred by their subdivisions by their 
owners. The larger types of subdivisioms with their mass housing 
developments were not well adapted to the topography and ownerships 
in the Vista I.D. 

This change in residential development has had a major effect 
on the Vista I.D. over the years. Its irrigation system has been 
converted into a pressure domestic system. This has involved 
financial problems which the district has met successfully. 

The district has also had problems with its water supply. The 
area which it proposed to serve at the time of its organization wa& 
larger than the areafor which the available water supply was considered 
by the state engineer to be adequate. As the district had already 
been organized the district met the state engineers requirement by 
securing waivers of service from part of its included lands. This 
avoided the dissolution of the original district and the reorganization 
of a smaller more compact area. 

The history of the Vistal.D. to 1928 is well covered in Bulletin 
21 of the State Division of Engineering and Irrigation by Prank Adams. 
Since the date of this bulletin, the district has purchased the Warner 
Ranch of about U3,000 acres which includes the Lake Henshaw dam and 
reservoir. These lands are leased for grazing and the area of the lake 
is used for recreation. 

The record of the Vista I.D. in its change from agriculture to 


residential use is an interesting contrast from the wholesale scale 
of change that has occurred in some areas. An interesting comparison 
could be made of these different processes of urbanisation. Wholesale 
subdivision eliminates irrigation in its area. What may be termed 
retail subdivision reduces irrigation to the small areas of each lot- 
The irrigation of an acre or less is still practical in the Vista I.D. 
on many of the residential lots. 

My work for the Vista I.D. begam in 1951 and extended intermittently 
until 1960. It related entirely to matters affecting the water supply 
operations and policies. 

As a result of a sustained drought, the Vista I.D. in 1950 had 
begun a program of well drilling in the ground water basin in which 
its Henshaw reservoir is located. Tfoe first production from these 
wells occurred in late 1950 and enabled some storage to be accumulated 
in Lake Henshaw in the winter of 1950-51. 

The runoff of the drainage area of Lake Henshaw was very deficient 
in 1950-51. By May, 1951, it became apparent that increased draft vould 
be required on the wells and more wells might be needed if the district 
was to avoid material shortages in 1951- I vas asked by the district 
to review its program and to advise it regardimg the additional wells 
needed to meet its 1951 demands. 

In 1951 the first barrel of the San Diego Aqueduct was ia operation 
but the Vista I.D. had aot become a member of the San Diego County Water 
Authority. A small amount of aqueduct water was secured by exchange 
for water pumped from wells above Lake Hodges. Steps were taken to 
initiate joining the Authority. 

The problem facing the district in 1951 was how to meet its 1951 
demands without damaging shortages in its water deliveries. It was 


recognized that 1952 might also be a critical year but there remained 
the chance that the runoff into Lake Henshaw in 1951-52 might be 
favorable. As usual, the immediate problem dominated the actions 
taken . 

Lake Henshav first became operative in 1923. To 1951 it had 
never spilled and had never failed to meet the demands on its 
storage. The Escondido Mutual Water Co. has an interest in 
its water supply under the terms of a complicated agreement and 
its demands under this interest had to be considered. 

The availability of a ground water supply in the Lake Henshaw 
area had been recognized prior to its actual development. It had been 
held as a reserve to be utilized should conditions arise under which 
the district required additional water. Springs in the lower area 
indicated artesian conditions there. No investigations had been 
made relating to the total volume of such ground water storage and 
there was uncertainty regarding the total draft that could be supplied 
without depleting the basin. 

When I began this work, pumping was under way on the completed 
wells and other wells were in various stages of progress. I con 
cluded that the volume of the available wells was enough to meet the 
1951 demand but that four to six additional wells night be needed 
to secure a high enough rate of draft to Beet the 1951 peak demand. 
I recommended the construction of such wells. In two letter 
reports dated May 26, 1951 I made these recommendations and 
discussed the preferable location for additional wells. These reports 
are in Item 96 of my bibliographical file. 

These wells were constructed. The Vista District found it 
necessary to ration their deliveries in the latter part of the 1951 

season but escaped serious damage in that year. 

In September, 1951, I reviewed the results to date and made tvo 
letter reports under date of Sept. 28, 1951 similar to those made 
in May. These later reports used the additional records obtained 
in the operation of the wells to support a forecast of what could 
be secured in 1952. These reports are also in Item 96 of my 
bibliographical file. 

Lake Henshaw has a large evaporation loss when it contains much 
storage as it has a relatively long carryover period in years of large 
runoff. While its topography is representative of that of usual 
reservoirs, there have been suggested plans for reducing its area 
by various systems of levees which would prevent the flooding of 
the more shallow areas. These proposals resulted in my being asked 
to review the records of evaporation from the lake and the suggested 
plans for its reduction in area. I did this in a report dated March 8, 
1952 entitled "Conservation of Evaporation in Lake Henshaw." I 
found that the proposed reductions in area would hav* costs that made 
them unattractive. They could, of course, produce no salvage of 
evaporation until years of large runoff might occur. They would not 
be useful while Henshaw remained nearly empty. 

Such salvage works have not been constructed to date as the years 
since 1952 (to 1966) have had only limited inflow into Lake Henshaw. 
With water now available through San Diego Water Authority, it is 
doubtful if their construction will ever be justified. 

The operation of Lake Henshaw requires computations of the 
natural runof f at the dam in order to compute entitlements in such 
flow. This requires allowances for the evaporation from the lake. 
I reviewed the procedures being used in a letter dated Aug. 7, 1952. 


The work under way on the safe draft that Lake Henshaw could supply 
was also reviewed. It was pointed out that the draft OB the Lake 
Henshaw wells came from the runoff of the same drainage area that 
supplied the surface inflow. In future years the replenishment of 
this draft would be an added "burden on the surface supply reaching 
Lake Henshaw. 

In 1953, the drought had prevented any material storage in Lake 
Henshaw. This naturally led to consideration of what could be ex 
pected in the future. I prepared a report in August, 1953 entitled 
"Safe Net Yield from the Water Supply of Lake Henshaw." A copy of 
this report is in Item 96 of my bibliographical file. 

It was my conclusion, based on the records to 1953, that a 
sustained regulated draft of 16,000 acre feet per year plus the free 
releases could be secured without resulting in shortages in excess 
of the estimated capacity obtainable from the adjacent ground water. 
The free releases represent prior rights to the natural flow. They 
are a relatively small item. I also found that in years when Lake 
Henshaw held a relatively large amount of storage, the draft could 
be increased by 1000 to 2000 acre feet per year without naturally 
increasing the shortages in a succeeding deficient period. This 
increase would be supplied, in part, from the reduction in evaporation 
from the reduced area of the lake during the relatively long period 
of carryover. 

The conclusions in this 1953 report were based on an estimate 
of the inflow to Lake Henshaw for the preceding 8l years in which 
the measured and derived Inflow had an average of 25,200 acre feet 
per year. The continued drought to date (1966) has exceeded in severity 
any similar period in the preceding 8l years. On the favorable side, 


the available ground water supply obtainable from the Lake Henshav 
wells has been larger than was expected in 1953- With the present 
availability of San Diego Co. W.A water Henshaw can be used to 
whatever extent the runoff may make available and the remaining 
requirements secured through the San Diego County Water Authority. 
Future variations in the Lake Henshaw supply will affect the cost of 
the total supply rather than its availability as long as water to meet 
the remaining part of its demand can be secured from the San Diego 

County Water Authority. 

In 1953, when my report on the safe yield of Lake Henshaw was 
made, the supply obtainable by the Vista I.D. from the San Diego 
County Water Authority was limited by restrictions resulting from 
the one barrel of the then constructed aqueduct. Such limitations 
have since been removed by the construction of additional aqueduct 
capacity. It is now practically assured that state water will be 
available before any sustained shortages may occur in the Colorado 
River supply of the M.W.D. 

If there should be need for the Vista I.D. to consider the safe 
yield of its Henshaw system, including the wells, in relation to the 
amount of water it should commit itself to take from the San Diego 
Co. W.A., the result to 1953 will need to be reviewed and revised 
using the additional years of record. The years from 1953 to 1966 
have been more deficient than was found to have occurred in any 
period in the preceding 8l years. 

The Vista I.D. operated its existing system of wells to meet 
its requirements to 1956. The drought at Henshaw continued. In late 
1956, I was asked to report on a proposed project to increase the 
pumping capacity. I did this in a report entitled "Expanded Pumping 


Project of Vista Irrigation District." A copy of this report is Item 
109 in my bibliographical file. 

The Vista I.D. had become a member of the San Diego County W.A. 
by 1956 through its inclusion in the Bueno Colorado M.W.D. It was 
expected that in 1957 the S.D.C.W.A. supply delivered to its site 
would be prorated to its members on the basis of their preferential 
rights which in turn were proportional to their total taxes paid 
to the Authority. On this basis the Vista I.D. could only count 
on an annual supply of about 3,000 acre feet of Authority water. 
In 1957 the second barrel of the first aqueduct was in use but 
the proposed second aqueduct was not then scheduled for completion 
until 1958. 

I reviewed the ten additional wells proposed by Burzell, the 
Vista I.D. s engineer, and agreed generally with his selection of 
their locations. I also recommended a revision of the agreement with 
the Escondido Mutual Water Co. which then prevented the Vista I.D. 
installing wells in the southern part of the Lake Henshaw area. 

I estimated that in 1957 the Vista I.D. would require a well 
draft of 17,500 acre feet to meet its own needs and the deliveries 
to others, mainly the Escondido M.W.Co. By prompt installation of 
the additional wells, I concluded that this demand could be met in 
1957. The program for additional wells was carried out and the 
district met its 1957 demands. 

In the latter part of 1957 the Vista I.D. was faced with the 
problem of whether their existing sources of supply were adequate 
to meet their needs until the second aqueduct could be completed. 
This completion was then expected to occur in July, 1959- There 
was also the problem of whether the district should undertake to 


serve additional area when the second aqueduct was completed. 

I was asked to make a study of these situations and to prepare 
a report with recommendations regarding the policies the district 
should adopt. I did this jointly with L.R. Burzell, the district 
engineer, in a report dated Feb. 28, 1958- This report reviewed 
the results at Lake Henshaw and analyzed the extent of the water 
supply the district could expect to receive from the San Diego Co. 
W.A. interest in the M.W.D. It was a lengthy report of 136 pages 
of supporting material for 20 pages of summary and recommendations. 
A copy is Item 113 in my bibliographical file. 

On the adequacy of the Lake Henshaw supply to meet the district s 
demands to July, 1959 our conclusion was favorable. The experience 
with the wells at Lake Henshaw supported the conclusion that there 
remained sufficient ground water which the pumps could secure for 
this purpose. This conclusion was borne out by the experience to 
July, 1959- Actually the completion of the second aqueduct was 
delayed until late in 1960. The Lake Henshaw sources met the district s 
demands to this later date. 

In this report it was contemplated that the draft on the Henshaw 
wells should be maintained at whatever rate was needed to meet the 
district s demand until July, 1959- The main problem involved was to 
attempt to estimate whether the ground water supply could supply such 
a draft. There were no records from which the capacity of the Henshaw 
ground water basin could be determined. The results of the past well 
draft had to be projected to cover the draft needed to July, 1959- It 
was concluded that the district demands could be met to July, 1959, 
but it was expected that additional aqueduct water would be secured 
when the second aqueduct supply became available with a corresponding 


reduction in the well draft. 

The amount of the entitlement to Colorado River water of the Vista 
I.D. is the result of a division of the total supply available to the 
individual units of the M.W.D., next to the division of the supply of 
the San Diego Co.W.A. of its share of the M.W.D. water among its 
units and next to the division of its share of the San Diego Co. 
W.A. supply by the Bueno Colorado M.W.D. among its areas of which the 
Vista I.D. is one. 

All of these divisions of the available supply at times of full 
demand are based on what is termed the "preferential rights" of each 
unit. This preferential right is the percentage of the total taxes 
paid by each unit to the agency making the division. This would be 
to the advantage of the older units if only current taxes paid after 
annexation of new units were used. However, a condition of annexation 
of new units has been that they pay the accumulated back taxes that 
would have been paid by the annexed unit if it had been a member of 
the larger agency from its organization. 

In the Feb. 1958 report, we traced back the preferential right 
of the Vista I.D. to the source of the Colorado River supply and 
estimated the amount of Colorado River water that would be available 
to Vista when the total demands of the M.W.D. equalled its supply. This 
supply plus the surface inflow to Henshaw indicated that any increase 
in the Vista usage should be restricted to minor areas. Further 
expansion of the area to be served would be dependent on additional 
imported water such as the Feather River supply. In 1958 a 
definite Feather River Project had been proposed but its financing 
and construction was still indefinite. 

There was another factor affecting the amount of Colorado River 

supply which the Vista I.D. might sec-are temporarily. Some M.W.D. 
units were not using their preferential right and their unused 
portion of these rights thus became available to other units. The 
largest unit not using its preferential supply was Los Angeles. 
The San Diego Co. W.A. could anticipate securing wattr up to the 
capacity of its aqueducts for a period of years but would expect 
to have this reduced to its preferential right when other M.W.D. 
uses increased. This preferential right would then be less than 
the capacity of the San Diego aqueducts. 

These conditions presented a difficult problem to the Board 
of the Vista I.D. There was pressure from additional lands desiring 
to be served by the district when the second aqueduct was completed. 
There would be available water for some such areas for a few years 
until full use of the available Colorado River water supply vas 
made by the other M.W.D. units. Unless additional imported water 
became available by that time, the supply of the Vista I.D. might 
be insufficient to meet its enlarged demand if a material area 
of additional service should be approved. 

In 1958, the pressure on the Vista I.D. to adopt a liberal policy 
on additional service was strong. Charges for such services could 
have been secured which would have helped to meet the district s 
need for financing improvements in its distribution system. 

Other units in the San Diego Co. W.A. were undertaking service 
in their areas in excess of what their permanent preferential rights 
in Colorado River water could supply. Some of these units had no 
other sources of supply. 

Our report recommended a conservative policy on increased services 
by the Vista I.D. until the plans and program for additional imported 


water had progressed to the point where an assured date of completion 
could be foreseen. 

I did a small amount of work for the Vista I.D. on improvement 
methods and policies for their distribution system in 1958 after the 
completion of the Feb. 1958 report. This work was not carried through 
to participation in the planning of the enlarged distribution system. 

In June, 1960, I made a memorandum on "Proposed Changes in the 
Warner Ranch which will Affect the Water Supply of the Lake Henshaw 
Drainage area." The lease of the Warner Ranch lands was about to 
expire and it was suggested that better terms could be secured if 
a new lease included the use of some of the well water in the area 
for irrigation. It was proposed that the water for such irrigation 
should be replaced by salvage secured by removing brush from an 
area of 8,000 acres and water using vegetation removed from within 
the reservoir site. I concluded that the rental returns from any 
such water used for irrigation in the leased area would need to 
exceed the cost of Colorado River replacement water in order to 
make such irrigation profitable to the district. 

The Escondido Mutual Water Co. has rights in both the Lake Bashaw 
surface runoff and the draft on the wells. On April 15, 19^0, the 
Escondido M.W. Co. wrote to the Vista I.D. urging a reduction in the 

draft on the Henshaw wells and the replacement of the reduced 
supply by the purchase of additional water from the San Diego Co. W.A. 
At that time there was water available for such purchases resulting 
from the completion of the second San Diego aqueduct. I was asked to 
comment on this letter which I did in my memorandum of June 10, I960. 
A copy is included in Item 96 of my bibliographical file. I discussed 
the several factors involved and recommended that the Vista I.D. should 


review and revise its well operation plan. For conditions 
of depletion in both surface and underground storage, reduction in the 
well draft was not considered to be advisable until some selected 
reasonable amount of reserve storage had been reserved. The 
recreation lease at Lake Henshaw brings increased revenue when a 
minimum area is maintained. 

This June 10, 1960 memorandum was the last report which I have 
made for the Vista I.D. 

Through 1959, the total draft on the Lake Henshaw wells was sbout 
105,000 acre feet. This exceeds the estimate of the supply that might 
be available when this draft began although there was hope that 
100,000 acre feet might be available. Over 60,000 acre feet additional 
have been pumped through 1965 at a fairly steady rate. Since 19^0, 
water has been obtainable from the San Diego Co. W.A. on demand. 
From 19ol to 1965, the Vista I.D. purchased an average of about 
8,000 acre feet of aqueduct water. Its gross pumping from 1961 to 
1965 averaged about 10,000 acre feet per year. Its delivery at the 
head of its main conduit of an average of about 3,200 acre feet for 
these five years was about 28$ of its use, the other J2% being 
purchased Colorado River water. 

The work which I did for the Vista I.D. was all interesting. 
The personal relations with the staff and board were friendly and 
cooperative. This work was a pleasant part of my practice in the 
1950 s. 


The 1955 legislature felt the need for an independent report on 
the state s Feather River Project as it was then being proposed by 
the state engineer. Funds for the cost of such a review were 
provided. The legislature s Joint Committee on Water Problems 
retained the Bechtel Corporation to prepare such a review. The 
contract for this work was dated Aug. 19, 1955 and the report was 
to be completed by Dec. 31, 1955- 

The short time available in which to prepare the report restricted 
selection of the group to undertake it to those large engineering 
staffs already available. There were only two groups in California 
who sought this assignment. They were the Kaiser Engineers and 
Bechtel. Both sought agreements for assistance from other available 
consulting engineers who might be needed. It was understood that 
such consultants would be available to work with the group which 
would secure this contract. I was one of the consultants on the 
lists of both Bechtel and Kaiser. 

I was asked by Bechtel to review the part of the state s report 
dealing with the water requirements and the rate at which the demand 
for water would develop in the several areas the project proposed to 
serve. I reviewed the land classification I had made for the state 
in 1929 (Bulletin 29) and prepared estimates of the rate at which the 
demand for water would develop in the areas proposed to be irrigated 
by the project. 

Beohtel had also retained the Stanford Research Institute to 
prepare a report on the "Demand for Water in Service Areas of the 


Feather River Project." The report of the Institute is Appendix A 
of the Bechtel report. It was completed in Nov. 1955- My report 
to Bechtel was made as comments on the report of the Institute as I 
vas covering the same general field. My report was dated Nov. 30, 
1955- A copy is Item 106 in my bibliographical file. 

My comments on the report of the Stanford Research Institute 
were made similar to those that would be made in an across the 
table discussion of the points of variation. My comments were 
adopted by Bechtel and included as their discussion of the items 
covered in the draft of the Bechtel report which was assembled for 
review by the consultants. Naturally the phrasing of my more in 
formal comments needed editing before they were used in the final 
report. This editing was accomplished in meetings with Neil T. 
Houston, who had had a major part in the preparation of the Institute s 
report , Mr. John Buehler of Bechtel, and myself. 

The portion of the Bechtel report on which I worked is Chapter 
V - Water Demand. This follows my report generally The differences 
between my results and those of the Stanford Research Institute in 
most items were within the range of differences in judgment regarding 
uncertain future events. 

I also was one of the group that reviewed the draft of the Bechtel 
report and determined its final wording. My part in this group consists 
of occasional general comments except for Chapter V. 

The Bechtel report, in my opinion, was a creditable job accom 
plished under close time limits. It confirmed generally the state s 
cost estimates. This was an item that had concerned the legislature 
which desired assurance that the project could be built at the cost 
estimated by the state. The actual cost estimates of 1955 have now (1966) 


been made inapplicable by the inflationary trend. 

One of the main results of the Bechtel report was the change 
proposed in the project financing. For the state s CVP and for the 
earlier reports on the Feather River Project, revenue bond financing 
had been proposed by the state. This failed for the CVP and would 
have failed for the Feather River Project. Revenue bonds are not 
suitable for projects having limited revenues in their earlier years 
before the demand for their product builds up. 

Bechtel proposed a different schedule for the project bonds which 
deferred the initial repayments of principal until project demands for 
water could be developed. This would reduce materially the contributions 
by the state that were then proposed to meet the bond charges until 
the project revenues became adequate for this purpose. 

The 1955 Bechtel report served a useful purpose at the time it 
was made. Like all such reports on projects such as the Feather 
River Project, it is superseded by progress on the project. The 
project now under construction is physically similar to the plan 
reviewed by Bechtel. Costs and some other features have changed 
as the preliminary plans have been superseded by detail design and 
changes in direction. 

The estimates which I made in 1955 of the rate at which the 
demand for water in the general west side areas of the San Joaquin 
Valley would need to be reviewed to conform with the present 
conditions. These areas have no present irrigation development, 
They lack present or prospective urbanization with its municipal and 
industrial type of water demand and ability to pay. These areas 
lack cotton history and are, as yet, unproven for orchard crops. 
Expensive concrete pipe line distribution systems are planned. 

Some recent (1967) bond sales for the costs of such distribution 
systems have been on about a 7% interest rate for tax exempt district 
bonds. The development of new irrigation under such conditions is 
outside of our past experience- Units at the south end of the valley 
having present ground water developments have a material advantage 
over underdeveloped areas. Where the cost of land development has 
already been incurred, operation can, and usually will, be continued 
as long as annual costs, exclusive of interest on the owner s invest 
ment, can be secured. Ifae effort of a landowner, who already has 
his capital committed to his past development, to continue to operate 
is essentially different from that of a prospective land owner who 
is under no compulsion to undertake a new development. 


From 1956 to 1958 I did some intermittent work for the Can Bernar 
dino Valley Water Conservation District on pending litigation seeking 
to restrict the exportation of water from the Bunker Kill Basin of the 
Santa Ana River. I was asked to undertake this work by the attorney, 
William Jennings, and the engineer, E.F. Dibble, of the district with 
the concurrence of the board. I was 73 in 1956 and cautioned the 
district against retaining me for this work if the litigation would 
be extended. My work here ended in 1958 so my age was not a final 

In 1956, what was then known locally as the Orange County suit, 
was under trial. In this suit, Orange County sought to restrict use 
on the upper Santa Ana River. I reviewed the testimony in this case 
and made ray own analysis of ground water use. I also derived 
preliminary results from the Bunker Hill Basin draft. My work was 
done mainly in June, 1956 and February, 1957- Other activity 
included conferences with the attorneys and meeting with the District 
Board . 

The Bunker Hill Basin is formed by the Bunker Hill dike across 
the course of the Santa Ana River. In earlier years there was rising 
water at the lower end of the basin which supplied stream flow to the 
lower river. Wells above the dike were artesian in periods of better 
runoff. In 1956, the preceding dry years had changed these conditions. 
The rising water no longer occurred and wells above the fault had 
eliminated the artesian condition-there. 

The litigation contemplated by the SBVWCD had for its purpose 
restricting further increase in exportation from the basin. Some 

past exportation had become prescriptive. The jnain issue involved the 
question of whether the basin was overdrawn leaving no surplus for 
taking to non-overlying land. The amount of the export which had 
become prescriptive would also have to be defined. 

The proposed suit by the SBWCD was filed. Action on it was not 
pressed through 1957- The Superior Court decision in the Orange County 
suit was made by Judge Ross in 1957- Its appeal was under discussion 
and action during its remainder of 1957- 

The board of the SBWCD appointed a committee to represent it in 
matters relating to its suit. This committee undertook negotiations 
with the defendants seeking an out of court settlement of the case 
leading to a stipulated judgment. The chairman of the SBWCD board, 
Mr. Don Anderson, headed the earlier negotiations. The terms of 
settlement were sufficiently favorable to the defendants that Mr. 
Jennings wrote to the board on Jan. 13, 1958, cautioning them on 
their proceeding without close contact with their own lawyers and 

On March 25, 1958, the board of the SBWCD passed a resolution 
authorizing Mr. Jennings and myself to discuss a settlement of the 
case with representatives of the defendants regarding a mutually 
agreeable stipulated judgment. The board wrote to the defendants 
regarding this action. 

Mr. Jennings explored the matter of a meeting with the defendants. 
It was indicated that the terms that had already been proposed by the 
SBWCD board were thought to be more favorable to the defendants than 
terms to which their attorney and engineer might agree. I did not 
take part in any of the negotiations with the defendants in spite of 
the board s resolution. 

Later, a settlement was reached with some of the defendants, a 
new suit against them was filed and a stipulated judgment entered in 
accordance with the terms of this settlement. Another suit was then 
filed against the original defendants who did not agree to the stipulated 
judgment. I had no part- in these later proceedings and do not have 
a record of their final outcome. 

Since my work for the SBVWCD, the Orange County suit has been 
appealed and decided. It covered only part of the uses in the upper 
valley. A new suit has been filed which will result in a general 
adjudication of all rights to the water of the Santa Ana River if it 
ever reaches completion. 

My work for the SBVWCD did not produce constructive results. My 
relation with the engineer of the district, E.F. Dibble and the att 
orneys, Jennings, Engstrand, and Henrickson, were very cordial and 
pleasant. I undertook this work in the hope that I could assist the 
district in reaching a settlement of the issues without extended 
litigation. Apparently some members of the board did not approve 
of my part in these proceedings and I was only able to assist the 
attorney of the district in the preparation of the complaint. 

The only written report which I made to the board was a brief 
memorandum in Jan. 1958 in joint authorship with Mr. Dibble. It 
covered our conclusions regarding the issues of the case. My other 
results were transmitted verbally or in correspondence. 



Early in 1957, I was asked by the Alameda County Water District 
to assist them on several vater problems of the district. This dis 
trict is located in southern Alameda County and includes the area 
generally referred to as the Niles Cone. The district was a prin 
cipal party in the arbitration by the state of the controversy re 
lating to the effect of storage at the Calaveras site by the Spring 
Valley Water Company in 1916" to 1920. This was the first major 
project in the state in which up river storage was allowed with 
provisions for the release of storage for later percolation to 
compensate for the reduction of the natural percolation that 
occurred from the natural flow before storage. 

I had testified for the Spring Valley Water Company in the Patterson 
Case in 1922 in which Patterson sought to nullify the arbitration 
decision of the State Water Commission. The state s decision 
was sustained and the Calaveras storage was operated on the state s 
basis. There had been some differences between the district and the 
city of San Francisco, the successor of the Spring Valley Water 
Company, over the operation of this decision. 

The Alameda County Water District also had a storage application 
to appropriate water on Arroyo del Valle, a tributary of Alameda Creek. 
This procedure was pending in 1957- A small project loan from the 
USER was also being sought. The South Bay Aqueduct of the Feather River 
Project was approaching its final planning stage. The district also 
had internal activities in the expansion of its services to meet the 
demands of its rapidly increasing population. Salt water intrusion 
was a threat on Niles Cone. 

These matters were discussed with the manager and attorney of 
the district and a form of agreement for my employment was worked out. 
This provided for the usual retainer and per diem terms. In addition, 
it had a provision that I was to perform services deemed to be nec 
essary by the district s manager and attorney. This separation of 
my service from the Board of Directors of the district was unusual. 
I did not meet the board until I had been working for the district 
for some six months. I did not object to this provision as the 
contract provided for the termination of my services by either 
party. If disagreements should arise with the manager or engineer, 
I could terminate my work at any time. 

At my request, the employment contract included a provision that 
if I should terminate my work within its first year, I should rebate 
my retainer fee proportionally to the time I had been employed. I did 
terminate my work after 10 1/2 months and returned one-eighthof my 
retainer fee. 

While it was not a part of my employment contract it was agreed 
with the manager of the district that the district would employ a 
competent full time engineer to work on its water problems and to 
relieve me of the detail work which such an engineer could handle. 
This was not done. This failure to supply the expected assistance was 
one of the reasons I ended my work for the district. 

The water matters pending were reviewed and their problems out 
lined in my early work for the district. At the 1957 session of the 
legislature an appropriation was secured for the state engineer to 
conduct an investigation of the ground water conditions in Niles Cone, 
particularly in relation to the intrusion of salt water. This work 

was carried out and resulted in Bulletin 8l of the Department of Water 
Resources published in December 1960. While Bulletin 8l stresses 
the policing of defective veils, it also included much information 
regarding the general formation of Niles Cone. I participated 
in securing the state appropriation and In urging that a competent 
staff be assigned to this work by the state and left there full 
time until its completion. This was done. The local work was 
directed by Robert E. Thronson, Associate Engineering Geologist. 
The results secured in this investigation, in my opinion, show the 
value of having a good staff which concentrates on one Job at a 
time. In some other investigations of the state, in my opinion, 
the personnel has tried to handle too many jobs at once to acquire 
an adequate familiarity with the local conditions in each area. 

After getting the state s ground water work under way, it was 
decided to concentrate on the Arroyo del Valle procedure. I pre 
pared a report on "Storage on Arroyo del Valle" dated July 1, 1957- 
A copy of this report is Item 111 in my bibliographical file. 

Arroyo del Valle is a main tributary of Alameda Creek above 
Pleasanton. Its runoff contributes to the ground water along its 
course both in the Livermore Valley and below Sunol. The proposed 
storage would reduce this natural percolation. The Pleasanton 
Township County Water District also had an application for storage 
on del Valle. The two districts cooperated in the procedure relating 
to this storage. 

The State Water Rights Board held a hearing on these applications 
on Sept. 11 and on Dec. 2 to 5, 1957. Protests were made by various 
down stream claimants to the use of the percolation from the flow of 

Arroyo del Valle. The applicants agreed to replace any reduction 
in the natural percolation that would result from the storage. The 
difficulty at the time of the hearing was that no adequate records 
were available regarding the amount of such natural percolation. 

Permits were secured in 1958 after I had ended my work for the 
Alameda County Water District. I assembled the material in support 
of the district s application, participated in negotiations with the 
Pleasanton Township County Water District and the state and testified 
in the hearing. 

The Water Rights Board approved the applications in its decision 
89^ on March 15, 1958 and issued permits subject to terms and conditions 
designed to protect the protestants. The two applications were given 
the same priority. The storage was not to exceed 60,000 acre feet 
per year. The board retained jurisdiction to modify the terms of 
the permit to prevent waste or unreasonable use. Permittee is to 
release sufficient storage to compensate for any effect on the natural 
percolation. Records relating to the natural percolation were to 
be secured while the natural runoff was unaffected by storage. The 
permit was to be subject to revision within a 15 year trial period. 

Tentative terms were defined in the permit for operation for the 
first three years if the reservoir should be constructed before 
adequate records had been obtained. 

The State s Bulletin 3 Water Plan included storage at the del 
Valle site as a part of its proposed South Bay Aqueduct. The Department 
of Water Resources appeared in the hearings to represent its interest 
in using this site. The state requested that the applicants stipulate 
that the state might make joint use of the reservoir in its South Bay 
Aqueduct. As the applicants would be users of the water supply of 

the South Bay Aqueduct and had been urging the state to build the 
del Valle storage, such stipulation was readily made. Exhibit 
No. 1 dated Nov. 1, 1957 in the hearing on these applications is an 
agreement betveen the state, the Pleasant on Township County Water 
District and the Alameda County Water District covering such joint 
operation. As the Water Rights Board lacked jurisdiction to enforce 
the future terms to be agreed upon regarding such operation of the 
storage, it was not included in the permit terms. 

A copy of the Water Rights Board decision 89^ is included with 
other matters relating to this procedure in the binder of miscellaneous 
material relating to the Alameda County Water District in my biblio 
graphical file, Item 1?^. 

This procedure was an example of interested parties with 
diverse interests working together to derive a plan that could conserve 
the unused waters of the Arroyo del Valle without damage to existing 
uses. A harmonious result was secured without harm to any interests. 

The decision in the arbitration of the operation of the Calaveras 
Reservoir by the Spring Valley Water Company provided for the securing 
of the essential records by the Water Company and supplying the results 
to the state and the Alameda County Water District. Over the years 
since 1920 these records had been kept. The terms of the arbitration 
were not followed at all times. After the Spring Valley Water Company 
had been acquired by San Francisco the relations between the city and 
the district had become somewhat strained. In some years of below 

average runoff water in excess of the arbitration requirements had 
been delivered but there was no well defined definition of the status 
of this water account when I began my work in 1957. One of my efforts 

was directed toward trying to secure past records and to find out 
the status of the operation of Calaveras Reservoir. The Water 
Department of San Francisco wms approached and several meetings of 
the parties were held. Apparently, San Francisco did not want this 
question raised and these meetings were merely exercises in futility. 
No progress was made during my work for the Alameda County Water 

At this period, San Francisco was faced with the problems 
related to its sales of water outside of San Francisco. The Alameda 
County Water District had been purchasing a limited amount of water 
from San Francisco. The state had issued its preliminary draft of 
Bulletin 13, "Alameda County Investigation." San Francisco then 
issued its statement relating to the furnishing of competing service 
by the state. San Francisco opposed the entrance of state service 
into what it considered to be its service area and in which it 
announced its readiness to meet the demands. The area of the Alameda 
County Water District was in this proposed service area. 

On July 10, 1957, I submitted a report to the Alameda County 
Water District entitled "The Alameda County Water District and the 
San Francisco Water Department." In this report I discussed the 
status of Calaveras Reservoir operation and the purchase of water 
from San Francisco by the Alameda County Water District. The terms 
of the Raker Act prevent San Francisco from selling water in the Bay 
area except for municipal purposes. This eliminated agricultural use 
in the Alameda County Water District from securing San Francisco 
water. The other difference between Alameda County Water District 
securing an increased water supply from San Francisco or the state was 
the cost. San Francisco was ready to contract; in 1957* the state 

could not assure its time of delivery. San Francisco felt it could 
not sell water outside the city for less than its price in the city 
without creating internal problems and their proposed price was then 
materially higher than the expected cost of the state s supply. 
There was some intimation that San Francisco might not increase its 

delivery to the Alameda County Water District unless the district 
agreed to secure its full supply from the city. Under these conditions 
I recommended that the Alameda County Water District seek to find a 
solution for partial service from San Francisco to meet its needs through 
the district s distribution system which served only a part of 
the district s area. A copy of this report is in Item Ijk of my 
bibliographical file. Copies of some related correspondence are 
included in this file. 

Salt water intrusion had occurred in some wells on the Niles Cone 
and was a serious threat to additional areas. The construction of 
the South Bay Aqueduct was expected but the voters approval of the 
Feather River Project had not been secured in 1957- 

The fears aroused over the threat of salt water intrusion in Niles 
Cone by the local state water pollution control engineer and the state 
engineer had led to a state program for starting the South Bay Aqueduct 
ahead of the Feather River Project schedule. This aqueduct would enable 
new water to be delivered to Niles Cone at an earlier date than the 
general construction program of the Feather River Project. The state 
recognized that there might be a need to expedite the construction of 
the South Bay Aqueduct in order to meet the threat of salt water intrusion. 

The Alameda County Water District was directly interested in the 
early construction of enough of the South Bay Aqueduct to enable perco- 


lation -water to be delivered to Niles Cone ahead of the general 
construction schedule. Such delivery could be secured by getting 
vater to Altamont Pass and using natural channels of Alameda Creek 
and its tributaries. I outlined plans for such a crash program. 
This matter was discussed with both the USER and the state. 
Early operation would have to use water from Delta-Mendota Canal 
of the USER. Such a crash program might be able to get into operation 
within a year of its start. 

The authorized South Bay Aqueduct of the state included pumping 
from the main canal of the Feather River project to the Brushy Creek 
Tunnel at an elevation of about TOO feet, storage on Brushy Creek 
at the lower end of the tunnel and a conduit around the south side 
of the Livermore Valley with storage at the Airpoint and Evergreen 
sites. Both of these reservoir sites were beyond the Niles Cone. 
There was also a conduit planned around the north side of the Liver- 
more Valley with storage at the Doolan site. Only limited use of 
storage on Arroyo del Valle was included in Bulletin 3 as the initial 
geological report of the state had been unfavorable for a reservoir 
of the capacity that would be needed. Water from the aqueduct would 
have to be pumped into the del Valle reservoir. 

I submitted comments to the state engineer on the authorized South 
Bay Aqueduct recommending changes in its plan. I recommended a conduit 
through Altamont Pass as a substitute for the Brushy Creek Tunnel of 
about the same elevation as the Pass. I also urged the use of the 
storage site on Arroyo del Valle in order to have storage above Niles 
Cone. Any tunnel in the local formations involves uncertainty in 
the ground it will encounter and it did not appear necessary to take 
this chance at Brushy Creek. 

Banks replied to my June 6, 1957 letter on July 25, 1957* Questions 
had already arisen regarding the feasibility of the dam site at 
Airpoint. The state was reviewing its previous work relating to a 
tunnel through or a conduit around Brushy Peak. 

I prepared a memorandum for the Alameda County Water District 
dated Aug. 23, 1957 entitled "Emergency Project for Pumping Over 
Altamont Pass." The water would be secured from the Delta-Mendota 
Canal of the USER. Such a supply would be available from the canal 
for much of the year. 

The state had an item of $10, COO, 000 which it planned to include 
in the 1958 state budget for early work on the South Bay Aqueduct. 
Whether this could be obtained was not known in 1957- The Alameda 
County Water District was seeking a loan for the construction of the 
del Valle Reservoir from the USER under the terms of the 
recently passed Small Project Acts. With so many working in this 
area, coordination of actions and decisions was clearly needed. The 
USER had not restricted the capacity of the del Valle site. To 
expedite matters a field trip was arranged on Nov. 12, 957 in which 
the state, the USSR and the two local districts participated. We 
started at the proposed diversion from the Delta-Mendota Canal and 
followed the proposed South Bay Aqueduct to the del Valle site. At 
the del Valle site the geologists of the USER and the state agreed 
that higher storage appeared to be feasible. The leakage through 
the ridge on the north side of the site at higher stages, which 
the state had used to restrict the proposed reservoir capacity, did 
not appear to be a material factor. The state agreed to drill the 
dam site to secure more definite information there. 

I wrote Banks on Nov. 18, 1957 discussing the results of this 


trip and the emergency situation on Niles Cone. 

Matters remained status quo after this trip until I 
ended my work for the Alameda County Water District in Jan. 1957- On 
April 21, 1958, Greydamus made an "Office Report on South Bay Aqueduct 
Route Studies" for the state. In the meantime, other routes had been 
suggested for delivering vater to Santa Clara County. The principal 
alternate was a tunnel under Pacheco Pass to deliver water from the 
San Luis reservoir to San Benito and Santa Clara Counties. Plan 
III in Greydamus report would end the South Bay Aqueduct at the 
del Valle reservoir. Water for northern Santa Clara County would be 
secured by division --under Pacheco Pass and a conduit to the Anderson 
Reservoir. No final recommendation was made in this report as the 
demands for service had not been completed. 

Since the end of my work for the Alameda County Water District 
the state has constructed much of the South Bay Aqueduct. Water has 
been secured by pumping from the Delta-Mendota Canal into the state s 
conduit until the state s works have been completed. Water is pumped 
up the slope of Brushy Peak to somewhat above the elevation of Alta- 
mont Pass and conveyed around Brushy Peak in a conduit which extends 
around the east and south sides of the Livermore Valley. The Doolan 
Canyon reservoir site was found to be unsuitable, the main area to 
be served by the branch conduit on the north side of the Livermore 
Valley has secured service from the East Bay M.U.D., and the state s 
north side conduit from the South Bay Aqueduct has been dropped from 
the state s plan . 

The results of drilling at the del Valle site in 1958 were 
favorable. Additional drilling later at the spillway site disclosed 
some foundation conditions which resulted in revisions in the design 

and a substantial increase in its estimated cost. Work on the del 
Valle dam is now under way (1966). 

The state purchased the Airpoint reservoir site and later 
decided construction of a reservoir there was not feasible. The site 
has been sold to the county for use as a park. Northern Santa Clara Coun 
ty has contracted for South Bay Aqueduct water. As an offset for 
not constructing storage at Airpoint, the state has extended its 
South Bay Aqueduct to Penetencia Creek as the point of delivery to 
Santa Clara County. Service to this point is now being made. 

The letters and reports which have been referred to are included 
in Item 17 1 *- of my bibliographical file. 

While the construction of the South Bay Aqueduct occurred after 
the end of ray work for the Alameda Water District, the procedure 
resulting in the revision of its plans was started in 1957- While 
much of the changes in the plan originally authorized would probably 
have been made during the progress of the work, the review of these 
early plans in 1957 can, at least, be credited with an assist in 
these changes. 

When I began work for the Alameda County Water District early 
in 1957 > there had been little activity on the district s water supply 
plans and problems since the completion of the procedures relating to 
the Calaveras reservoir in the 1920 s. I tried to get work started 
on the several water problems confronting the district. Without 
engineering help from the district this required more of my time 
than my other work permitted me to spend and I terminated my work in 
Jan. 1958. On leaving the district the Board expressed its deep 
appreciation for the services I had rendered to the district over 

the past year in a letter dated March 13, 1958- This letter in 
cluded the statement, "It is our firm belief that the fundamental 
work that you have done vill be of tremendous service to the District 
for many years to come. 

Soon after the end of my work for the district it employed a 
full time engineer to work on its water problans. The district still 
has (1966) the same attorney and general manager. 


In November, 1959> the Santa Clara-Alameda-San Benito Water 
Authority and the Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water Con 
servation District entered into an agreement to employ a Board of 
Review to make a study of water importation with particular ref 
erence to the supplemental requirements of water deficient areas of 
Santa Clara County. Each party to this agreement was to select an 
engineer and these two were to select a third member to comprise this 
Board of Review. The Santa Clara-Alameda-San Benito Water Authority 
(called tri -county for short) selected Mr. Samuel Morris of Los 
Angeles as its member of the Board and the Santa Clara County Flood 
Control and Water Conservation District selected Mr. John Longwell 
of Oakland. These two asked me to be the third member of the Board. 

At the time of the Board s appointment the state had its reports 
on its South Bay Aqueduct far enough along so that estimates were 
available on the costs and conditions under which it could deliver 
water to Santa Clara County. The City of San Francisco had also 
defined the conditions and terms under which it would serve areas 
outside of San Francisco but within an area which the city had 
selected which it considered it could serve with its Hetch-Hetchy 
supply. The USBR had been working for about a year on a three-year 
cooperative study with the tri-county on the costs and conditions 
under which it could deliver CVP water by means of a tunnel under 
Pacheco Pass. The Santa Clara Velley Water Conservation District had 
storage and spreading works on a number of the local streams in the 

northern Santa Clara Valley. 

There was general agreement that additional water was needed to 
meet the overdraft on the ground water in the northern Santa Clara 
Valley. This term was used to distinguish this area from the 
valley lands in the southern part of Santa Clara County having their 
outlet through Pajaro River. 

When the results of the USSR s investigations had become available, 
there would have been a natural opportunity for the use of a Board of 
Review to consider all alternatives and recommend a program for the 
area. As the USER results were not then available, the Board, of 
necessity, had to forecast their results in order to have a basis 
for a comparison of seeking to secure water from the CVP or the 
State South Bay Aqueduct. The Board began its work by reviewing the 
then available information. Mr. Longwell died suddenly on March 25, 
1959* At our recommendation, Mr. Morris and I became a board 
of two to complete the report instead of appointing a successor to 
Mr. Longwell who would have started behind the Board s state of 

The instructions issued by the Santa Clara County F.C. and W.C. 
District to Longwell illustrate the purpose of this review. Longwell 
was asked to: 

1. Review all available applicable reports and information 
and recommend the most feasible method of bringing 
water into Santa Clara County as indicated by such 
reports and information. 

2. List further studies which are necessary to develop 
information necessary to arrive at the answer re 
quired by no. 1 above. 

As shown in no. 2, it was anticipated that the Review Board might 
find further studies would be needed to enable it to complete its 
assignment under no. 1. Other functions of these instructions 
relieved the board of making any such further studies as there were 
existing organizations in the area staffed to secure additional 
operational results. The Santa Clara Valley W.C.D. had a relatively 
complete ground water record in the northern Santa Clara Valley area 
and had made reports analyzing the past results in this area. 

Among the early activities of the Review Board were discussions 
with San Francisco regarding the water supply the city would have 
available for sale to outside areas, the price and form of contract 
under which water could be purchased. San Francisco is limited to 
selling Hetch Hetchy water in the coastal area to M & I users. The 
Raker Act prohibits sales outside of the San Joaquin Valley for 
agricultural uses. San Francisco, in such outside sales of water, 
is acting, in effect, as a public utility but is not subject to 
regulation by the State P.U.C. The means by which the purchasing 
cities might secure similar protection in rates and service to those 
available to consumers under public utilities were also discussed. 

On December 11, 1959> the Engineering Review Board made a progress 
statement on the uses that might be obtainable from the state s South 
Bay Aqueduct. Only general conclusions could be stated at that time. 
The need for additional definitions and costs of the service from 
the South Bay Aqueduct was pointed out. 

Discussion with the USBR indicated that their report on bringing 
water into this area by the Pacheco Pass route was scheduled for com 
pletion in July, 1962. As the Review Board was expected to complete 
its report in 19^0, this meant that the program for the Review Board 

should either be suspended for two years, or that it would have to 
proceed on the information obtainable from other sources. After 
discussion among the parties, it was decided to follow the 1960 
schedule for the Review Board report. The tri -county had had 
reports on features of the Pacheco Pass route prepared for it by its 
own consulting engineers, Creegan and D Angelo. 

Longwell died suddenly from a heart attack on March 25, 1959- 
The Review Board had a meeting scheduled for March 30 to discuss its 
program. This was to be followed by a meeting with engineers of the 
local district to decide on a schedule for the work of the Board 
adjusted to the date the USER report was expected to be completed. 
There was discussion regarding securing borings along the line of 
the proposed Pacheco Pass Tunnel. The USER planned some such boring, 
but did not have this work scheduled for I960. The tri -county 
considered advancing the costs of borings so that they could be 
made in time for their results to be used by the Review Board. It 
was finally agreed that the amount of such borings that might be 
made would aid in determining the formations to be encountered in 
the tunnel, but would be insufficient to reduce materially the 
uncertainties inherent in any tunnel projects in the Coast Range. 
In I960, it was proposed that water would be pumped from the San 
Luis Reservoir to an elevation which would result in a tunnel about 
six miles long. The present (1967) plans are for a ten mile tunnel 
to avoid the pumping lift for a higher tunnel. The Review Board 
used the results of Creegan and D Angelo for the six mile tunnel 
except that it based its cost estimates on having to line the full 
length of the tunnel. The formations encountered in tunnels in the 
Coast Range have been found difficult to predict and generally bad. 

The information available for review by the Board relating 
to San Benito and Santa Cruz Counties was much less extensive and 
conclusive than that relating to the north Santa Clara Valley. The 
Board reviewed the available materials and made such recommendations 
as the available information permitted. In the 

absence of the completed report of the USER, final decisions 
relating to these areas were necessarily deferred. 

Mr. Morris and I were asked by the two employing districts 
on April 18, 1960 to proceed as a two man board on our original 
program without waiting for the report of the USER, scheduled for 
completion in July, 1962, and without preliminary exploration of the 
Pacheco Pass tunnel site. 

As additional reports on different matters relating to the work 
of the Review Board continued to become available, it was necessary 
for the Board to set a cut-off date for reports which it would use 
in the preparation of its own report. September 1, 1960 was set as 
the cut-off date with the Board s report scheduled for completion in 

The report of the Review Board was completed in December, 1960. 
It consisted of the main report and a separate volume containing the 
material supporting the conclusions and recommendations of the main 
report. The main report was mainly a summary of the Board s conclu 
sions and was relatively short (22 pages). The volume of supporting 
material contained the Board s review and analysis of the available 
reports on the various items used in its main report. These materials 
related largely to items of supply and demand for water in the areas 
involved and the physical conditions relating to ground water in the 
northern Santa Clara Valley. The volume of supporting material consisted 

of I&k pages. 

A copy of the main report of the Review Board is Item 119 in my 
bibliographical file and a copy of the supporting material is Item 120. 
The various reports which we reviewed were listed in the supporting 
material volume. The copies of many of these reports which had been 
loaned for our use were returned to those who had made the 
loans. These reports are preserved in the files of the districts 
in this area. Other reports which I retained are being made available 
to the Water Resources Center Archives. 

The report of the Review Board was necessarily incomplete, as the 
report of the USER with their conclusions regarding securing a water 
supply by using the Pacheco Tunnel route had not become available. 
The Board attempted to forecast what the results in the USSR would be, 
in order that this source of supply could be compared with the other 
proposed sources. A more satisfactory report could have been made if 
the appointment of the Review Board had been deferred until the USER 
report had been completed. As this completion was not scheduled until 
July, 1962, and the decisions regarding securing water from the state 1 s 
South Bay Aqueduct needed to be made before 1962, the Review Board met 
the requests of the local district to complete its report, using the 

available material, in 1960. The USER report on its proposed 
San Felipe Division of the CVP was not completed until May, 19&3- 

During Mr. Longwell s work on the Review Board, he was active 
in local contacts and in analyzing the available reports. I was also 
doing similar work. Longwell and I had frequent contacts in which we 
compared results. Morris lived in Pasadena and was involved in other 
matters which limited the time he could use on this review board. 
However, he was always ready to help and attended the meetings of 


the Board with the local districts. 

After Longwell s death, the main burden of the detail work 
on the Board s report fell on me. This was the result of the condi 
tions then existing. I had made reports on the ground water supply 
of the Santa Clara Valley in the 1930 s and had volunteered to do 
the detail work in this field for the Review Board. Morris 1 other 
commitments resulted in my drafting the volume of supporting 
material and preparing a draft of the general report. Morris reviewed 
both of these and we met to go over their contents in detail. The 
volume of supporting material was left practically in the form of 
my draft. Changes were made in the main report. These were mainly 
changes in the form of presentation and in emphasis, rather than in 
the substance of the recommendations. While I did the main work on 
the preparation of the report, Morris reviewed my results in sufficient 
detail so that he could appropriately concur in it as a joint author. 

Of the three members of the Review Board, I am the only 
survivor. Mr. Longwell s death during the progress of the work of the 
Board has been discussed. Mr. Morris died March 6, 1962. Both Long- 
well and Morris were very high type engineers, both professionally and 
ethically. Their deaths were a loss to the engineering profession. 
Mr. Longwell had been with the USER for many years and with the East 
Bay M.U.D., becoming its chief engineer and manager when A. P. Davis 
left for other work. Longwell had left the E.B.M.U.D. and was practi 
cing as a consulting engineer at the time of this work. Mr. Morris 
had been manager of the Pasadena Water System, Dean of Engineering 
at Stanford and later manager of the Los Angeles Department of Water 
and Power. He had retired from the DWP at the time of the Review 
Board s work and was practicing as a consulting engineer. 

Since the completion of the Review Board s report, the northern Santa 
Clara Valley has secured delivery from the state s South Bay Aqueduct 
in 1966 following construction of a cross valley pipe line to enable 
water to be delivered to the west side of the Valley. Additional 
purchases of water from San Francisco have been contracted for by 
some of the municipalities within their area of service. The USER has 
completed its feasibility report on its proposed San Felipe Division 
of the CVP and is seeking authorization of the unit. The water supply 
problems of this area appear to have been met to date (1967) with 
optional sources of water supply available to meet future needs. 

Purchase of water from the state s South Bay Aqueduct was 
recommended by the Review Board in an amount sufficient to meet 
the then demand and its expected growth over the next twenty years. 
The quantity of water representing such a purchase recommended 
agreed with the state s estimate of 88,000 acre feet per year. 

The Review Board concluded that the ground water in the northern 
portions of the Pressure Area of the northern Santa Clara Valley could 
not be replenished by ground water movement from recharge in the 
Forebay Area at a rate sufficient to meet the 1960 draft from wells 
in the Pressure Area. This conclusion resulted in a recommendation 
that the demand in the Pressure Area should be met by surface service 
with a reduction in the draft on the ground water. 

The report of the Review Board is one of the items that had an 
effect on the actions taken to secure an imported water supply for the 
northern Santa Clara Valley. Many other items entered into the 
decisions which produced this result, and it is difficult to appraise 
what separate effect the Review Board s report may have had. Its 
recommendations were in harmony with the actions which have been taken. 

In my opinion, the report of the Review Board had sufficient usefulness 
to justify its costs. Such influence as it may have had on the actions 
of the local agencies was beneficial. The report did not, and could 
not, meet all of the hopes of those responsible for establishing 
the Board of Review. Had circumstances permitted, it would have 
been preferable to have deferred such a review until reports on all 
prospective sources of supply were available. Decisions could not be 
deferred until the completion of the USSR report and the Review Board 
could only base its report on the materials available to it at the time 
it completed its work. 


Item 2^9 in the Budget Act of 195^ provided funds for, and 
directed that an investigation should be made by the Department of 
Water Resources of, the water resources and the water requirements of 
the Northeastern Counties of California. This was started by Assembly 
woman Pauline Davis for the four counties comprising the upper Feather 
River drainage area to determine the future water requirements 
for which an area of origin preference might be claimed. Assembly 
man Lowery added the eleven counties having all or part of their 
area in the remainder of the drainage area of the Sacramento River. 
This total of fifteen counties was designated as the Northeastern 
Counties and these investigations resulted in the preparation and 
publication of Bulletin 58 of the Department of Water Resources. 
A preliminary edition of Bulletin 58 was prepared in 1957 and 
circulated for comments. The final Bulletin 58 was published in 

The investigations covered a portion of the state having runoff 
in excess of its expected ultimate demands. One item in the resulting 
report would be an estimate of the surplus runoff which might be 
available for export. 

The Department of Water Resources undertook a classification of 
the lands in the northeastern counties, investigations and applications 
of the several methods then in use estimating consumptive use, and an 
inventory of the available water supplies. The water supply derived 
was the unimpaired natural runoff prior to present uses but without 
consideration of existing water rights. 

When the results of these investigations began to be available, 

the DWR considered that it vould be desirable to have the methods 
used reviewed by a Board of Advisors before the results were pub 
lished. Consequently, such a board was appointed July, 1957, cons 
isting of Daniel G. Aldrich, Jr., Chairman, Department of Soils and 
Plant Nutrition, University of California, Davis; Sterling A. Taylor, 
Professor, Agronomy Department, Utah State University, Logan, Utah; 
and myself, S.T. Harding, Consulting Civil Engineer, Berkeley. 

The letter of instructions to the Board included the following 
statement : 

The purpose of the Board will be to review the 
methods and procedures utilized by the Department and 
to report such findings as it may find desirable. The 
principal points which require review are: land classi 
fication standards, the probable future ultimate cultural 
pattern, unit values of consumptive use, and the relation 
of the probable water demands to the physically available 
water supply, particularly as regards the economics 

A further service which we desire is assistance in 
setting up a program for future studies of factors involved 
in determination of consumptive use and water requirements. 

Aldridge and Taylor directed their work more largely to the 
items relating to land classification and consumptive use. I 
participated also in these items, but reviewed the results relating 
to water supply to a greater extent than the other two members of the 

The board was supplied with copies of a "Preliminary Report on 


Water Supply, Land Use, and Water Requirements," dated July, 1957. 
The board made a field trip over the areas involved to review the 
results of the land classification and to visit the experimental 
work of the DWR relating to consumptive use. Sessions of the 
board were held to work out its report. This was completed and filed 
under the date of September 13, 1957 (81 pages). The report discussed 
"Land Classification Standards, Consumptive Use and the Relation of the 
Probable Future Water Demands to the Physically Available Water Supply." 
The latter discussion considered selected local areas in the North 
eastern Counties. 

Some changes were made in the August, 1957 Preliminary Report. 
A "Preliminary Edition Subject to Revision of Bulletin 58" was issued 
and given circulation for comment in December, 1957- The members of 
the board were asked to comment on the December, 1957 edition of 
Bulletin 58. This was done individually as time and the other 
commitments of the meabers of the board prevented meetings and Joint 
action. My comments (11 pages) were dated August 8, 1958. Both these 
comments and the September 13, 1957 report of the board are in Item 
112 of my bibliographical file. Some pertinent correspondence 
relating to the work of the board is also included in Item 112. 

In the letters of appointment of July 29, 1957* the term, 
"Consulting Board" was used. In the December, 1957 edition of 
Bulletin 58, we were called a Review Board. In a letter to the 
Director of the DWR, dated August 8, 1958, I suggested a change in 
the title and acknowledgement to our board. I urged the use of Board 
of Advisors as more correctly describing our function. We merely 
advised, but had no control over the extent to which our advice 
was followed. In letters to members of the board dated October 9, 

1958, Mr. Banks, Director DWR, stated the change of name and the 
explanatory statement I had suggested would be used. This vas 
done in the June, 1960 final edition of Bulletin 58. This is as 
follows : 


"The Department of Water Resources engaged a board of 
advisors to review the work accomplished during the 
Northeastern Counties investigations and to appraise 
the conclusions that were reached prior to publication 
of this bulletin. Many of the suggestions proposed by 
the Board of Advisors have been incorporated in the 
bulletin. The review board consisted of the following 
members ..." 

This statement met the essential purposes of my suggested change 
from the December, 1957 edition of Bulletin 58 which I had discussed 
in my letter to Banks, of August 8, 1958. 

The last activity of the Board of Advisors was the attendance of 
its members at a meeting of the California Water Commission on November 
6, 1958. This meeting had been called to hear comments on the December, 
1957 edition of Bulletin 58. Representatives of several local areas 
made presentations of their local conditions, but there was time for 
each member of the Board of Advisors to make a brief statement. In my 
comments, I pointed out that Bulletin 58 represented, in effect, two 
independent estimated inventories, one of ultimate demand and one of 
total water supply. However, there was no consideration of how to 
get the water to the areas of demand or of the cost. Until the 
inventories had been converted into economically feasible projects, 

the results in Bulletin 58 did not represent a useful estimate of 
the ultimate demands of areas that might claim preferences as 
areas of origin, or of the exportable vater supply. No one 
disputed this position, but no action was taken on it. 

The report of the Board on the December, 1957 edition of 
Bulletin 58 was not included in the June, I960 edition. This was 
agreed to and approved by the board. We, in effect, made suggestions 
regarding the content of a preliminary edition. These suggestions 
were considered and, where considered pertinent, used in the revision 
of the December, 195Y draft of Bulletin 58. No useful purpose would 
have been served by printing the reasons why recommendations for change 
were made where such recommendations had been followed. 

Similarly, the responsibility for Bulletin 58 rested with the 
DWR, and it would not have served e useful purpose to include 
recommendations that were not followed. 

While Northeastern California, overall, is a region in which the 
available total water supply exceedSthe foreseeable future demands, the 
supplies in some areas are less than the probable demand. The future 
demands which can be met in some areas will be limited by the extent 
of the locally available water supplies. This condition is discussed 
in the report of the board, supported by examples of areas in which 
potential uses exceeded the available water supplies. Such areas 
include Madeline Plains and parts of the Upper Pit River areas. 

After the board s report on the 1957 edition of Bulletin 58 had 
been submitted, a new section was added to the 1960 edition entitled, 
"Limited Seasonal Water Requirements" (pp. 177-182). This section 
recognized and discussed the lack of available water supply to meet 
the prospective demands in some areas. In earlier portions of 

Bulletin 58, total "Probable Ultimate Mean Seasonal Water Requirements 
Within the Northeastern Counties" (Table 5*0 of 13,36U,300 acre feet 
per year had been derived. The limited seasonal water requirements as 
restricted by the available water supplies, had a total requirement 
of 12,179,600 acre feet per year (Table 55). This was a recognition 
that future use in the areas of origin will be limited in some areas 
by deficiencies in the available local water supplies . 

This recognition in Bulletin 58 of the effect of the limitations 
of local water supplies upon the ultimate local water requirements 
is, in my opinion, an improvement over the larger figure derived 
on the basis of ultimate demand. However, Bulletin 58 does not 
include considerations of the economics of making available local 
water supplies to meet local demands. In my opinion, the ultimate 
reservations of water that might need to be made to satisfy the 
area of origin preference in the Northeastern Counties will be much 
less than the 12,180,000 acre feet per year derived on the basis of 
water supply alone. The costs of making available these water 
supplies to the areas of demand will, in some cases, exceed the 
value of the use. For the areas on the floor of the Sacramento Valley, 
full future use in the areas of demand can be expected, as these 
areas are below the areas of runoff and can be served within the limits 
of feasible costs. Some foothill areas may approach ultimate uses 
similar to those forecast in Bulletin 58. For the higher areas, costs 
for additional development will be the more generally controlling item. 

The work with the other members of the board and with the staff 
of the DWR was very pleasant and enjoyable. The results of the Board 
of Advisors were, in my opinion, used to a sufficient extent to 
justify the appointment of the board. However, in my opinion, 

Bulletin 58 did not contribute, materially, to the settlement of 
the area of origin problsms in the fifteen counties covered. A 
more down to earth consideration of the practical factors involved 
vill be required before the extent of any reservations of water supply 
for later use by areas of origin can be quantitatively defined. When 
the effect of already existing rights of lower areas and the generally 
high costs of development in the rougher portions of the areas of 
origin are included in the plans for their development, the amount 
of water that might be reserved for areas of origin will shrink 
materially from the results derived in Bulletin 58. 


As a result of the studies made by the Weber Foundation and local 
agitation by A. J. Chaffin, the desirability of controlling the Feather 
River by one large reservoir at the Oroville site had become a natter 
of controversy. Senate Resolution no. U, Chapter 6, Statutes of 1958 
requested the Department of Water Resources to investigate and report 
on the construction of a dam at Bidwell Bar on the Feather River to 
be constructed in cooperation with the U.S. A report to the legislature 
at the convening of the 1959 Regular Session vas also requested. 

Oroville Reservoir would submerge the Bidwell Bar site, but 
a dam there could be built to a higher elevation than was planned 
at Oroville. It was proposed that the Bidwell Bar dam should be 
built first, while the site was accessible. Later, when additional 
storage might be needed, Oroville or a combination of upper drainage 
area sites could be developed. The full capacity of a Bidwell Bar 
reservoir would be useful until Oroville was built. With Oroville 
dam constructed, the net usefulness of storage at Bidwell Bar would 
be limited to its capacity above the Oroville high water line. 

To assist in meeting the terms of Senate Resolution no. 4, 
the Director of the Department of Water Resources appointed a Board 
of Consultants to advise him regarding the matters at issue. This 
Board consisted of General Paul D. Bgrrigan, John A. Cotton, and myself. 
Barrigan was the chairman of the board. The board was appointed in 
August, 1958 and made its report in January, 1959- This report has the 
title, "Report of Board of Consultants to Department of Water Resources 
on Proposed Bidwell Bar and Oroville Reservoirs for Control and 
Development of Feather River." A copy of this report is Item 115 in 


my bibliographical file. 

Former assemblyman Charles M. Weber of Stockton had established 
the Weber Foundation to make independent studies of the development 
of California s water resources. This foundation was financed by Mr. 
Weber and a small staff was employed. The foundation was furnished 
space in the State Capitol for its use. A report was prepared under 
the title, "An Approach to a California Public Works Plan, Comprehensive 
Coordinated Public Works Planning and a Step-by-Step Water Plan for 
California." This report was dated January 28, 1960. This main 
report had been in preparation since 1957- 

Mr. Weber had made a Special Interim Report in January, 1958 
entitled, "A Modified Plan for Development of the Water and Power 
Resources in the Yuba, Feather and Upper Sacramento River Basins." 

A review of the Weber Foundation s proposed plans was also 
assigned to the Bidwell Bar Board of Consultants. 

I had known Mr. Weber from the time of his membership in the 
Legislature and had formed a high opinion of the sincerity of his 
interests in the water resources of the state. He was a man to whom 
the term "dedicated" in this interest was really applicable. It was 
reported that he had spent about $250,000 of his own funds on the 
preparation of his Plan. Whether the conclusions Mr. Weber reached 
are accepted or not, he is, in my opinion, entitled to much credit 
for the sincerity of his effort to be constructively helpful in 
solving the water problems of the state. 

The Board met and organized and outlined the results it desired 
to have prepared for its use. Staff work was performed by the Department 
of Water Resources. The Board also requested information from the 
U.S. Army Engineers regarding their position on contributing to the 


cost of a dam at Bidvell Bar for the flood control benefits it could 
provide and also regarding the feasibility of higher levees along the 
Feather River, instead of control of floods by storage. The board 
was advised that the Array Engineers did not consider further raising 
of the Feather River levees near Marysville and Yuba City to be 
feasible and that they vould not favor federal contribution to the 
cost of storage at Bidvell Bar for the benefits of the partial flood 
control which it could provide. 

The board visited the Bidwell Bar dam site and also the sites 
of the other reservoirs proposed on the Upper Feather River. It held 
a joint meeting with the state s consulting board for the Oroville 
Dam, particularly to inquire regarding the feasibility of constructing 
Oroville Dam in stages. Such stage construction might provide flood 
control on the Feather River during the period until Oroville storage 
would be needed to provide regulated water supply for the then proposed 
state s Feather River Project. The Oroville Dam Board advised the 
Bidwell Bar Board that stage construction at Oroville would not be 

The board also held an informal hearing in Oroville to enable 
it to hear any local presentations that might be made. Mr. Chaff in 
made a statement at this hearing and was questioned by the board. He 
did not have any substantial support for his opposition to Oroville 

The board completed its report in January, 1959- Copies were 
transmitted to the members of the legislature by the Director of 
the Department of Water Resources under the date of February 2, 1959- 
This completed the work of the board. 

In his letter of transmittal of the report to the legislature, 


Director Banks quoted the conclusions of the board as stated in its 
report. These were as follows: 


"The Board concludes that Bidwell Bar Reservoir 
is not needed for sound water resource development of 
the Feather River Basin and that the large Oroville 
Reservoir is economically feasible and it is needed 
for such development. The Board recognizes that as 
water needs increase, upstream developments, not now 
justified, can be undertaken to conserve additional 
water supply in this basin." 


"The Board recommends that Bidwell Bar Dam and Reser 
voir not be included in the state s development plans 
of the Feather River Basin." 

Mr. Banks stated that he concurred with the conclusions and 
recommendations of the Board. 

Since the completion of the Board s report, there had been no 
further demand for the construction of a dam at the Bidwell Bar site. 
Construction is now (1967) well under way on the large capacity 
reservoir at Oroville. 

This was an interesting assignment. I had worked with Mr. Chaff in 
previously in matters relating to the Berkeley Olive Association. He 
was a good agriculturalist, but was in over his head in this controversy. 
This work also renewed my contacts with Garf ield Stubblef ield who had 

done most of the engineering work for the Weber Foundation. Mr. 
Stubblefield and I had worked together in Lassen County in 1915- 


The more complete title tothis agreement is, "Agreement between 
the United States of America and the Department of Water Resources 
of the State of California, for the Coordinated Operation of the 
Federal Central Valley Project and the State Feather River and Delta 
Diversion Project." This is the agreement by which these two agencies 
sought to divide the use of the unappropriated water in the Delta. 

Both the USER and the state based their plans for the export 
of water from the Delta on having available the unregulated surplus 
waters of the Delta during parts of the year. When the State Water 
Rights Board served notice that it would hold hearings on the Applica 
tions relating to these Delta water supplies, it was realized that 
there would not be enough unappropriated water for both projects at 
ie same time. A contested hearing between the USSR and the state 
relating to these waters would have been detrimental to both. The 
USER had the prior application and could have raised questions 
relating to the available water supply of the Feather River Project, 
if a contest had developed. 

To avoid such a controversy, negotiations were begun between 
the USBR and the state seeking an amicable solution before the time 
set for the water rights hearing. Progress was made and a draft 
of an agreement dated December 28, 1959 had. been prepared by the 
D.W.R. This draft expressed the understanding reached between the 
parties up to that time. 

On January 12, I960, I was enroute to Reno by plane on a flight 
which stopped in Sacramento. Banks boarded this flight there. We were 

both going to a meeting of the Nevada-California Compact Commission. 

Banks came back and sat with me. He said he would like to have 
me review the draft of this agreement, but that my comments would have 
to be completed in time for a meeting during the following week. I 
declined to undertake such an involved matter on such short notice. 
Banks then urged me to give it such study as I could in the time 
available and to participate in the staff meeting on January 21, 1960. 
I agreed to do this. Banks stated he was concerned with the possibility 
that some essential provisions might have been overlooked, rather than 
with a detail review of the draft as worded. 

Material for my use was sent to me on January 15, 19^0 with an 
accompanying letter by Wayne MacRostie. I had little time to read 
this material prior to January 20. On January 20, I went to Sacramento 
and spent the day with MacRostie, Dewey and others going over the 
draft and trying to acquire an understanding of the purposes of its 
parts. I continued by study of the draft on January 21 until 3PM when 
the staff meeting was held. I participated in this meeting. 

My brief study had led me to the conclusion that the draft was not 
explicit regarding how the available water would be divided under some 
conditions which might arise, particularly in years of deficient supply. 
I urged that before it was approved, the available water supply in some 
one or more years should be routed with the proposed projects in operation 
to see how much each party would secure under the terms of the draft 
and to develop areas of uncertainty, if any, that might be found in 
such a routing. Banks stated that there would not be time to make such 
a routing as the agreement had to be completed and signed quickly. I 
did not commit myself further on whether the state should accept this 
draft . 

On February 1, 1960, I was in Sacramento again on other matters. 
I had prepared a one page comment on the proposed agreement, dated 
January 29, 1960. I took a copy of this comment to MacRostie and left 
it with him. I again urged that an operation study should be made. 
I had no further part in the preparation of this agreement. I spent 
only two days of my time on my review of this agreement. 

Agreement between the USBR and the state was reached and signed 
on May l6, 1960. This delay from January 21 of nearly four months 
represented good progress for such complex matters. 1^ would have 
allowed adequate time for the type of routing I had proposed. 

There has been no occasion as yet to test this agreement in 
actual operation. It is generally conceded that it is primarily an 
agreement to agree, without including all of the details of its operation. 
It will need to be supplemented by such details when it comes into 

The agreement was used by the Water Rights Board in its decision 
990 on the applications involved. This decision is dated February 9, 
1961. Further hearings were held by the Water Rights Board in 1966. 

The materials relating to this matter, insofar as I participated 
in it, are assembled in Item No. 153 of my bibliographical file, although 
the only part of which I was the author is the one page of written 
comment which I made on January 29, 19^0. 

The division of the surplus waters of the Delta between the USBR 
and the D.W.R. may become controlling in the future operations of these 
agencies. Both agencies expect to increase the water supply of the 
Delta by importation of water from the north coastal area. When such 
increases may be needed will be dependent on when each agency has put 
its full supply within the Central Valley to full use. How much of the 

present surplus supply in the Delta each agency may be entitled to use 
will control the time when additional sources may be needed. 

The demands of the proposed projects of both of these agencies 
exceed the supply which will be available from the drainage areas 
of the Sacramento River. The USER has already begun the importation 
of water from the Trinity River. The May l6, 1960 agreement and its 
later supplements, if revisions are made, may affect, materially, 
the plans and their timing by both of these agencies. 


From 1958 to 1962 I did some consulting work for the State 
Reclamation Board. The projects involved were the Cache Creek and the 
Colusa Weir settling basins of the state and federal government flood 
control plan for the Sacramento Valley. In this work, 

the engineering and legal staffs of the Reclamation Board supplied 
the engineering results and the legal opinions needed in my work. 
The Reclamation Board is the state agency that represents the state 
in its operation of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage District. 

In the flood control project for the Sacramento Valley, surplus 
flows are carried in by-passes. The channel of the Sacramento River, 
even with levees of practical height, does not have sufficient capacity 
to carry its floods. When tributaries discharge into these by-passes, 
the debris can be deposited. The Cache Creek Settling Basin on 
the lower Cache Creek received the debris that would otherwise enter 
the Yolo By-Pass. The Colusa Weir discharges into Butte Basin to 
relieve the channel of the Sacramento River of the flow in excess 
of its capacity. An area in which the debris carried by this over 
flow is deposited has been provided. 

My work on the Cache Creek Settling Basin related mainly to a 
law suit resulting from a break in the south levee of the settling 
basin. On the Colusa Weir overflow, litigation was threatening as 
as result of the deposit of debris on areas in excess of those for 
which easements for such deposits has been secured. 

During the 1956 flood on Cache Creek, the south levee had 
broken and flooded adjacent areas. Suits were brought against the 

Reclamation Board by the owners of these lands to recover damages 
for the injuries alleged to have resulted from this flooding. These 
suits were Rasmussen et al vs. Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage 
District, and Evans vs. the same district, numbers 15390 and 15389 in 
the Superior Court for Yolo County. 

The basic issue involved was whether the Reclamation Board had been 
negligent in its maintenance of this levee. Also involved was the extent 
to which the settling basin had become filled, thus increasing the height 
of water against the levee. Work had been done in preparation for the 
trial of this case prior to my employment by the Reclamation Board in April, 
1958. I reviewed the results of the previous work with the staff of the 
Reclamation Board working with Joseph I Burns and others. The trial was 
delayed by negotiations attempting to settle the claims by negotiation. 
My work in 1958 consisted of investigations of the physical conditions and 
a study of past records. I did little work on this case in 195?- In I960, 
preparations were made for the first court hearing on the liability of the 
Board resulting from the construction of the channel controlling the flow 
in the settling basin. This trial was held without a jury on September 20 
and 21 in Woodland. I testified for the Board. The trial of the final 
issues including the fixing of damages, was set for November IQol- November 
6 and 7 were spent in selecting a jury. On the evening of November 7> 19ol, 
an agreement was reached between the plaintiffs and the state on terms of 
settlement and the trial was suspended. On November l6, 19^1> a stipulation 
WPS signed by the parties settling the issues of this case. The state 
paid $57>500 damages and secured additional flowage rights which would 
protect it against similar future claims. 

Under date of August 28, 19^1* Joseph Burns and I prepared 
a report entitled, "Flooding of Rasmussen Lands under Pre-1937 
and Post-1950 Conditions." The first construction of the settling 
basin works began in 1937 and the present training levees were built 
in 1950. A copy of this report is Item 122 in my bibliographical file. 
Other materials relating to this case are included in this item. 

Eventually the Cache Creek Settling Basin will have performed as 
designed to the extent that it will become filled and additional 
settling areas will be required. The time when this may occur may 
be delayed if additional storage is constructed on Cache Creek which 
removes part of the debris and reduces the flood flows. The re 
maining flood flows may receive a new load of debris by erosion along 
the course of Cache Creek above the settling basin. These conditions 
were foreseen in the plans for the settling basin. 

Relief from the excess flood flows in the Sacramento River above 
Colusa is secured by the operation of the Moulton and Colusa Weire. 
These weirs are designed so that stream flow in excess of the capacity 
of the Sacramento River below the Colusa Weir is diverted over these 
weirs into Butte Basin. The total flood control plan for the Butte 
Basin includes its reclamation by confining the overflow o^ these 
weirs in a by-pass channel. This plan has not as yet been constructed. 

The overflow over the Colusa Weir includes the debris which the 
water contains. As the velocities of overflow are reduced as this 
overflow spreads out below the weir, this debris is deposited on 
the area of overflow. This condition was foreseen and some land where 
such deposits would occur was acquired as a part of the flood control 

In 1959, the Butte Creek Farms filed a claim for damages to their 
land, resulting from the deposit of debris outside of the area which 
had been acquired by the state. In November, 1959* I ^s employed by 
the Reclamation Board to report on this matter and to advise the Board 
on the action it should take. I looked the situation over and suggested 
some observations to be made. This matter was generally dormant until 
September, 1960 when I made a report to the Reclamation Board on, 
"Present Conditions at Colusa Weir and Claims of Butte Creek Farms." 
I did little further work until April, 1962 when I made a report on, 
"Acquirement of Additional Lands for the Deposit of Debris Discharged 
Over Colusa Weir." A copy of both of these reports are in Item No. 12k 
of my bibliographical file. Some correspondence and supporting 
material is also included in this item. 

I have done no further work on this situation since June, 1962. 
It is understood that additional lands were acquired for the deposit 
of debris and that litigation relating to damages from past deposits 
has been avoided. No plan for the permanent reclamation of Butte 
Basin has as yet (1967) been adopted. 


In June, 1953* I was asked to undertake work for the Denver Water 
Department on its water supplies and water rights. Some source or 
sources of additional supply were needed to meet the imcreasing demands 
of Deaver s area. Alvord, Burdick and Howson of Chicago had been 
retained to report on a general program for securing additional water 
and the works needed for its development and distribution. In their 
negotiations regarding this report, Mr. Louis Howson of this firm had 
advised the Department that they would need to be furnished with help 
on the city s water rights as this was a field outside of their usual 

la the discussions regarding my undertaking this work, I was in 
formed that it would consist of any analysis of available records and 
reports of the Department with conclusions regarding the sources of 
supply from which Denver might secure additional water. The basic 
material for such an analysis was stated to be available for my use. 
I undertook this work with the expectation that I could make the 
report desired within a few months time. When I got into the available 
materials I found that little had been done on water supply planning 
since the retirement of Geo. Bull, their planning engineer, about 20 
years before and that it was necessary to make extensive stream flow 
studies before I could assemble the basic results for use in my reports. 

Denver had acquired its water system in 1911 from a private 
company. It had secured additional water from time to time as sources, 
such as the Moffat Tunnel, became available. No program had been pre 
pared which represented a comprehensive review of all potential sources. 

A tunnel to the Blue River had been proposed and diligence work was 
being done on its lower end. Litigation was in progress relating to 
the rights of Denver to divert into this tunnel when completed. 

Fortunately for me, my work had been arranged to be on a per 
diem basis rather than a lump sum. Much more time on my part was 
required than I had anticipated with the consequent delay in the 
completioa of my reports. 

In 1953, what became the Upper Colorado Storage Project was 
actively before Congress. Colorado was divided between its western 
and eastern slopes of the Rocky mountains. There was active and or 
ganized opposition on the western slope to any additional trans- 
mountain diversions out of the Colorado River Drainage area. In an 
effort to determine whether the Colorado River in Colorado had ade 
quate run-off available for use in Colorado to enable full develop 
ment of projects in its area as well as provide water for 
the proposed trans -mouataln diversions, the Colorado legislature had 
provided funds to meet the costs of an independent engineering report. 
Leeds, Hill and Jewett had been employ ed to make such a report at the 
time I started work for Denver. 

I was asked to participate in the presentation to Leeds, Hill and 
Jewett of the claims and plans of Denver for its water supply. This 
was the first priority in my work as the Leeds, Hill and Jewett report 
was in preparation. I undertook to meet this request but found that 
Denver did not have an official position regarding its program and 
claims. Raymond Hill was the main author for his firm of this report. 
He requested such a statement of Denver s position. This request panicked 
the staff and Earl L. Mosley, the manager of the Denver Water Department, 

had to prepare the statement, putting it together to avoid conflict 
with the position Denver had taken in the pending litigation. I 
had not had time to get into the situation to a sufficient extent to 
prepare such a statement at the time this request was received. 

I tried to assemble support for Denver s position to use in dis 
cussions with Hill but could make only limited progress prior to the 
time the report was completed. I later prepared comments on Hill s 
report for use by Denver. 

Whea I got into this work I found that there was practically 
open warfare between the engineering and legal staffs of the De 
partment. The legal counsel had stated that he was a better engineer 
than any engineer of the staff. Mr. D.D. Gross, the retired chief 
engineer, was a fine gentleman whose work had been continued after he 
reached the retirement age. He assisted me in every way he could 
but did not have the material I needed in form for my use. John 
Burgess had the title of chief engineer but interested himself in the 
daily operation of the water system. Harry Potts had been the vater 
supply engineer for many years. He kept close watch to see that 
Denver received its full entitlements under the operation of its 
streams by the water masters and division engineers of the state. 
While Potts was also supposed to make plans for Denver s future 
sources of supply I found that he had been fully occupied with the 
daily administration of the supplies them im use. Mr. Moslcy ; the 
manager of the Department, was a capable engineer but had not been 
able to control the interaal conflict in the staff. 

The Denver Water Department had a Board of Water Commissioners 
acting as a board of directors. These were all good men who had been 

successful in their own line of work but none of them had technical 
background in water matters. They were conscientious and devoted 
adequate time to their work as Water Commissioners but generally 
accepted the recommendations of their counsel. 

I undertook this work totally unprepared for the conditions 
described above. I dug into the available records and 

prepared lists of the additional materials I would need. The engineering 
staff gave me full cooperation in their efforts to assemble the 
materials I needed. This support became even more complete when, 
after I had gotten fairly well into the situation, I told the board 
that the completion of the work I had undertaken would require more 
time than had been anticipated and that I was willing to go ahead 
or to drop out as they might desire. I also stated that if I did go 
ahead, I had found that I could not work satisfactorily with the 
attorney of the department and did not care to proceed unless it 
was agreed that my work would be free from any limitation by the 
attorney. This made me high man with the engineering staff. 

This somewhat lengthy discussion of the conditions under which 
my work for the Denver Water Department was carried out consists largely 
of matters of personality which should be separate from engineering 
results. These conditions affected the extent of the work I had to 
do and the procedure under which I had to do it. The recognition of 
these conditions is an essential part of the understanding of the results 
of my work. 

My work for the department was the basis for five items in my 
bibliographical file. These are: Item No. 99, "Review of Report of 
October 31, 1953 Depletion of Surface Water Supplies of Colorado West 

of the Continental Divide, by Raymond Hill." The review is da ted Nov. IT, 
1953, U2 pages; Item No. 100 "Office Report on Moffat Tumnel Water Supply 
of the Denver Water Department," June 5, 195^, 135 pages and 15 tables; 
Item No. 101 "Office Report on the Wfcter Supply of the Blue River 
Project of the Denver Water Department," June 15, 195^, 178 pages 
plus 5^ tables; Item No. 102 "Office Report on South Platte Sources 
of Water Supply of the Denver Water Department," July 15, 195^, 227 
pages plus 52 tables; Item No. 177 "Bimder containing correspondence 
and miscellaneous materials relating to my part in these proceedings. 

In both the Moffat Tunnel and the South Platte sources, Denver 
secured vater from a number of individual rights. For the proposed 
Blue River supply it was necessary to coasider the existing rights 
that might be affected by Denver s diversion. This condition explains 
the length of the reports in Items 100, 101, and 102. These reports 
were inventories of the stream flows involved, the existing rights to 
their use and my conclusions on the extent of the water supply Denver 
might secure from each source. 

Hill made a good report on the extent to which available projects 
using Colorado s share of the run-off of the Upper Colorado River 
Basin might be expected to deplete the available water supply. Hi 11 
found that the 3,855,375 acre feet of mean annual supply by which 
Colorado could deplete the Upper Basin stream flow under the terms 
of the Upper Colorado Compact would not be available to Colorado. 
The terms of the 1922 Colorado River Compact requiring the Upper Basin 
to deliver 75,000,000 acre feet to the Lower Basin in each 10 year period 
could not be met with feasible amounts of carryover storage if Colorado 
used its full supply. Hill concluded that Colorado s usable share of 


of the water supply vould be limited to an average of 3,100,000 acre 
feet per year. He found that the extent to which Colorado might 
eventually use its available supply would depend on the extent to 
which costs for irrigation projects might be subsidized. Hill 
concluded that if subsidies to agriculture, for either western 
slope use or trans -mountain diversion, should be as large as $600 
per acre, Colorado could use its full compact supply. Larger 
subsidies could result in developments having water requirements in 
excess of the compact supply. For cyclic regulation to enable full, 
use to be made of Colorado s water supply, carry over storage for 
periodslonger than 20 years would be required. 

In my review of Hill s report I agreed generally with his method 
of analysis. Hill found a water supply available for Denver s pro 
posed Blue River project without damage to the western slope unless 
subsidies for western slope projects exceeded $600 per acre. In 
1953.> a subsidy to irrigation exceeding $600 per acre was generally 
considered to be above the limit of possibility. 

Hill s report was made in 1953 and reflected general 
views regarding limiting costs of irrigation projects and of the 
subsidies to irrigation which would be justified. It is interesting 
to compare Hill s results with present (19^7) conditions. Authorizations 
for projects in western Colorado have been included in the bills before 
Congress in i^f-f and 196?. Five projects have been proposed having 
costs allocated to irrigation varying from $^30 to $1710. The interest 
subsidies proposed under the terms of repayment to be used would 
average about 75$ of these costs. Congressman Wayne Aspinall is the 
chairman of the House. He represents a western Colorado district. 
These projects were included in bills which started out to authorise 

development in the lower basin, particularly the Central Arizona 
Project. There are grounds for concluding that the inclusion of 
these projects in Western Colorado was related to the approval of 
the lower basin projects by the chairman of the House Committee. 

Hill s report served a useful purpose at the time it was 
made. His conclusion that Denver s Blue River project could divert 
Blue River water without preventing feasible projects on the western 
slope from obtaining a water supply removed much of the heat from the 
eastern-western slope controversy. The result of Hill s report, in 
my opinion, is still (196?) sound on the extent of subsidies which 
can be justified for irrigation in areas of generally short growing 
season and limited returns. 

The report on the Moffatt Tunnel Water Supply brought together 
estimates of the extent of the supply which could be obtained from 
the various interception canals on the western elope in both directions 
from the western portal of the Moffatt Tunnel. Estimates of cost 
were included so that the relative economy of the separate sources 
could be compared. Specific recommendations regarding additional 
construction were not made as such conclusions depended on the similar 
results for the Blue River and South Platte sources. 

My work on the Moffatt system supplies had an added interest to 
me as I had worked in the area for the U.S.G.S. in 1910. Some of 
the stream gauging stations I had established in 1910 were on the 
sources of supply of the Colorado Big Thompson project of the USBR as 
well as sources diverted through the Moffatt Tunnel. 

The report on the Blue River system was completed in June, 195^ 
before the final decision of the Colorado Supreme Court on the appeal 
of the Blue River adjudication had been made. Consequently, assumptions 

had to be made regarding the relative priority of Denver s projects 
and the Green mountain storage of the USER. 

Originally, Denver s Blue River project had been based on an 
upstream portal at an elevation above Blue River with a collection 
canal intercepting the main tributaries above Dillon. The computed 
capacity of the tunnel under the grades resulting from this location 
was 788 second feet. I proposed lowering the upstream portal to the 
elevation of Blue River and constructing a diversion dam only on 
Blue River as the first stage. The reduction in tunnel grade would 
reduce the tunnel capacity for this first stage to about 500 second 
feet. This capacity would meet Denver s needs for several years. When 
a greater supply became needed, storage could be built at Dillon to 
submerge the tunnel inlet and restore the tunnel capacity by the pressure 
head created by the adopted storage. This program would have deferred 
the cost of storage for a substantial period with a material saving 
in interest costs. 

The Blue River tunnel has been constructed on its original grade 
and the initial construction has included a reservoir at Dillon of 
sufficient depth of storage to submerge the tunnel inlet. The 
decisions relating to these matters were made after the completion of 
my work on the project. 

The Colorado Supreme Court decided thet the change in Denver s plan 
from collection canals to storage at Dillon represented a new appro 
priation and gave it a priority of the time of the change. This change 
had been made in the plans to replace the collection canals after 
the date of the federal appropriation for Green Mountain Dam. This 
made Denver s appropriation Junior to Green Mountain storage. The 
original application by Denver was senior to Green Mountain. Procedure 

to make the substitution of storage at Dillon an amendment of its 
earlier project without loss of priority, might have given Denver 
a senior right to Green Mountain and placed Denver in a much better 
bargaining position vith the USER. 

The USER also had a suit to establish its senior right in 
Green Mountain over Denver s Blue River project pending in the 
federal court. Efforts to negotiate a settlement of this suit 

were made in 1955- At the request of the Denver Water 
Department, I attended a meeting in Washington involved in these 
negotiations on September 12 and 13, 1955- 

This case being in the federal court, the Department of Justice 
was in charge rather than the counsel of the USER. Justice was 
represented by J. Lee Rankin, its solicitor, and Wm. H. Veeder, an 
attorney of the department. Both were advocates of federal control 
of water. At the session which I attended in Washington the discussion 
related largely to restriction which Denver was being asked to accept 
as a condition of any concessions relating to the Blue River supply 
by the U.S. These restrictions generally would require Denver to 
use its other sources first to their full extent. This would not 
be out of line with Denver s natural operations. The proposed restric 
tions went further and would have made the U.S. the judge of when 
Denver might need and could take Blue River water. After extended 
discussion on this basis at the meeting, I suggested that the subject 
of discussion was Denver s rights in the Blue River supply and that 
the question of whatever other water rights Denver might have was 
irrelevant. I was promptly sat on by Rankin. I was not invited to 
later meetings. 

The Washington meeting lasted 2 days and ended without final 


agreement. We went back to Denver. Mosley and I prepared a joint 
memorandum on Denver s position which we supplied to Harold D. Roberts, 
the attorney in charge of these negotiations for Denver. In this 
memorandum, Mosley and I stressed that any stipulated decree on Blue 
River should be limited to water rights on Blue River without restric 
tions on Denver s use of its Moffatt Tunnel and South Platte sources. 
Roberts agreed with our position and said he would litigate the 
case before he would concede any such restrictions. This discussion 
was on September 29, 1955 in Denver. I had returned to Denver at 
Mr. Roberts request. 

I offered to arrange my other matters so I could stay over for 
meetings scheduled for the following week if Mr. Roberts felt that I 
could be useful. Roberts said he thought this would be unnecessary 
and I returned to Berkeley. 

My next contact with this matter was a letter from Mosley dated 
October 10, 1955 stating that a stipulation in the federal court case 
had been signed. On October 20, 1955 Mosley sent me a copy of the 
stipulated decree with a letter stating that the board desired me to 
review the decree in detail and to prepare a supplemental report on 
the effect of its terms. 

I read the decree and replied to Mosley on October 2h, 1955 
declining to review the decree as it practically placed the control 
of Denver s several sources of water supply in the discretion of the 
U.S. I suggested that as the USBR would operate this decree that 
the best report Denver could secure would be to arrange to have it made 
by the USBR as this would represent the nearest available Interpretation 
of the decree by the agency that would direct its operation. This 
letter was the last work I did for Denver on its water supply problems. 

Mr. Roberts had been retained for these negotiations. His work 
was not tinder the direction of Glenn Saunders, the full time attorney 
of the board. My difficulties had been with Saunders. Roberts was a 
member of one of Denver s largest law firms, a thorough gentleman and 
competent lawyer and negotiator. Roberts suffered a heart attack about 
half an hour before the stipulations were signed and died shortly 
thereafter. The Blue River Tunnel was named the Harold D. Roberts 
Tunnel by the board in recognition of his work on this project. 

To me, the change of position by Denver in the last week of these 
negotiations has never been understood. I had no part in the closing 
procedure and have no detailed account of the negotiations. In view 
of Mr. Roberts high standards I can only conclude that he was not in 
the physical condition to stand up under the strain that was involved. 
That he exhausted himself in this matter is indicated b his heart 
attack at its conclusion. 

Much of the correspondence and other material relating to my part 
in the 1955 negotiations is in Item 177 of my bibliographical file. 
In my opinion, the results of this procedure is an illustration of 
the confusion and difficulties that result when self seeking attorneys 
attempt to negotiate engineering matters. In this case, the attorneys 
for the U.S. appeared to be more interested in asserting their authority 
than in finding an equitable solution of the controversy. I was not in 
on the final meetings and have not heard of the reasons why the Denver 
Water Board accepted this i-stipulated decree. Some of its provisions 
were not physically determinable or enforceable. 

Since 1953, the Roberts Tunnel has been built and a reservoir at 
Dillon has been constructed. It is understood that some amendments 
have been secured to the stipulated decree clarifying some of its 

provisions. Water has been diverted through the Roberts Tunnel in 
recent years. 

The third source of vater supply for Denver on which I reported 
in 195^ vas the South Platte River. Denver had substantial rights 
in the run-off of the South Platte above Denver. The main rights were 
in the supply of its storage reservoirs. I reviewed all existing uses 
above Denver in an effort to find some of such uses which could be 
acquired and transferred to Denver. I found no substantial amount of 
unappropriated water remaining available. Conditions for purchase and 
transfer of some existing uses by others offered some promise but did 
not represent enough water to meet Denver s future needs. 

Denver had been inactive in the acquirement of additional water 
from the South Platte since the 1930 s. In the meantime, the towns 
along the South Platte had been growing and had acquired rights for 
their own use. There had been a material increase in the pumping from 
the ground water in the area above the point of discharge of Denver s 
treated sewage into the South Platte. This pumping had reduced the 
return flow in this portion of the river. However, Denver s sewage 
returns had been increasing so that lower uses had not felt the effects 
of the reduction in return flow. 

When I found these conditions and reported them verbally during 
the preparation of my report I found that the staff of the department 
had been unaware of what had been occurring. Denver was rationing 
its service in order to conserve its supplies but no efforts had 
been made by Denver to participate in the general water use from wells 
along the South Platte in its vicinity. I urged active investigations 
of such sources and some work was done. The status of rights to the 
use of percolating ground water in Colorado were too uncertain in 

for procedures to prevent such pumping to become effective promptly. 
Such a supply might have carried Denver over its period of 

The three main reports vhich I made for Denver were necessarily 
lengthy as the extent of the sources at the pointjof diversion had 
to be developed with consideration of existing rights in order to 
estimate the supplies which Denver might secure. These reports 
were labelled "Office Reports" to distinguish them from the overall 
official report to be prepared by Mr. Howson s firm. The results in 
my reports were used by Howson in his report with adequate credit given 
to me for the use of the results of my work. I did not participate in 
the drafting of Howson s report. 

My work for Denver was interesting and, in my opinion, worthwhile. 
Much of what I did or was able to get done by the department staff 
should have been prepared and ready for my analysis as a part of the 
regular work of the department in securing full recognition of Denver s 
existing rights and in making plans for additional supplies. Except 
for my difficulties with the attorney of the board all of my personal 
relationships in this work were very pleasant. The spirit of help 
fulness was good although the results in some instances were not all 
that I had expected would be available. 

Opinions at this time on how Denver might have handled its water 
planning and program prior to 1955 are now beside the point. The 
stipulated Blue River federal decree is an existing fact. The Roberts 
Tunnel has been completed and the terms under which Blue River water 
may be diverted by Denver are established by such terms and their later 
clarifications. A report on Denver s sources of water supply made at 
present (196?) would start on an essentially different basis than the 


conditions under which I made my 195^ reports and vould reach essentially 
different conclusions on the conditions controlling such sources. Any 
present usefulness of my reports is in their assembly of water supply 
records and estimates for the critical period of 1931-1952. Essential 
changes have occurred in the conditions of 195^ which affect any 
present conclusions regarding Denver s future water supply program. 


Late in 1951 I was asked to serve on a consulting board to re 
view the reports that had been made on the drainability of the lands 
that had been included west of the Des Lacs River in the Missouri - 
Souris project of the Pick-Sloan plan for the Missouri River. Water 
for these lands would be diverted from the Missouri River near the* 
Montana line. The lands involved were north of the Missouri River 
extending to the Canadian line. To the east of the Des Lacs River 
the project included lands west of the Souris River and within the 
Souris River loop. 

The lands west of the Des Lacs River had been generally recognized 
as controlling the feasibility of this project. Without the inclusion 


of these lands the cost of service to lands further east would have 
been increased. The Crosby-Mohall unit, as this western area was named, 
included the Bowbells area in which the USER had concentrated its 
investigations as a representative area for the whole unit. 

This project was a part of the development of the Missouri River 
authorized in the 19^ Flood Control Act. This plan was a compromise 
plan agreed to by the USER and the USED, to separate and define the 
work of these two agencies relating to the use and control of the 
Missouri River. This plan has been known popularly as the Pick-Sloan 
Plan. Its terms are understood to have been worked out by Gen. Lewis 
A. Pick, then Division Engineer at Omaha of the USED and W.G. Sloan, 
an engineer representing the USER. It has been referred to as a "shot 
gun wedding" of these two agencies. It had for its purpose, defining 
the functions of each agency in tfais area so that appropriations 


could be sought by each without conflict with the other. In broad 
terms, the U.S.E.D. was to build the main Missouri River reservoirs 
and handle navigation. The USER was to control the irrigation projects 
and the disposal of power to be generated at the U.S.E.D. dams. 

The details of the Pick-Sloan Plan had been hastily worked out 
without adequate investigations. Appropriations were secured from 
19^5 to 1950 by both the U.S.E.D. and the USER for some units. 
Garrison Dam was well along in construction by 1951. 

Support locally for the Missouii-Souris unit has been stimulated 
and the project had been actively supported by interests in the towns 
within the project area. Delegations had been sent to Congress in 
support of appropriations for this project. To 1951 these efforts had 
been unsuccessful. 

Doubts regarding the feasibility of this unit appeared to have arisen 
in the USSR. A special report had been made on the Bowbells Block 
of the Crosby-Mohall unit in August, 1950. This report was prepared 
by USER staff personnel. Its conclusions were unfavorable to this 

In September, 1951 W.G. Sloan made a report for the North Dakota 
State Water Conservation Commission rebutting the conclusions of the 
August, 1950 report of the USER. Sloan had been employed by this 
Commission to advise it regarding the feasibility of this unit. 

The differences between the USER and Sloan led to an agreement 
between North Dakota and the USER to sponsor jointly a review of the 
issues involved and particularly to report regarding the drainability 
of the glacial till soils that would comprise the area to be irrigated. 
This board was to consist of members who had not had any previous 
direct connection with the problems of the Bowbells or Crosby-Mohall 

area. The members appointed consisted of: J.L. Burkholder, formerly 
drainage engineer for the USER and then engineer of the San Diego 
County Water Authority; H.E. Selby, then of the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Census Bureau, formerly with the agricultural colleges of 
Oregon and Montana; and myself. Mr. Selby vas in charge of the irri 
gation census in the Department of Commerce. 

The appointments of the members of the board were completed on 
December 3, 1951. As little could be accomplished in the field 
during the winter in the project area, the first meeting of the board 
was held in Salt Lake City on February 6 and 7, 1952. This meeting 
was attended by representatives of the USER and North Dakota, the 
board was supplied with copies of past reports and a program for its 
procedure was worked out. Later, April 21 to 30 and May 26 to June U, 
1952, were spent in the project area and in office studies in Minot 
and Bismarck. The conclusions of the board were generally worked out 
by the end of our second session in North Dakota and I was asked to 
prepare a draft of our report. I did this on my return to Berkeley 
and the report was completed by correspondence. A copy of the 
pertinent correspondence is bound with the report. 

California does not have soils similar to the glacial tills of the 
lands in this project. These are compact, have only limited permea 
bility and have what we would call a hog wallow type of surface. There 
are many enclosed areas in which ponds form, either temporarily after 
rains or permanently. This soil has weathered to a depth of 12 to 18 
inches. If levelled for irrigation much of the unweathered subsoil would 
be exposed giving a variable rate of absorption under flooding methods. 
Sprinkling had been proposed but its costs could not be met by the crop 
returns obtainable under the local climatic conditions. 

The title of the board s report is "Suitability for Sustained Irri 
gation of Lands in North Dakota West of the Des Lacs River." The irri 
gation of about 1,000,000 acres was involved in the decision whether 
the Missouri - Souris project should be built. All of this area was 
not west of the Des Lacs River. However, the omission of the western 
area made the proposed canal through the Missouri Bad Lands to reach 
the remaining area impractical. 

The board concluded that because of conditions relating particularly 
to drainage but including also consideration of such factors as soils, 
topography, alkalinity and cost of works, the lands were unsuitable for 
sustained irrigation. The board defined sustained irrigation as permanent 
irrigation successfully maintained over an indefinitely long period. 
The board also concluded that an attempt to change the present dry 
farming to an irrigated agriculture would culminate in eventual losses 
to the land owners resulting from inability to successfully maintain 
an irrigated agriculture, from losses of expenditures made by the 
farmers to convert present dry lands to irrigation and from losses 
due to a reduction in the value of a large part of the lands as a 
consequence of alkali accumulations in the surface soils. 

The conclusions in our report were approved and adopted by the 
North Dakota State Water Conservation Commission. There have been no 
further efforts made to secure the construction of the Missouri - 
Souris unit as originally included in the Pick-Sloan Plan. 

Some lands further east which were included in the original project 
consist of reworked till in lake deposits and have better permeability. 
As a replacement for the original Missouri - Souris project a plan had 
been worked out for the Garrison Project for which authorization is now 
(196?) being sought. This project would divert by pumping from an arm 

of the Garrison Reservoir and carry the water pumped east and north to 
the eastern portion of the Missouri - Souris area and to land further 

The report of our board was the final stroke that killed the 
Missouri - Souris project. The patient was in dying condition before 
our board was appointed and had only been revived by Sloan s effort 
to justify his original plan. The unusual feature involved is that 
the irrigation of these lands, with their necessarily high costs 
for irrigation, should have been included in the first place. 

The board requested that Sloan meet with them and present his 
position. This was done on May 29 and 30, 1952 in Minot. Sloan con 
tended that the Missouri - Souris unit having been authorized by Congress, 
there was not authority below Congress to change it. If this contention 
was correct there would have been no purpose in the appointment of a 
board. We rejected Sloan s position. 

I kept requesting the USER to supply the board with the report on 
which the Missouri - Souris unit had been included in the Pick-Sloan 
Plan. My insistence finally secured this report. It showed that the 
inclusion of some 1,000,000 acres as irrigable had been based on a total 
of some 19 soil borings. 

After 19^ and prior to the work of our board the USER had made 
very extensive land classifications and soil investigations. They had 
used equipment to excavate what amounted to shafts in the glacial till. 
We were lowered in these holes so that we could observe the character 
of the subsoil in place. The USER had also operated an experimental 
farm at Bowbells to demonstrate the results of irrigation of these lands. 
This had not been in operation long enough to produce conclusive results 
at the time of our work. 

Our board conceded that, if irrigated, it might take some time 
for the lack of drainability of these soils to have its effect. We 
consequently inserted the term "sustained irrigation" in the title of 
our report. 

The present agricultural practice of this area is adjusted to the 
local conditions. Grain is dry farmed, generally successfully, with 
occasional loss of crops in period of drought. The results of the 
drought of the 1930 s were still vivid memories locally in 1952. We 
concluded that an attempt to irrigate these lands might ruin a fairly 
successful dry farming area to be replaced by alkaline wastes resulting 
from irrigation. 

In going over these lands the absence of livestock on the farms 
was very noticeable. Grain is seeded by tractor, hooking a disk plow 
behind the tractor followed by a harrow and a seeder. Once over pre 
pares the ground and plants the crop. The owner is then free to spend 
the winter in Florida if he does not have any livestock on the place 
to require attention. Even if these lands were irrigable it would be 
very hard to convert those operating under such practices to the more 
intensive requirements of irrigation. A population turnover usually 
follows such a radical change in agricultural practices. 

I found this a most interesting assignment. The board received 
a very cordial reception from all local interests. The agencies in 
volved were all cooperative. I had covered the Missouri River area 
in 1936 for the National Water Resources Committee (see Item No. 69 of 
my bibliographical file entitled "General Report on District 8 com 
prising the Drainage Area of the Missouri River down to and including 
the Platte River.") In 1936, Fort Peck reservoir was under construction 
and the proposed projects in the Dakotas were generally local municipal 

supplies of small local irrigation projects on the tributaries of the 
Missouri. The concept of a chain of major flood control reservoirs 
generating pover had not been conceived or proposed in 1936. Between 
1936 and 19^4- the large amounts of federal funds that had been made 
available for construction to relieve unemployment had changed public 
thinking on water resource development and plans to meet the large 
scale development had begun to take shape. Congress had accepted fed 
eral responsibilities for flood control which opened the door to secure 
such non-reimbursable funds. By 19^, these changes had enabled the 
U.S.E.D. and the USER to put together the Pick-Sloan Plan and to 
secure its authorization. 

This complete change in the public concept of the federal function 
in water development in the eight years from 1936 to 19kk should serve to 
raise doubts in the minds of present day planners who are so sure 
they can predict the future for the next 50 years or more. We will not 
know the form our future water development may finally take until it 
has been practially completed. By that time planning will have re 
duced to improvements in the details of the existing developments. 

While the correct decision was finally reached on the Missouri- 
Souris unit, it is, in my opinion, unfortunate that it was recommended 
by the USER and included in the 19^4 authorization of the Pick-Sloan 
Plan. From 19^4 to 1952 much promotional effort was expended by the 
local interests in attempting to secure appropriations for the project. 
The larger part of this local support came from the towns in the areas 
rather than from those actually farming. This type of chamber of 
commerce promotional effort is not unusual in areas having an established 
dry farm economy when a change to irrigation is proposed. The west 
side of the Sacramento Valley is an illustration in California of this 


In September, 195^., I was appointed as a member of a three man 
consulting board to report on the drainability of about a half million 
acres in the then proposed Oahe Unit. These lands consisted gener 
ally of glacial till subsoils having very low permeability. 

The other members of the board were J.R. lakisch and C.E. Jacob. 
Mr. lakisch had been drainage engineer for the USER for many years. 
I had known him when he was making a report on Kings River in 19^0 
for the USSR. Jacob was on the faculty of Brigham Young University 
at this time. He had been with the U.S.C.S. His particular 
specialty was the mathematics of ground water movement relating to 
formulas for the spacing of drains. The USER desired someone working 
in this field on this board. 

The board met in Huron, So. Dakota on September 27, 195*4. The 
board worked in Huron to October 8 reviewing reports and examining 
conditions in the area involved. Later meetings were held in Denver. 
The report was completed on December 31, 195^. 

The proposed Oahe Unit would pump from the backwater of the Oahe 
Dam and convey the water pumped easterly to the areas to be served. 
Three general classes of land were included. These had been classified 
by the USBR as (l) glacial till extending to bed rock; (2) lands of 
glacial till materials containing aquifers above the bed rock and 
(3) lake plain lands derived from lacustrine deposits. There were 
about 300,000 acres of the first class, 110,000 acres of the second 
class and 1^0,000 acres of the third class. 

The board reached unfavorable conclusions regarding the drain- 

ability of the first class. This land had not weathered to a sufficient 
depth to furnish drainage above the more dense till arid drains would 
have to be spaced too closely in the till to be feasible. For the 
lands containing aquifers above the bed rock it was proposed to 
construct wells in the aquifers and pump them heavily enough to 
permit vertical drainage through the overlying till. The board 
also reached an unfavorable conclusion regarding the permanence 
of successful irrigation on such lands. 

The lake plain soils were reworked till and alluvial deposits 
which had a better permeability than the other two classes of land. 
The board agreed that there lands could be tile drained. The USER was 
proposing drains at a nine foot depth. The main item for the board 
became a decision on what spacing of such drains would be required to 
be effective. 

The USER had derived a spacing of 360 feet from the use of 
mathematical formulas which attempted to select numerical values for 
the factors involved. Much judgment was required in the selection 
of these values of these factors and the members of the board differed 
in their individual conclusions. 

All of the board s report except the spacing of drains in the lake 
plain soils was worked out without disagreements between the members. 
A final meeting was set to attempt to resolve the differences on spacing. 
As the conclusions of the members of the board differed relatively 
widely the members were not willing to use the average of the three 
results. The situation was finally resolved by agreement on all features 
of the report except this drain spacing. Each member of the board 
agreed to prepare the support for his own conclusion to be attached 
to the report. lakisch and I did this- Jacob agreed to do it but did 


not submit his material by the time the report was due so the other 
results were filed without Jacob s support or his conclusions. Provision 
was made for Jacob to file his results later but this was not done. 

In discussions Jacob stated he had concluded that the tile would 
need to be on a 225 foot spacing to provide effective drainage. Nty 
conclusion was 2^0 feet. The difference in these two results could 
have been compromised. lakiach concluded that a spacing of 330 feet 
would be effective. All these results were the result of the Judgment 
of each member of the board based on his experience and the results 
of the USER studies. We were not able to find other areas of till 
soils in which drains at nine foot depths had been installed. 

The instructions to the board limited its work to matters of the 
drainability of the lands involved. We were not asked to report our 
conclusions of the general feasibility of the project. I was very 
glad to have this limitation. The project costs will necessarily be 
relatively high as a result of the distance water has to be conveyed. 
To add $200 per acre or more for the cost of a drainage system would, 
in my opinion, result in total costs in excess of the benefit. The 
area to be served in the Oahe Unit was revised to exclude the first 
two classes of land and other lands of better quality were added. 
Efforts to secure authorization of the project have continued and are 
still (1967) pending. 

While the board was working in Huron we met with the governor and 
other sponsors of the project. We were given a booster s dinner attended 
by the South Dakota U.S. Senators and Representatives of the towns to 
be included in the project. It was noticeable at this dinner that the 
speeches in support of the projectwere made almost wholly by business 
interests in the towns. Only one or two actual farmers who would use 

the water spoke. 

As a result of my vork on this board I reached the conclusions 
on the items assigned to the board which are expressed in its report. 
On matters not assigned to the board I reached the conclusion that an 
attempt to irrigate the late plains lands would not have a value to these 
lands equal to the cost of the irrigation system. I also concluded 
that the irrigation of these lands involved risking that the 
final result would be the replacement of a generally successful and 
well established dry farming agricultural practice, 
with an eventual reduction of the total returns from the area. 

The title of the board s report is that used as the title for 
their comments. A copy is Item No. 103 in my bibliographical file. 
Copies of pertinent correspondence are included with the report. 

The work on this board was interesting. We had full cooperation 
from all of those with whom we worked. Even the differences among the 
members of the board regarding the spacing of tile drains never became 
personal. Each member of the board recognized the difficulty of 
reaching a specific conclusion on this item and was willing to 
recognize that the other member could differ from his conclusions 

The net result of the report of this board was the exclusion of 
the two classes of land from the project. This result could well have 
been reached by the USBR without having such a consulting board. 
However having such a board made it easier to present the results to 
the local interests. 


The work I did in vestern Kansas has been mentioned in Part I 
(p. 9 ). These results have been long forgotten but may be worth 
some discussion as an illustration of the way in which some federal 
investigations originated in that period. 

Senator Curtis of Kansas was up for re-election in 1912. Prior 
to the Kansas primaries he secured the insertion in the appropriation 
bill for the U.S. Department of Agriculture s Irrigation 
Investigations of a provision that the availability of the money 
appropriated for these investigations should be conditional on the 
preparation of a report on irrigation from reservoirs in western 
Kansas. This provision remained in the appropriation bill as it 
was passed. To meet this requirement R.D. Robertson and I were 
transferred from California to western Kansas in August 1912 after 
we had completed our work on the report on the land and water 
resources of California. (Bulletin 25^ mentioned on p. 8 and 9 of 
this history. ) 

Looking for reservoir sites in western Kansas resembles seeking 
storage on a pool table. The area was flat, local streams had only 
limited runoff and, except for the over developed Arkansas River, 
there were few streams from the west flowing through Kansas. 

By the time we reached Kansas on this work Senator Curtis had 
already been defeated in the primaries so he had no further interest 
in this work and we had no interference by him in our results. 

Robertson and I covered western Kansas searching for possible 
reservoir sites. We found a few possibilities. These were insufficient 
to form the basis of a storage report as we discussed everything else 

relating to the climate and water supply. Our report was published in 
1913, as S.D. 1021 of the 62d Cong. 3d Sess. It met the requirement 
of the appropriation act but had little other usefulness. A copy is 
Item No. 2 in my bibliographical file. 

One interesting result to me was the opportunity to examine the 
conditions in the Garden City Project of the Reclamation Service. 
The original Reclamation Act required the receipts of the U.S. Land 
Office used in the Reclamation Fund to be spent in the states from 
which they are received. As there was still much activity in acquire 
ment of public lands in Kansas it was necessary for the U.S.R.S. to find 
a Kansas project. They selected one based on using ground water pumped 
from wells in the Arkansas Valley near Garden City and conveyed to 
adjacent mesa lands. 

The plans for the spacing of these wells and the conclusions re 
garding the adequacy of the replenishment of the ground water were 
based on the results of work by C.S. Slichter of the U.S.G.S. Slichter 
was a professor of mathematics at the University of Wisconsin. His 
method is described in WSPl^O on "The Rate of Movement of Underground 
Waters," 1905- 

Slichter used the time it took injections into a central well to 
reach surrounding wells to determine the direction and velocity of the 
ground water movement. From his tests at Garden City he concluded 
that there was an available supply with limited drawdown for the 
proposed project. 

The Garden City project had been built and had operated for a 
year or two prior to 1912. The draft on the wells resulted in a greater 
drawdown and a slower replenishment than had been expected. The in 
creased lift increased the pumping costs and the cost of water became 

greater than the land owners were willing to pay. The operation of the 
project had been stopped in 1912. 

In this area generally profitable results can be secured from dry 
farming except in years of deficient rainfall. The landowners preferred 
to take their chances on the weather rather than incurring the costs 
of the irrigation project. Irrigation was being practiced from this 
ground water supply in 1912 by the local sugar company which had 
spaced its wells farther apart and was not pumping them as hearily 
as the U.S.R.S. had attempted. 

The water users in the Garden City project had contracted to 
repay the costs of the project. After operation closed, these 
contracts were clouds on the land titles until Congress eventually 
wrote off the cost of the project and released the land owners from 
their liability under their contracts. 

I visited this area 50 years later in 1962. The sugar company 
wells were still operating on the river valley floor and the U.S.R.S. 
project was a distant memory. 


From 1928 to 19^0 I did some work for Los Angeles on the suits 
brought against it by landowners in the Owens Valley. My work was 
supplemental to that of the other expert witnesses of the city and 
occurred only intermittently. 

In 1928, suits had been brought against L.A. by Dodge and Dearborn 
alleging damage to the ground water supply under their lands resulting 
from the draft on the city s wells for export to Los Angeles. I was 
called in after the cases were approaching trial on the classification 
of the lands involved. Chas. Shaw, head of the soils department at U.C. 
had been sought for this work. As the rules of the College of Agri 
culture did not permit such work by its faculty members, Shaw rec 
ommended me. I made an examination of these lands in Sept. 1928, 
worked up my results in October and testified briefly at Bakersfield 
on October 13, 1928. Later some questions arose regarding damage to 
trees in the orchards on these lands and I was asked to find a plant 
pathologist and take him over the area. I secured Wyatt and accompanied 
him on his field work in Dec. 1928 and attended court again in Bakers- 
field on Dec. 20 and 21, 1928. I attended court again on Jan. 8 and 9, 
1930, and testified for about 15 minutes. 

These cases were handled for L.A. by multiple attorneys each tending 
to follow his own views of how to try the case and by several engineering 
and geological experts each pursuing his own investigations. By the 
time the case had progressed to the point where ray testimony would 
have followed in order, it had become apparent that the judge was 
becoming weary with the excess of proof presented. I was asked to 
curtail my material and I testified only on the general climatic variations to 


which this area was subject. With so many prima donnas in the case, 
I still remember the embarrassment of the city s attorneys when they 
requested that I shorten my testimony. They had expected that my 
feelings would be hurt and were relieved when I expressed full agree 
ment with their request. The city lost their cases as they had the 
other similar cases in the valley. 

In 1939, I was asked to prepare testimony for the city in 
the Hillside Water Co. case. This company alleged that the pumping 
from wells by L.A. lowered the ground water under their lands and that 
this resulted in their having to irrigate earlier in the season. They 
claimed that the use of cold stream flow in these earlier irrigations 
retarded their plant growth and reduced their yield. The case had 
been tried in the lower court. L.A. had lost and had appealed and 
won a retrial. My work was in preparation for the retrial. 

I went over the lands involved in Sept. 1939 and reviewed the 
records of the earlier trial in the L.A. office. I made another 
field trip in April, 19^0 to observe early season growing conditions. 

In the period of iny work on this case, there were indications that 
the plaintiffs were receptive to a settlement out of court. The 
payment suggested for such a settlement was less than the city s cost of a 
retrial would be. I urged Van Norman to make such a 
settlement. L.A. had taken such a beating in every damage suit tried 
against them by a jury that Van Norman very understandably wanted to 
win at least one case. He thought the Hillside case could be won and 
wanted to have it tried. He finally consented to a settlement and the 
case did not go to trial. This ended my work on the case. 

While I was working in the field on the Hillside case, the suit initi 
ated by interests in Owens Lake over the inflow to the Lake in 1938 

was under trial in the valley. On one of my trips, I was asked to 
testify in the case without having time for proper preparation. I 
was asked what my answers would be to certain hypothetical 
questions. I stated my opinions and was headed for court that morning 
until I asked how I was to handle my cross-examination as I had only 
a hearsay basis for my answers. This ended any plan to use me in this 
case as it was expected that the trial would be finished before I would 
have time for adequate preparation. Actually the trial dragged along 
and I could have prepared myself for testimony. This was the case in 
which L.A. was sued for permitting waters to reach Owens Lake in a 
year of large runoff after all inflow had been diverted for several 
years. The court found that those using the lake had had reasonable 
grounds for expecting L.A. to prevent further inflow and that L.A. 
was liable for the damages resulting from inflows in excess of the 
needs of L.A. This decision was appealed and upheld. It is the only 
case I know of in which damages were assessed against a defendant for 
not diverting water. Suits for wrongful and excessive diversions have 
been common. This case is the reverse of the usual cause for damage. 


In 1955, I was asked to make a report on the water supply and 
distribution system for this district. The district included the 
city of Carlsbad and adjacent areas. The Carlsbad Mutual Water Co. 
secured water from wells. The municipal water district had been 
organized as a unit in the San Diego County Water Authority. Its 
only prospective source of an adequate water supply was through the 
Authority as a member of the M.W.D. In 1955, the only source of water 
supply of the M.W.D. (Metropolitan Water District) was the Colorado 

I completed my report on Jan. 30, 1956 . At that time there 
was a relatively heavy promotional urge to expand irrigation and other 
uses of water in San Diego County in ordar to secure the speculative 
returns then obtainable in land prices based on the expectation of 
securing the additional water supplies. 

The Colorado River water supply from the Colorado River available 
to the M.W.D. would all be needed in a few years by the units in the M.W.D. 
While surplus water could be obtained in San Diego County up to the 
capacity of its constructed aqueduct until other demands in the M.W.D. 
increased, such a surplus would not be a basis for permanent development. 
In 1955, water from northern California was only a proposed project 
and the time when it might become available was unknown. 

On the basis of these conditions, I advised against constructing 
any larger distribution system than could be supplied by the Carlsbad 
M.W.D. s share of the Colorado River water supply on which it could 
count. In my opinion, this was sound advice to follow until an additional 
source of water supply was sufficiently definite that it could be 
relied upon to be available at a defined time. 

My advice was not what promotional interests in the area desired. 
The completion of my report ended my work for this district. 

Since the date of my report, bonds for the construction of the 
state s Feather River Project have been voted and the project is 
under construction with a delivery date of 1972 in southern California. 
The additional water which will be obtainable from this project will 
enable San Diego County to receive a sufficient water supply to meet 
its needs for an increased development over that which can be supplied 
from the Colorado River. 

My report for the Carlsbad M.W.D. in 1957 is Item No. 107 in my 
bibliographical file. 


The Suburban Water Systems is a public utility supplying water 
service to areas in the vicinity of Whittier. It owned lands and 
wells in the area of the Whittier Narrows flood control reservoir 
of the U.S. Corps of Engineers from which it pumped water to non- 
overlying lands for municipal use. 

The Whittier Narrows Dam is on the San Gabriel River below the 
San Gabriel Valley area. Its purpose is the control of floods from 
the drainage areas below the upper San Gabriel reservoirs and possible 
spills from such upper storage. Such regulation will be needed only 
infrequently to prevent flooding in the coastal plain below the 
Narrows. Any water stored at the Narrows would be released as 
quickly as it could be carried by the Rio Hondo and San Gabriel 
channels without damage. The period of storage at the Narrows would 
be relatively short, generally only a few days. The storable flows 
at the Narrows since the construction of the dam there have been 
relatively small. The Whittier Narrows dam represents insurance 
against the infrequent major floods on the San Gabriel drainage area. 
Its cost would not have been economically justified on most streams. 
The extensive development of the coastal plain below the Narrows and 
the great damage that would result from overflow was found by the Corps 
of Engineers to jtetify the project cost. This conclusion was questioned 
at one time by state engineer Edward Hyatt. 

The depth of storage in the Narrows Reservoir is small enough that 
wells can be protected by earth mounds extending above high water. Such 
protection was planned for the wells of the Suburban Water Co. When 
the company and the army engineers were unable to agree on the value 

of the flowage easement on the company lands and the cost of the 
protection of its wells, a condemnation suit was brought to deter 
mine the value to be paid. The army engineers did not seek to condemn 
the water rights of the company. It was recognized that the flooding 
of the proposed mounds around the wells would be too infrequent to justify 
condemning the ground water supplies. 

I was asked by the Suburban Water Co. to prepare testimony for 
them on the value of the water right of their wells in the area being 
condemned. As these water rights were not being condemned, at first, 
I did not see any need for their valuation. However, the procedure 
being used required the valuation of the total property involved 
before condemnation and after, the difference representing the damage 
to the owner. Although the value of the water rights would be the 
same in both of these valuations, if they were not taken or damaged 
by the condemnation, it was necessary to have such valuations in 
this form of procedure. 

I undertook to prepare such testimony. I was involved only in the 
valuation of the water rights. Costs of construction of the protective 
mounds and land values were handled by others. 

The valuation of water rights as separate properties is difficult, 
since there is no established market for water rights similar to the 
market for lands. The value of water rights is usually individual de 
pending on the dependability of their supply and the opportunity to 
transfer their use. Individual sales that may be found vary widely. 

I did the usual assembling of sales of water rights for which 
prices could be derived where conditions resembled those involved in 
this case. I found supported sales varying generally from $800 to $2000 
per miners inch (l/50 of a sec. ft.). I concluded that the water supply 

of the wells at issue was dependable and title to its use was established. 
I placed a value of $1500 per M.I. on these rights if they were to be 
sold for other uses. 

The mounds proposed to protects these wells represented some 
problems in access at time of storage in the reservoir. I concluded 
that a willing buyer having the choice of buying either these water rights 
or another otherwise equivalent source not subject to much storage 
would be willing to pay 10$ more for the alternate sources. Consequently 
I reduced my appraisal of these rights with the reservoir by 10$ from 
their value without the reservoir. 

I began work on this case in January, 1957- The trial was held 
in June, 1960. The condemnation had been filed in 1951. I did preliminary 
work in 1957, made my appraisal in 1958, had various conferences 
with the attorneys and other appraisers in 1958. I was then inactive 
for about- 18 months until I was asked to testify in June, 1960. In 
1958, I had presented my conclusions which did not appear to agree with 
the plans and policies of the company in this case and I had under 
stood that no further work on my part would occur. I was in agreement 
with this conclusion. In a letter to the attorney for the company 
dated May l6, 19^0, I continued to recommend that I should not testify. 
When my testimony was restricted to the basis previously stated I agreed 
to participate. Having incurred costs to the company on this work, I 
felt obligated to testify if my evidence was kept within the work I 
had done and the conclusions I had reached. The company concluded that 
the testimony I would give would aid their case. 

My work on this case introduced me to what had become almost a 
separate branch of legal practice in southern California. With the 
extended program of freeway construction, condemnation cases for rights 

of way had become numerous. Various law firms had specialized in this 
branch of practice as it had its own rules and precedents. Business 
for the appraisers of the value of the lands to be taken was also 
active. These conditions carried over into the Suburban Water Co. 

I have had no further connection with this case since 19^0. The 
award was made and I understood was paid. Its amount was about what 
the army engineers had offered. It is my understanding that submersible 
pumps in sealed wells were installed by the company in its wells 
instead of constructing the proposed mounds around the wells. In the 
years since 19*50, there has been only limited amounts of storage in 
Whittier Narrows Reservoir. 


In April, 1965, I was asked by the Cawelo Water District in Kern 
County to make a report on their ability to pay for water from the 
state project. Such water was to be purchased through the Kern County 
Water Agency. At that time, applications to the Agency for such a 
water supply were expected to be made by July 1, 19^5 ^ was 
considered by the district that my report would need to be completed 
by June 1, 1965. This restriction on the time available to make 
such a report made it necessary for me to adopt the results that had 
been made on other comparable projects to the conditions in the 
Cawelo District. Time was not available for me to make my own 
economic studies of local conditions in the district. I had worked 
in Kern County previously for the state both in water supply 
investigations and in water storage district procedures and was 
familiar with the general physical and economic conditions in the 

Boyle Engineering was the engineer of the Cawelo district. Their 
Bakersfield office was directed by T.S. Mattock. Robert E. Price had 
done most of the work on the Cawelo District. Leeds, Hill and Jewett 
were the consulting engineers of the Kern County Water Agency with 
Myron Holburt as resident in charge. 

Boyle Engineering had proposed an estimate of the location and 
cost of a conveyance conduit from the state aqueduct near Tupman 
across the valley and its extension into the southern part of the 
Cawelo District. At that time it was not planned to extend the local 
distribution system into the northern part of the district until 
development there resulted in a need for additional water. 

I received copies of various reports that had been made by the 
USBR on its C.V.P. units, by the state on other proposed units of its 
project and by local interests. David Weeks had made reports on some 
of the proposed Kern County units of the Agency and Leed, Hill and 
Jewett had made reports on the overall agency service. I found eleven 
reports of these types whose results could be compared and applied to 
the Cawelo District. 

Interpretation of the results in these reports was needed in 
applying them to the Cawelo District. The USBR had used a different 
basis for their estimate of ability to pay than other agencies. 
Because it would be inconsistent to base its estimates on farm sizes 
in excess of l6o acres as long as the USBR supports the use of the 
1^0 acre limitation of the reclamation law, the USBR develops its 
result on a farm budget basis for such farms. Other agencies usually 
estimate the acres of the different crops to be grown and derive a 
price for water which they conclude each crop can afford to pay. The 
USBR results are usually somewhat lower than those of the other agencies 
as a result of the method they have felt compelled to use. 

My report was completed by June 1, 19^5- A copy is Item No. lU6 
in my bibliographical file. I met with the members of the board of 
directors of the Cawelo Water District on June 10, 19^5 for a lengthy 
and frank discussion of the results of my report and the problems of 
the district. 

The Cawelo District included about ^7,000 acres lying north and 
east of the areas under Kern River Canals. It had about 30,000 acres 
under regular irrigation from wells and an additional area of about 
10,000 acres was dry farmed. The soils are good. In 19^5> cotton and 
alfalfa were the principal crops. Pumping from its underlying ground 


water began about 193^. Overdraft soon developed. Good yielding wells 
were obtainable in all parts of the area. By 1950, the existing wells 
had depths of 1^00 feet or over. The static lifts varied from 150 
to 350 feet. By 1?55, the average lift was about UlO feet. 

In 1965, the Cawelo District represented a well developed area 
with an overdraft on its only available ground water supply. This 
development had been profitable to date. The practice could be 
continued for some undefined length of tine with a rapid rate of 
ground water lowering and eventual exhaustion. To prevent such a 
result some imported source of water supply was needed. 

The state project water would be available in 3 or U years and 
offered the only source of imported supply then definitely in prospect. 
The area in the district is also within the service area of the 
proposed USBR East Side Canal. This canal is a definite project of 
the USBR but had not been authorized in 1965. It could well be 20 
years before deliveries from it would be available in this area. 

The alternates faced by the district in 19^5 consisted of 
(l) continuing to use their lowering ground water for perhaps the 
next 20 years in the hope that the East Side Canal would then make 
available water at a lower cost than bringing water from the state s 
canal on the west side of the valley, or (2) avoiding such ground water 
depletion by buying enough state water to meet its overdraft during 
the next 20 years, with the anticipation that the additional water can 
be purchased to meet the ultimate needs of the district from the East 
Side Canal. Water purchased from the USBR would include acceptance 
of the l6o acre limitation unless a change in this law is made. This 
should not be a serious problem in this district by the time the East 
Side Canal supply may be secured as the supplemental supply from the 

US3R could be used on the acreage within the acreage limitation. 

I presented these alternatives to the "board at a meeting on July 10, 
1965. I pointed out that it was their property which was involved and 
that the decision on what action should be taken should be made by 
them. My report included results on what water from the state s 
project would cost and my conclusion regarding their ability to meet 
such costs from the crop returns obtainable from its use. As the 
present operators are generally well organized business enterprises, 
I told the directors that their own books could give them a better 
answer regarding what they could afford to pay for water than conclu 
sions I might reach from general cost and return studies. 

I advised the board that based on the information then available, 
if I was a land owner in the Cawelo District, I would support application 
for state water and the cost of its conveyance to the district. Before 
a final contract for such a supply should be made further cost and 
other studies should be undertaken. These conclusions are discussed 
in my report. 

The cost of state project water to the Cawelo District will be 
higher than to the lower lying units on the west side located more 
nearly along the main state canal. This larger cost to the Cawelo 
District is , in my opinion, more than offset by the extent of 
present development. The land owners in the Cawelo District have 
already incurred the cost of development of their own lands. This 
cost cannot be recovered except by continued operation. These land 
owners can and probably would continue their operation as long as 
they can earn their operating costs. They can forego interest on 
their Investment as the investment would be lost if operation is 
abandoned. The early development of the Cawelo area has resulted .in 


its lands having a good cotton history so that the continued growth 
of this crop can be anticipated. This may be a major advantage in 
comparison with the undeveloped west side units lacking cotton history 
for their lands. There has been enough citrus planting in the Cawelo 
District to indicate that much of its area is adapted to such crops. 
Citrus plantings have been increasing rapidly in recent years. 

In my report, I derived an estimated payment capacity of lands 
in the Cawelo District of $U2.25 per acre foot for the conditions 
of full development. I also derived an estimated cost of state water 
delivered at the farm headgate of about $33 P*r acre also delivered 
at the farm headgate. The cost of state water would be higher than 
the estimated cost of continued ground water pumping. 

These are all relatively high costs in comparison with the similar 
estimates prepared when the plans of the C.V.P. were made. They are 
several times the $3-50 per acre foot for Class 1 water under the 
Friant-Kern Canal. This $3-50 price was derived on the basis of the 
ability of the irrigators to pay in the same general area. 

This wide difference is due to the effect of several factors. 
Inflation between 19^0 and 1965 is one. The USER Class 1 water price 
also represents the ability to collect rather than to pay. A third 
factor is the increase in acreage yield that has occurred between 
these dates. 

In the work for the state in Kern County in the early 1920 s, a 
yield of 3*5 to U.O tons per acre for alfalfa was a good project average. 
In 196^, the report of the Agricultural Commissioner of Kern County 
reports an average alfalfa yield for the county of seven tons per acre. 
A similar result is shown for cotton yields. 

As a result of my report for the Cawelo Water District, I was 

asked in July, 1965 to make a similar economic report on the Sunflower 
Valley Water District. This is a small district on the west side, west 
of Devil s Den, which planned to secure water from the state canal. It 
was entirely undeveloped at this time. I advised the person desiring this 
report that the conditions there were quite different than in the 
Cawelo District and a similar favorable conclusion on my part could not 
be relied upon. It was arranged that I should make a brief preliminary 
investigation and report and that a decision of my making a more com 
plete investigation should be deferred until my preliminary results were 
available. I made a brief report on July 29, 19^5 based on a three day 
investigation. I was paid for this report and have heard nothing 
further from those for whom my report was made. It is my under 
standing that an option had been taken on these lands in the hopes 
that they could be sold to some Hollywood interests. When my report 
was received, this plan was not completed. The arrangements for my 
work were made by telephone and correspondence and I did not meet 
any of the principals involved. My local work was aided by Mr. Glen 
Stoller ; Agr. Lab of Bakersfield, who had made soil tests of the district 
lands and took me over the area as well as supplying me with the results 
of his tests. A copy of my preliminary report on the Sunflower Valley 
District is bound with my report on the Cawelo Water District (item 146 
in ray bibliographical file.) While my report on the Sunflower District 
has not been released for general use, it was made on a public district 
and should not be classified. 


In November, 1962, I was asked by John Lynch, attorney for the 
San Lorenzo Valley County Water District, to prepare an appraisal of 
the above water rights for use in the pending condemnation suit 
of the District seeking to acquire the properties of the Citizens 
Utilities Co. used in the service of lands in the District. I had 
worked with Lynch on the appraisal of the water rights of the Nigger 
Hill ditch in the Folsom Reservoir area when he was an assistant U.S. 
Attorney in the office of the U.S. Attorney for Northern California. 
I undertook to make such an appraisal. I went over the properties 
involved in late 1962 and reviewed available reports and other records 
in early 3 9^3- Work was then suspended pending a decision regarding 
procedure to be followed in which the Citizens Utilities Co. sought 
to have the District s complaint in condemnation dismissed. When the 
District was sustained in its form of procedure I resumed work in 
March, 196^ and continued intermittently until June, 1965 vhen the 
case was settled by negotiation. I made a deposition at the request 
of the Citizens Utilities Co. on Dec. 8, 196U and a report to the 
District in January, 19^5- 

The Citizens Utilities Co. secured its water supply for its 
Boulder Creek Division from different sources. The most important 
issue in the appraisal of the value of the water rights were the 
supplies secured from several local streams where the Utilities Co. 
owned the watershed lands. These lands had been dedicated to public 
service as protection to the quality of their runoff. The value of 
these lands for rate purposes had been determined by the P.U.C. based 

on this dedication. The P.U.C. rate base used the cost to the utility 
of these lands. 

As the runoff of these lands had also been dedicated to public 
use, it was not available for sale in the open market. A purchaser, 
other than a local district which could relieve these waters from 
their obligation of public service, could only use this water supply 
for the continuation of its present use and could not transfer it 
to other uses. This limited the available purchasers to an organi 
zation, such as the San Lorenzo Valley CWD, which could relieve the 
utility of its obligations for public service or to a succeeding 
utility whose earnings would be limited by the value of these lands 
which might be included in the rate base. 

The ownership of watershed lands as a means of protection of 
the quality of their runoff was an early California practice. Both 
the Spring Valley Water Co. serving San Francisco and the East Bay 
Water Co. serving the East Bay area acquired extensive areas of the 
watershed lands which they used for this purpose. These acquirements 
were made when land values were low and the dependability of water 
treatment less fully accepted by the public. 

Both of the above companies have been acquired by public agencies 
by negotiated purchase. The valuation of such lands subject to their 
dedication for public use in condemnation proceedings has not been 
directly before the courts. As population increases and general 
land values increase, a point will be reached eventually where lands 
become too valuable for other purposes to be used only for the protection 
of the quality of their runoff. 

The Citizens Utilities Co. had not sought to be relieved of its 
dedication of its watershed lands from their obligation of public 

service. As long as this dedication continued, I considered that 
their value in a sale to a succeeding public utility would be based 
on the value used in the rate base. I also considered that a pur 
chasing public agency should not be penalized by being required to 
pay more for these lands than their earning value under their 
existing uses. 

The issue involved in the valuation of the water rights based 
on the ownership of the watershed lands in this case is a difficult 
one. The purchasing public agency should not be required to pay more 
for the properties to be acquired than their worth to their present 
owners under their obligations for public service. The utility should 
be entitled, by some means, to service similar recognition of the in 
crease in land values that other lands have received. When the amounts 

at issue become large enough , the remedy where available 
would generally be to secure a substitute water supply or to treat 
the local runoff and thus release the lands from their dedication to 
public, service. 

My report is entitled "Appraisal of the Water Rights of the 
Boulder Creek District of the Citizens Utilities Co. Prepared for 
the San Lorenzo Valley County Water District." A copy of this report 
is Item ihh in my bibliographical file. In this report I attempted 
to discuss their conditions and issues. 

I did not participate in the negotiations in which a settlement 
of this case was reached. The price agreed to be paid by the district 
was higher than the sum of the valuations placed on the parts by the 
appraisers for the District of the different parts of the property to 
be acquired. I have not to date (1967) learned of the basis on which 
the terms of the settlement were reached. 


This 231 page book was published in July, 19^0, prior to the 
voting of the $1,750,000,000 of state bonds to construct the Feather 
River Project. Its history goes back into the 19^0 s. 

When California was approaching the end of its 100 years of 
statehood in the 19^0 *s, a program was developed by the University 
for a series of books covering different phases of California s 
history. Prof. Herbert Bolton was in charge of this program. Some 
18 subjects were outlined. One of these subjects was water. 

Prof. Bolt on asked me to prepare an outline of what should be 
included in such a book on the history of water in California. I 
did this. The outline appeared to fit the program that was in mind 
and Bolton asked me to preapre this volume. I accepted this request 
and completed such a manuscript in 19^9- 

My manuscript had been written to include chapters on the history 
of the different uses of water in California. It also included material 
on the extent of California s water supply and some comments on its 
future use. This brought out the difference between the treatment 
of such a subject by an historian and an engineer. My manuscript 
was not accepted for the centennial series. The University s plan 
for an extensive series was also not completed. 

I dropped any plans for using the material I had assembled in 
preparing my 19^ manuscript for several years. Finally in the later 
1950 s, I resumed work on this material as an individual project. In 
the intervening years the state had proposed its state water plan and 
there were additional matters in the water field in which there was 
increased public interest. 

I completed my later manuscript in 1959 and submitted it for 
comment to some of those active in its field. Eventually, I made 
arrangements with the National Press of Palo Alto for its publication. 
Its publication was completed in July, 1960. About 1500 copies were 
printed. These had all been sold by 19^3 It has not been reprinted 
or revised. 

In writing the published volume I was free of the historian s 
restrictions of being only a reporter of facts. I included material 
on the extent of California s water supply in relation to its ultimate 
needs and my own analyses and opinions on the matters of public 
interest in its subject field. 

The reviews of the book were all favorable. However, such reviews 
did not result in enlarged sales. The book has been well distributed 
in libraries and among those active in water matters. It was pre 
pared mainly as a factual treatment of the matters discussed. It 
lacks the glamour of threatened catastrophies if unrestricted water 
developments are not undertaken. It was not intended to promote an 
increased rate of development of individual projects that were being 
proposed. It attempted to discuss the water conditions of the state 
and the pending problems relating to water on a factual basis. 

In my opinion, the book has met its purpose. It will be used 
mainly as a reference source for its subject and time of publication. 
Its historical background will remain useful regardless of the 
character of our future development. 

In the seven years since the publication of this book, rapid 
progress has been made in the construction of water projects. These 
have been largely by state and federal agencies. No book in this 
field can remain up to date for any lengthy period of time. This is 


true of this book and it should be revised before it should be re 
issued at this date (1967) or later. When the state has completed 
the construction of its Feather River Project and the USSR has received 
authorizations of its proposed additional projects may offer a good 
time for such a reviev of the conclusions expressed in 1960. The 
time when the completion of present active projects may occur is too 
far in the future for any consideration on my part of preparing such 
a revision. 

In any later discussion of water matters in California, a greater 
extent of attention will need to be given to sources of water supply 
outside of California which it is being proposed should be imported. 
The proposed Pacific Southwest Water Plan has injected much different 
standards of feasibility than those considered in our projects in 
1960. Such a regional approach is mainly a development since 1960. 

One of the gratifying results of publishing such a book as 
"Water in California" is the unexpected expressions of appreciation 
to which it may lead. The following is a copy of a letter I received 
in May 196? from an engineer I did not know: 

"This is just a note to thank your for having 
made the effort to write "Water in California" back 
in 1960. Quite by accident I found the book in our 
public library and have just finished reading certainly 
with pleasure and, I trust, with profit. It feels 
good to gain the historical perspective the book 


Work which I was doing in the western Great Basin beginning in 
1915 aroused my interst in its enclosed lakes. Over the years, as 
time was available, I made field trips to these lakes trying to work 
out their fluctuations over periods longer than those covered by our 
direct stream flow records. I also made library searches for reports 
from which the past stages of these lakes could be identified. 

The results of my work in this field were prepared in typed 
reports on each lake. Copies of these reports have been filed with the Water 
Resources Center Archives. Copies are also in my bibliographical 
file. The results for the lakes in the western Great Basin were 
combined in a report entitled. "Recent Variations in the Water Supply 
of the Western Great Basin." This was published in 1965 as Water Resources 
Center Archives Series Report No. 16. The purpose of this publication was 
to make available the results of my observations. Some of these 
results, such as the ring counts on trees killed by the rise of some 
of the enclosed lakes, cannot be duplicated now as the trees have 

This publication also includes my own conclusions regarding 
the variations in their water supply that have occurred in the recent 
past that can be applied to the extent of variation that should be 
provided for in present projects in this area. Anyone interested in 
this field can use the records presented to reach their own conclusions. 
The factual material I had found is presented; others may reach differ 
ent conclusions using this material. 

The area covered extends from Goose Lake to Mono Lake, a distance 
of about 300 miles along the eastern face of the Sierras. It extends 


eastward into the Great Basin as far as Huiriboldt Sink. 

The records indicate variations within the area. 
Some parts may have excess runoff at times when others have a de 
ficiency. This is to be expected as the more southern parts of the 
area are within the area of influence of storms from the southwest 
while the northern parts reflect the effect of more northerly climatic 
conditions. The overall picture is one of extensive variations, both 
annually and for a series of years, in all parts of the area. 

Publication no. l6 also contains comparisons of the water supply 
variations found in the western Great Basin with those in the different 
areas surrounding this area. The adjacent variations are generally 
similar to those in the Great Basin. This publication also compares 
the available results of tree ring observation in the area covered 
with the results based on fluctuations of the enclosed lakes. The 
tree ring observations available were generally made in the 1930 s 
and may not represent as careful results in the selection of trees 
in critical locations as present practice in this field. It was 
found that different tree ring results may not be consistent with each 
other. While the width of the tree rings may be a general indication 
of the extent of the annual precipitation, other factors affect tree 
growth. The available tree ring results did not appear to represent 
a directly useful basis for estimating the annual stream flows. 

From the records assembled in Publication l6, I concluded that 
the seven years, 1929 to 1935, vere probably the most deficient period 
in water supply in the past 300 to ^00 years in this area. Any project, 
now proposing to use the water supplies of this area should be planned 
on the basis of limiting its shortages to amounts which can be endured 
in such a seven year period. 


The records in this area also indicate a long period of deficiency 
extending into the 18^0 s. The details of the records during this 
period are not adequate to define the shortages that may have occurred 
in parts of this longer period. It does not appear to be probable 
that any seven years prior to the 18^0 s had as severe a deficiency as 
1928 to 1935. 

While the interest in individual projects is mainly in the periods 
of deficiency, the periods of excess also have interest in this area. 
The length of the periods of deficiency are too long to enable the 
variations to be equalized by storage even if sites above the areas 
of use which could be built at low cost were available. Such storage 
would be subject to evaporation, and the surplus runoff stored in 
periods when it was available might be lost before it was needed 
in periods of deficiency. 

The enclosed lakes into which the streams of the western Great 
Basin discharge represent carryover storage of the variable runoff 
which nature has provided without costs for construction. The extent 
of the present uses of this inflow is resulting in a marked lowering 
in nearly all of these lakes. However no extent of diversion of this 
inflow which can now be foreseen will result in intercepting all of 
this inflow and the excess years will continue to maintain enclosed 
lakes in their present areas. Such lakes will have smaller areas 
than those in the pre- development period and their water will continue 
to have an increase in dissolved solids as it becomes more concentrated. 
The present water in the enclosed lakes is too high in dissolved solids 
to be usable for irrigation. In time this content may become high 
enough to affect fish life in these lakes. This condition has already 
been reached in Mono Lake. 


My work on the enclosed lakes of the western Great Basin re 
presents a very rewarding part of my experience. The field of water 
supply and water rights in which much of my engineering practice 
was involved is necessarily one of controversy in an arid area where 
the supply is almost always less than the demand. It was a relaxation 
to try to work out the past history of the enclosed lakes from the 
clues which nature had left regarding their fluctuations. Nature 
does not talk back to those who try to read her history. Nature will 
not disclose all of her record but she will not deceive the investigator. 
Nature will let the investigator mislead himself without protest. 
These conditions provide a pleasant stimulus to efforts to read 
nature s records of the past. This stimulus is generally free 
from the conflicts of individual self interest in the results. I am 
glad I had the opportunity to do the work I have done in the field on 
the enclosed lakes. This occurred at a time when the conditions 
were more nearly those existing prior to development than they will 
be in the future. 


In 1936, I was appointed chairman of a research committee of 
the American Geophysical Union on evaporation from ater surfaces. 
This appointment probably resulted from the work I had done on the 
evaporation from Tulare and Buena Vista Lakes in California. These, 
with later results on some of the enclosed lakes in Nevada and Cali 

fornia, represented the use of the lake fluctuations at times of 
measured or zero inflow to define the evaporation. The results were 
the evaporation from large water surfaces as distinguished from 
results from observations with various forms of evaporation pans 
or computations based on heat budgets. 

This committee had 12 members from various parts of the U.S. 
We were never able to have a committee meeting. In June, 1937, 
six members attended a meeting of the Hydrology Section of the 
AGU in Denver and held an informal partial meeting of the committee 

The membership of the committee was as follows: Harry F. Blaney, 
N.W. Cummings, Robert Follansbee, J.A. Folse, Robert E. Horton, Ivan 
E. Houk, R.E. Kennedy, G.F. McEwen, Carl Rohwer, C.M. Saville, Thorndike 
Saville, and S.T. Harding, Chairman. 

Several of the members had their own formulas or methods of de 
riving evaporation. As chairman I handled most of the work of the 
committee by correspondence and acted as moderator in arguments re 
lating to the views of the members. 

Cummings was a physicist on the faculty of the San Bernardino 
Valley Junior College. He was an advocate of determining evaporation 
from records of solar radiation. He had been the joint author with 


Burt Richardson using I.S. Seven s approach based on this method. 

Cummings applied his method by observations for one season on Bear 

Lake in Utah made in cooperation with the Utah Light and Power Co. 

It took him as long to work up his computations as the period during 

which he made his observations. A manuscript copy of his results 

which he made available to me has been given to the Water Resources Center 


Folse was with the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago 
and had a method based on his work with Hayford for deriving the 
evaporation from the Great Lakes. Some of his results have also been 
given to the Water Resources Center Archives. 

Horton was retired from the U.S.G.S. and had his own hydrology 
laboratory at Voorheesville, N.Y. which he operated as an experiment 
station at his own expense. He was a vigorous supporter of his views. 
Our correspondence and meetings were always interesting. 

Kennedy had been state Engineer of North Dakota and was then 
working for the USER on special studies. He had also developed 
individual ideas on evaporation. 

MeEwen was with the Scripps Institute of Oceanography at La 
Jolla and was working on evaporation from the oceans. 

Blaney was with the Irrigation Investigations of the U.S. Dept. 
of Agriculture. He had done extensive work on the consumptive use 
of irrigated lands and have been associated with A. A. Young in the 
same organization on his work on evaporation from water surfaces. 

Follansbee was the District Engineer of the U.S.G.S. at Denver 
and had worked on evaporation in that area. Houk was with the USBR 
and had compiled the available results on the USBR projects. Rohwer 
was also with the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, stationed at Fort Collins, 


Colo. He had continued Sleight s work there. C.M. Seville was the 
engineer of the Hartford Water Co. in Connecticut; Thorndike Saville 
was a member of the faculty of New York University. 

The committee had a wide and extensive background in its field. 
Evaporation was a subject of widespread interest in the 1930 s resulting 
from the increasing use of storage projects in whichit was a factor. 

While there was much divergence in the opinions of the individual 
members of the committee we all agreed that some publicly supported 
and extensive program should be undertaken in an attempt to secure 
comparisons of the different methods being proposed. l*he first need 
in such a program was some large water surface where the records of 
the other elements of inflow and outflow enabled the evaporation to be 
computed as the missing item in the water supply balance. 

The Committee prepared a report on such a proposed program of 
investigations in March, 1938. This was published in the Transactions 
of the 19th Annual Meeting of the A.G.U. Both Walker Lake in Nevada 
and Lake Elsinore in California were suggested as lakes where the 
evaporation could be derived from the inflow records. Neither lake 
had appreciable inflow. 

The program proposed by the committee was not undertaken at 
that time. It probably had some influence later on the undertaking 
of the similar program at Lake Hefner in Oklahoma. In my opinion, 
there is still a need for a similar program undertaken within the 
arid areas of the western U.S. 

In the 1930 s there was an active awakening of general interest 
in the field of hydrology. No adequate book on this subject was then 
available. With the support of the National Research Council, Oscar 
E. Meinzer undertook the editing of such a volume. Meinzer was then 


in charge of ground water investigations for the U.S.G.S. The resulting 
volume entitled "Hydrology" became Vol. 9 in the Councils Physics of 
the Earth Series. The first edition was published in 19^2. The third 
impression was printed in 19^9* 

Recognizing the broad coverage of the field of Hydrology, Meinzer 
prepared an outline of the chapters to be included and asked different 
individuals to prepare the chapters. There were 2k co-authors of the 
book as published. 

In 1936, Meinzer asked me to prepare the chapter on evaporation 
from water surfaces. I undertook to do this using the availability 
of the evaporation committee to secure comments and suggestions re 
garding what should be included. I prepared a draft of this chapter 
and circulated it in the committee. The final draft as published 
consisted of 26 pages in the volume. 

About all that could be done in a chapter on evaportation com 
pleted in 19UO was to report "on the state of the art." None of the 
methods of computing evaporation from solar radiation had been establi 
shed by comparison with actual results on large water surfaces. All 
types of pan observations required the use of factors to convert the 
results to the evaporation for open water surfaces. Such coefficients 
were fairly well established for the amounts of annual evaporation but 
results applicable to monthly losses were lacking. The extent of the 
effect on the evaporation from shallow and deep water resulting from 
heat storage in the deeper lakes and reservoirs had not been determined. 
Some of this information is still incomplete. 

The chapter on evaporation in Meinzer s Hydrology, in my opinion, 
represents a reasonably good progress report for the time at which it 
was prepared. It would not be recommended being a similarly adequate 


treatment to be prepared at the present time. 

Meinzer also asked me to prepare the chapter on Lakes for his 
Hydrology. This request was the result of my work on the enclosed 
lakes of the Great Basin. I agreed to prepare this chapter. As it 
needed to cover lakes in general, I included material I could assemble 
from other areas. In my opinion, this chapter did not contribute 
much to the quality of the volume except fertile portion relating to 
lakes in the Great Basin where I was more at home. 

No book with 2U separate authors will have an even quality in its 
several parts. Meinzer s authors were well selected. Some did a better 
job than others. A few of the original authors selected failed to sub 
mit their assignments on time and late replacements were made. Some 
chapters read as it they had been dictated without detail study of 
their subject matter. Overall the volume served a useful purpose. It 
probably stimulated interest as well as understanding in its field. 
At present, it represents one step in the development of this field. 
Its usefulness has now been reduced by more recent publications. 

The most distinctive contribution which I consider I have made in 
the field of evaporation was a short paper published in the Journal 
of Irrigation and Drainage Division of ASCE in March, 1962. This is 
entitled "Evaporation from Pyramid and Winnemucca Lakes." It com 
pares the results for the monthly evaporation from Winnemucca Lake 
just before it became dry and had a shallow depth with that from the 
deeper Pyramid Lake. The amounts of annual evaporation for these two 
adjacent lakes are in good agreement but the monthly results vary. 
Winnemucca Lake had about a foot greater evaporation in the early 
season months and about the same amount of lesser evaporation in the 
late season months. This is the result of heat storage in Pyramid 


Lake with later release. This comparison was made possible by the 
observations made by E.P. Osgood on Winnemucca Lake as it vas {.".oing 
dry. I made the computations to derive the evaporation results used 
in this paper. 

In the 1950 s, extensive investigations relating to evaporation 
were made at Lake Hefner in Oklahoma. Results obtained by heat bud 
get methods were compared with the evaporation from the lake derived 
as the unmeasured item in its water supply budget. Generally satis 
factory results were secured. 

The USBR has been attempting to determine the evaporation from 
Lake Mead as a part of its operation of the Boulder Canyon Project, 
immeasurable bank storage prevents the computation of evaporation as 
the only missing item in the water supply balance. The methods 
used at Lake Hefner vere tried at Lake Mead. It is understood 
that the extent of the observations and computations required in 
this method has resulted in the continued use of evaporation pan 

The methods based on solar radiation and sometimes referred to 
as "heat budget" determinations involve measurement of the incomins 
heat supply. instruments enable such records to be secured. 
Hot all the incoming solar heat is absorbed by the water and a less 
certain item for back radiation to the sky needs to be included. 
While the heat budget methods have a sound theoretical basis, they 
have not been developed for convenient use in the usual practices of 

The usual present practice in the measurement of evaporation is 
baser] on the observations of the loss from pans. Several different 
types and sizes of pans have been used. At present the Class A U.S. 


Weather Bureau pan has been generally adopted. This is a U foot in 
diameter pan set on the ground surface. It has a water surface area 
of about 12 sq.. ft. Floating pans have been used but have been found 
to ge difficult to maintain. If floating pans are adequately protected 
from wave action they will also be, at least partially, protected from 
wind action. 

Reservoir areas from which evaporation occurs may have areas of 
several square miles. A Class A pan has an area of about one-23 
millionth of a square mile. The evaporation pan is, in effect, a 
model of the evaporation -from the larger water surface. The model 
scale is very small and too close agreement between the model and 
the prototype should not be expected. However, the results of ob 
servations with evaporation pans usually show consistent annual 
results with the evaporations from adjacent large water surfaces. 

U.S. Weather Bureau Class A pan results are now generally avail 
able in the general vicinity of nearly all areas where evaporation- 
results are needed. J.E. Chirstiansen at the State University of 
Utah has made and sponsored extensive studies of the relationship of 
evaporation from Class A pans and other climatic factors measured by 
the U.S.W.B., particularly temperature and wind movement. Such results 
can be used to estimate what the evaporation from a Class A pan should 
be for areas for which the other items have been recorded. These 
methods enable the probable evaporation from Class A Weather Bureau 
pans to be derived for nearly all areas in the United States. They 
do not remove the need for interpreting such derived or directly 
observed pan results in terms of the evaporation from large water sur 

While the annual results from evaporation pans are usually 


found to give a consistent result in comparisons with the evaporation 
from adjacent larger water surfaces, similar agreement is not found 
in the monthly results. This is the effect of the difference in heat 
storage in the shallow pan and in the deeper water of a reservoir 
or lake. The annual evaporation from the Class A Weather Bureau 
pan needs to be reduced by a factor of 0.7 to 0.8 to give comparable 
results with large water surfaces. 

Efforts have been made to reduce the evaporation from water 
surfaces by covering them with mono-nuclear films which prevent or 
reduce the vapor movements in evaporation. Such layers have been 
successful where used on small undisturbed areas. Wind movements tend 
to destroy the continuity of the film on open water surfaces subject 
to wind action. To date the problems involved in such methods have 
been economic. The cost of maintaining such a film on large water 
areas has been high in comparison with the value of the reduction in 
evaporation accomplished. 

The water supply available on land surfaces has its origin in 
evaporation from the oceans. Evaporation is an essential item in 
the water supply cycle. Wherever evaporation from water surfaces 
or land areas can be reduced, useful water can be conserved which 
increases the available useful supply. It is not probable that eva 
poration suppression methods will ever be found that will be economically 
applicable to large water areas. There are however, means o f reducing 
evaporation such as storing water in deeper reservoirs of smaller 
areas which may reduce the measureable evaporation losses. 

Evaporation losses are a major factor in the economy of long 
time carryover storage. The complete regulation by storage of the 
usually widely variable runoff of streams in the arid area may not 


produce as much net usable water supply as some lesser extent of 
regulation. The evaporation from the water supply stored in years 
of large runoff may exceed the supply stored if the period before it is 
needed for use is extended. On some western streams not over 80 
per cent of the mean annual runoff can be conserved for a uniform 
annual use. 


Following the decision of the Supreme Court in the Arizona- 
California case, Secretary of the Interior Udall made his first 
report on a Pacific Southwest Water Plan in August, 1963. The 
comments by the affected states were so generally unfavorable to 
this report that a second report was issued in January, 196U 
making changes in the plan proposed in the first report. 

Bills were introduced in Congress seeking the authorization 
of the Central Arizona Project which included various parts of the 
proposed Pacific Southwest Water Plan. California opposed the 
authorization of any new projects on the Colorado River in the Lower 
Basin unless she received a recognition of a prior right for 
H, ^00,000 acre feet per year. After extensive meetings, hearings 
and discussions H.R. ^11, 89th Cong, was introduced by Congressman 
Udall of Arizona on February 9> 19^5 Hearings were held on this 
bill in 19^5 and 19^, it was reported out favorably by the House 
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs in 196^ but did not reach 
the floor for action. 

In 1967 various bills have been introduced in the 90th Cong, and 
hearings have been held by both the House and Senate Committees. To 
date (June, 19^7) agreement on any bill which can be passed does aot 
appear to have been reached. 

On February 1, 1966, I completed a report entitled "The Pacific 
Southwest Water Plan, The Record through 1965." This report conforms 
to its title except that at the time I prepared it I had not secured 
a copy of the 19^5 printed report of the hearing on H.R. k^JI. I had 
general information, however, on the results of this hearing. This 


report is 9f pages and reviews the record to its date. It is Item 

in my "bibliographical file. I may prepare a supplement to this report 

covering 1966 and 19^7 at the end of 1967. 

I was chairman of the subcommittee on regional planning of the 
Water Resources Committee of the State Chamber of Commerce through 
1965 and am still a member (1967). I asked to be relieved of the 
chairmajiship in 1966 as my difficulty in hearing was a handicap in 
conducting committee meetings. I was, and am,a member of the similar 
committee of the Irrigation District Association of California. 

On these two committees I opposed H.R. U671. I was alone in 
this opposition. I discussed my objections to the bill in the 
committee meetings rather fully although it was apparent that 
both committees would yield to southern California pressure and 
approve the bill. I took the position that the members of these 
committees should at least know what they were doing when they acted 
on the bill. 

The issues involved in the Pacific Southwest Water Plan are too 
complex to be discussed here. They are covered in my report on the 
1965 version of H.R. W>71 which is Item 156 of my bibliographical file. 
To date (June, 19^7) I have not released or made any use of Item 156. 
No individual can expect to accomplish useful results opposing the 
extensive and well organized position of southern California. My 
lack of activity in opposing the P.S.W.P. bills was also based on 
my conclusions that any such self seeking legislation could not expect 
to pass and that individual opposition would not affect the outcome. 
To date (June, 19^7) this conclusion has also been justified. 



Except for Acreage limitation, Area of origin, and Evaporation, no 
attempt is made to include general subjects in this index. 

Abel, Stanley, 111 
Acreage limitation, 237-2U1, U89 
Adams, E. G., 190 
Adams, Frank, 179, 188 
Agnew Lake, 6k 

Alameda County Water District, U10-U21 
Alexander, William A., 3^5, 386 
Aldrich, Daniel G. Jr., U32 
Almanor Reservoir, 38 

American Geophysical Union, Research Committee on Evaporation..., 50U 
American Society of Civil Engineers, Committee on National Water Policy, 358 
Area of origin, U31-U37 
Arizona, 168-169 

Arroyo del Valle, kl2 -klk, Ul7 ff. 
^Aspinall, Hon. Wayne, 378 
Associated Canals, Utah, 277 ff . 

Association of Western State Engineers, 11, l6l-172 
Atherton, George A., m 

Bailey, Paul, U2, 89, 112 

Bailey, W. R., 56 

Baker, Donald, 50, 

Ballard, James, 153 

Balzar, Gov. (Nevada), 28 

Bank of America, 205 

Banks, Harvey 0., 33, 33^> 338, 

Barnes, Harry, U8, 50, 98 ff., 1?U, 263-266, 271 ff. 

Barnes, Stanley, 113 

Bartlett, Louis, 2U2 

Barton, Major A. M., 28 

Bgrrigan, Paul D., U38 

Barrows, Harlan H. , 23^-237 

Bechtel Corporation, 323, 403 

Beemer, John, 159 

Berkeley Olive Association, 211-219 

Bi dwell Bar site, 1*38-^2 

Big Bend power plant, 39 

Bissell, C. A., 230 

Blaney, Harry F., 5C4-505 

Bliss, J. H., 36l 

Blue River, Colorado, U52 ff. 

Boca Reservoir, 25 

Boke, Richard, 164, 373 

Bonte, Harmon, 115 

Boone, W. P., U3, 76, 118 

Boswell and Company, 113 

Boyle Engineering, U88-493 

Bowman Lake, lU9 


Brody, Ralph, 3Ul 

Buckeye Irrigation Company, 25^-260 

Buena Vista Water Storage District, 7^, 8? 

Bxmte, Loran Jr., 322, 3UO 

Burns, Joseph I., U48 

Burroughs, Spencer, 129 

Butler, H. G., 38-40 

Cache Creek, 

Cain Irrigation Company, 63 ff . 

Calaveras Reservoir, ^15 

California, University of, 9-11 

California Colorado River Board, 169 

California District s Securities Commission, 273 

California Lands Company, 205 

California Reclamation Association, 295 

California State Conservation Commission, 8 

California State Department of Water Resources, U31, 

California State Irrigation Board, 1*3, 118, 120 

California State Railroad Commission, 218 

California State Reclamation Board, UU7-U50 

California State Water Commission, 1+9, 57, 58, 129 

California State Water Project, U03 ff . , U88-U93 

California State Water Project Authority, 309 ff . 

California Water Council, 295 

California Water Service Company, 211-219 

Carey act, 6 

Carlisle and Company, 79 

Carlsbad Municipal Water District, U82-U83 

Carson River, 29 ff. 

Casper-Alcova Project, 2U6-250 

Cawelo Water District, U88-U93 

Central Valley Project, 51, 108, 136, 175, 180, 227-2^2, 263 ff., 307- 

312, UU3 

Chaff in, A. J., U38 
Chandler, A. E., 10, 128-130 
Chino State Prison, 62-63 
Chowchilla Water District, 272 
Citizens Utilities Company, ky 
Clealum Dam, b 

Cleary, Charles^W., 187, 197, 200-202 
Clover, J. B., 66 
Clyne, J. F. , 88 
Cochran, George T., 223, 23U 
Colorado -Big Thompson Project, 2U6-250 

Colorado Power Company vs. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 131 
Colorado River, 168-169, 317, 399-^01, U82-U83 
Colusa Weir, UU7-U50 
Commonwealth Club, 2Ul 
Conkling, Harold, 67, 3^0 
Cooke, Morris L., 359 
Coolidge Reservoir, 26l 
Corcoran Irrigation District, 128 
Cotton, John A., ^38 
Coyne, D. Joseph, U3, 76, 118 


Cozzens, Howard, 322, 337, 352 

Crocker Huffman Land and Water Company, 20 

Cummings, N. W., 504-505 

Cunningham, John, 223 

Davis, A. P., 69-70 
Davis, D. W., 69 
Delhi Colony, 186 ff. 
Delta -Mendota Canal, 
Denver Water Department, 
Deuel, J. J., 48 
Dexheimer, W. A., 
Dibble, E. F., 407-^09 
Dickinson, Phil, 374 
Dowd, Mike, 169 
Downey, Sheridan, 237, 238 
Dudley, Chester, 322 
Duke, W. D., 110, 157-160 
Dukes, Harry, 25 
Durham Colony, 186 ff . 
Dwinell, Dr., 156-157 

Eagle Lake, lU 

East Bay Municipal Utility District, 69, 285-292 

East Bay Water Company, 285-292 

East Side Canal, 228 

Eastman, Harold V., 272 

Edmonston, A. D., 307, 322, 326, 337 

Eliot, Charles, 243 

Elsinore Valley Water Users Association, 58-60 

Empire Mining Company, 148 

Enderlein, Max, 115, 118 ff . . 

Enerson, Burnham, 308,310 

Engineers Joint Council, 170, 355-384 

Escondido Mutual Water Company, 397, 401 

Etcheverry, Bernard A., 10, 56, 104,, 115 

Evaporation, 504-512 

Excelsior Water and Power Company, 148 

Farmer, Milton, 99 

Feather River, 36-42, 438-442 

Feather River and Delta Diversion Project, 443-446 

Feather River Project, 403-4o6, UlO, U38, 1*88-^93 

Federal Land Bank, 220-222 

Federal Power Act, 65 

Fellows, A. L., ^9 

Fickett, James, 89, 106 

Flood Control Act, 1936, 85 

Follansbee, Robert, 50U-505 

Folse, J. A., 50U-505 

Fortier, Samuel, 9 

Fowler, Frederick H., 67, 

Frenchman Reservoir, lU 

Frew, Arnold, 332 

Friant Kern Canal, 


Friant Reservoir, 23 1 *, 270 

Friedman, Edmund, 358 

Fresno Irrigation District, 1^2, 

Fruitvale Mutual Water Company, 58-60, 62 

Garden City Project, 

Gem Lake, 6U 

Gianeni, William, 33 1 * 

Gibraltar Reservoir, 181 ff . 

Gila River, 25 1 *- ft. 

Gila Valley Irrigation District, 26l 

Gin Chow vs. Santa Barbara, 132, 181-18U 

Goodrich Lineweaver, 375 

Great Basin, 500-503 

Great Western Power Company, 36 ff . 

Grover, N. C., 163, 252 

Haehl, Harry, U8, 52, 56, 10U, 118 ff., 137, 153 
Hall, Gordon, 37 
Holley, H. H., 56 
Hammatt, W. C., 89, 98 
Hancock, Judge, 65 
Harris, Senator, 128 
Harris, Ronald B., 308 
Hatch, Senator, 27 
Hecke, G. H., 187, 201 
Hedger, Harold, 308 
Henderson, George, 308 
Henderson, H. H., l8l ff. 
Henny, D. C., 2k y 159 
Hermann, Fred C., 10U, 105, 286 
Herminghaus Case, 122 ff. 
Heron, Alex R., 187, 201 
Hill, Louis, 263 

Hill, Raymond A., l8l, 257, 362, 363, 37 1 *, 375, 
Hillside Water Company, U80-U81 
Hinds, Julian, 358, 362 
Hoak, Richard D., 371 
Holsinger, Henry, 3^1 
Honey Lake, lU 

Hoover Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch..., 377 
Hoover Dam, 318 
Hoover Ranch, 52 
Horner, W. W., 360, 363 
Horseshoe Dam, 259 
Horton, Robert E., 50U-505 
Houk, Ivan E., 50^-505 
Huber, Walter L. , 68 

Hyatt, Edward, 11, te ff., U6, 59, 6l, l6U, 168-169, 2^3, 295, 298, 
307, 309, 310 

lakisch, J. R. , U72 

Ickes, Secretary of the Interior, 308 

I ekes vs. Fox, 22 


Indian Wells - Fremont Water Storage District, 70 

Irrigation Districts Association of California, 12, 128-130, 36? 

Irrigation District Securities Commission, l6o 

Irving, James, 181 ff. 

Isabella Reservoir, 48, 85, 91 

Jacob, C. E., 472 

Jamison, R. H., 58 

Jastro, 48 

Jennings, William, 407-409 

Johnson, Hiram, 219 

Journal of Electricity Power and Gas, 21 

Kansas, 476-478 

Kaweah Delta, 140 

Kaweah River, 54, 56 

Kempkey, August, 104, 323 

Kendricks, Senator, 246 

Kennedy, R. E., 504-505 

Kern County, 48 ff . 

Kern County Farm Bureau, 48, 78 

Kern County Land Company, 48, 79> 137 

Kern County Water Agency, 488-493 

Kern River, 48 ff., 91 

Kern River Water Storage District, 74, 78 ff. 

Kieffer, Stephen, 56 

Kilburn, Harvey, 50 

King s County Development Company, 115 

Kings River, 43, 228, 385 

Kings River Water Association, 43, 128 

Kings River Water Conservation District, 43, 117 

Klamath Lake, 225 

Kluegel, H. A., 59 

Knapp, G. S., 362 

Kreutzer, George, 195 

Krug, J. A., 167-168 

Kulp, Mark, 166-168 

Lahontan Reservoir, 31> 35 

Lake Crowley, 71 

Lake Hemet Water Company, 58-60 

Lake Henshaw, 392-402 

Lake Tahoe, 27 ff . 

Land Settlement Board, 186 ff . 

Lessen County, 14 

Lee, Charles H., 49, 57 

LeeVining Creek, 63 ff . 

Leeds, Hill and Jewett, 452, 488 

Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation District, 53 

Lippincott, Joseph B., 286 

Long, Alfred M., 164 

Long Valley, 67 

Longwell, John, 422-428 

Los Angeles, 68, 70 


Lower Tule River Irrigation District, 386-390 
Lux vs.Haggin, 12k- 

McCarran, Patrick, 2k 

McClure, W. F., k2 ff., ^5, U9, 78, 98-100, 10U, 112, 118, 12U 

MacDougal, George B., 62 

McEwen, G. F., 50U-505 

McKay, Douglas, 375, 376 

Mackall, Murray, 218 

McPherson, W. D., 66 

MacRostie, Wayne, kkk-kk$ 

Madera Canal, 272 

Madera Canal and Irrigation Company, 272 

Madera Irrigation District, 97 ff . , 23^, 262-276 

Mahoney, C. P., 3lU 

Markwell, Kenneth W., 165 

Marliave. Chester, 5& 

Mason, J. R. . 2U2 

Matthews, Raymona, 169, 29^ 

May, Roy, 115 

Mead, Elwood, 186, 188, 195, 202 

Means, Thomas, 56, 263 

Meek, Bert B., 187, 200-201, 202, 205, 211 

Meeker, Ralph I., 214-3 

Meikle, R. V., 199 

Meinzer, Oscar E., 506 

Merced Irrigation District, 21 

Metropolitan Water District, 60 

Miller, Henry, 105, 109 

Miller and Lux, 78, 87 ff., 97 ff., 122 ff. 

Miller - Haggin agreement, 50 

Millikin, Senator, 295 

Minidoka Project, 15 

Missouri River, 2^3, k65-k75 

Moffat Tunnel, 1+51 ff. 

Mono County, 63 ff . 

Mono Lake, 70 

Montague Water Conservation District, 156-160 

Monterey County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 322 ff . 

Moreell, Ben, 377-379 

Morris, Samuel, U22-1+28 

Nacimiento Project, 323 ff . 

National Reclamation Association, 12, 170 

National Water Resources Committee, 2^3 

Nevada California Power Company, 6k 

Nevada Irrigation District, 1^7-151, 

Newell, R. J., 32-3^ 

Newlands Project, 18, 22 ff., 29 

Nickel, J. Leroy, 88, 100, 10U, 105 

Niles Cone, kl.0 

North Dakota, U65-l*71 

North Kern Water Storage District, 85 

Northeastern Counties, 


Oahe Unit, 

Oakdale Irrigation District, 208-210 

O Donnell, I. D., 16 

Olney, Warren Jr., 128-129 

Oroville site, ^38 

Osgood, E. P., 23 

Owens Valley, 63 ff., l|79-U8l 

Pacheco Pass Tunnel, 1*25 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 131, llf9-150, 211-219 

Pacific Southwest Water Plan, 382, 513-51^ 

Pajaro River, 351 

Palo Verde Irrigation District, 313-321 

Pardee, George, 288 

Parker, Alban J., 297 

Parks Creek, 156 -l6o 

Peabody vs. Vallejo, 132 

Peck, James F., 20, 133-13U, 181 ff. 

Perris Valley Chamber of Commerce, 58-60 

Phillips, Esther B., 285 

Phipps, Senator, 69 

Pick-Sloan plan, 

Pine Flat Reservoir, 117, 119, 120 

Pleasanton Township Water District, 

Powers Canal, 211-219 

President s Water Resources Policy Commission, 170, 359 

Preston, John W., 133-13U 

Provo River, 278 

Pumice Valley, 6U 

Pyramid Lake Indian Reservation, 26 

Randall, C., 223 

Ray, William W., 22U, 277 

Reconstruction Finance Corp . , 209 

Resources for the Future, Inc., 377 

Rideout, Dunning, 205 

Rio Grande compact, 303 

Rio Grande River, 01 

Roberts, Harold D., U60, U6l 

Rohwer, Carl, 50U-505 

Rollins, H. P., 362 

Rolph, Governor, 28 

Rosenfeld, Fred N., 26l 

Rowe, Penn, 3U.1, 3^5 

Rush Creek, 63 ff . 

Russell, G. H., 5^, 220 

Salinas River, 322 

Sallaberry, Arnold, 273, 275 

Salt Lake City, 278 

Salt River, 25^ ff. 

Salt River Valley Water Users Association, 251 ff . 

San Antonio Reservoir, 323 ff . 

San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District, 


San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District, 260-261 
San Diego County Water Authority, 392-402, U82-i*83 

San Francisco Water Department, 

San Jacinto River, 57 

San Joaquin River, 122, 270-271 

San Joaquin River Basin, 178-180 

San Joaquin Valley, 72, 136 ff., 173-177, 230 

San Joaquin Water Storage District, 7^, 89, 97 ff., 263 

San Juan Ridge, lU8 

San Lucas Reservoir site, 326, 337 

San Luis Obispo County, 331 ff . 

Santa Ana River, U07-409 

Santa Barbara, l8l 

Santa Clara -Alameda -San Benito Water Authority, U22-U30 

Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, U22 -14-30 

Santa Fe Railroad, llU-115 

Santa Inez River, l8l ff . 

Saunders, Glenn, k6l 

Seville, C. M., 50*4-505 

Seville, Thorndike, 504-505 

Scheidenhelm, F. W., 369, 375 

Schindler, A. D., 114 

Semitropic Ridge, 177 

Semi tropic Water Storage District, 92 

Senaca Consolidated Gold Mines vs. Great Western Power, 131 

Shafter-Wasco area, 48, 52 

Shasta River, 156 -l6o 

Shaw, Arvin B., 314 

Shaw, Charles, 188 

Simmons, 0. E., 315 

Simpson, T. Russel, 324 

Slichter, C. S., 477 

Sloss, Judge, 56 

Smith, J. Winter, 220 

South Bay Aqueduct, 4lO, 413, 4l6 ff., 424 ff. 

South Platte River, 462 

Southern California Edison Co., 122, 123-, 134 

Southern Pacific Railroad, 225 

Southern Sierras Power Co., 64, 68 

Spring Valley Water Company, 410 

Stampede Reservoir, 31 

Stanford Research Institute, 4o4 

Stanislaus River, 37, 152 

Stephen, Judge, 57 

Stevens, Jack, 243 

Stone, Clifford H., Judge, 256-257, 294 

Stone and Youngberg, 91 

Storie, Earl, 50 

Strausa, Commissioner, l6U, 298 

Stuart, Theodore M., 13^- 

Stutblefield, Garfield, lU, 

Suburban Water Systems, U8 

Summerfield, S3rdig, 2^ 

Sunnyside Project, 18, 21-22 


Sutter Butte Canal, 37-^2 

Sutter Irrigation District, 205-20? 

Swendsen, George L. , 118 ff. 

Tabor, C. C., 315 

Tarpey vs. McClure, 73 ff. 

Taylor, Sterling, A., 1*32 

Tejon Ranch, 78 ff . 

Temescal Water Company, 58-60 

Thronson, Rovert E., Ul2 

Tibbetts, Fred H., 10U, l6o 

Tieton Main Canal, U 

Tipton, R. J., 362 

Treadwell, Edward, 99, 109, 125 

Tri -County Water Authority, 351 

Truckee River, 22-27, 3^ ff. 

Truckee -Carson Irrigation District, 22 ff., 32 ff. 

Truckee -Carson Project (Newlands), 22 ff. 

Tudor, Ralph, 37 1 * 

Tulare County, 53 ff. 

Tulare Lake, 85, 111 ff., 386-387 

Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, 111 ff., 238, 385 

Tulare Lake Water Storage District, 7^ 

Tule River, 51* 

Turlock Irrigation District, 199 

Uintah Basin, Utah, 6 

Umatilla Project, 17 

Union Sugar Company, 185 

U. S. Army Engineers, 325-327, 356, ^39-WU) 

U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, ll*5, 162-168, 177, 180, 186, 232, 2^5 ff., 

263 ff., 293 ff., 356, k22 ff., 1A3-UM6, ^5-^Tl* ^89 
U. S. Congress, Senate Sub-committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, 237 
U. S. Lake Survey, 3 
U. S. Land Office, 6k ff. 
U. S. Office of Experiment Stations, 6, 8-9 
U. S. Reclamation Service, U, 15, 22, 6U ff., 69, 
U. S. Soil Conservation Service, 327-328, 356 
U. S. vs. Alpine Land and Reservoir Company, 29 
U. S. vs. Gerlach Live Stock Company, 132 
U. S. War Food Administration, 39 
Upper Colorado River Storage Project, 1*52 
Utah Lake, 277-28H 
Utica Mining Company, lU7, 152 ff . 

Van Etten, P. H., 179 

Verdes Irrigation District, 251-25 1 * 

Vista Irrigation District, 391-^02 

Wagon Wheel Gap Reservoir, 301 ff . 

Walker, H. M., 195 

Walla Walla River, 223 

Warren, A. K., 50 

Warren, Earl, 168 

Washoe Project, 30 ff. 


Watasheamu Reservoir, 35 

Water Conservation Conference (19UU), 293 

Water Conservation District Act, 1*3, 117 

Water in California, kgj-kyQ 

Water Storage District Act, U3, 73 ff . 

Webb, U. S., 28, 90, 129-130 

Weber Foundation, ^38 

Weeks, David, 188 

Wente, Carl F. , 308 

Western Canal, 36 ff . 

Whistler, John T., 70, 220 

Whittier Narrows Dam, 

Williams, Ed., 320 

Wittschen, T. P., 88 

WoLnan, Abel, 2^3, 369, 370, 375 

Woods, H. C., 358 

Woolley, J. E. 106, 123-133 

Work, Secretary of the Interior, 69 

Yakima Project, k 
Young, Governor, 202 
Young, W. R., 362 

Zander, Gordon, 168 





Regional Oral History Office 
Room 486 


December 11, 1967 

Mr. S. T. Harding 
2734 Russel Street 
Berkeley, California 

Dear Mr. Harding: 

/jf <f. I am returning herewith the negative of your portrait taken in 
-4.Q6&. We have made copies which we will use in the front of your 

We would be pleased to include more pictures yourself at a 
younger age, you with your colleagues, the Harding family (including 
Helen, I hope) . 

As we discussed during your visit to our office, we will deposit 
copies of your manuscript as follows: 

1. Water Resources Center, UCIA 

2. Water Resources Center Archives, Berkeley 

3. Davis Campus Department of Special Collections 

4. Bancroft Library 

5. Regional Oral History Office 

6. University of Wyoming Conservation Center 

7. Your copy. 

In addition I would like your permission to deposit a copy in the 
California State Library s California Room. 

Many thanks for all the work you have done on this project. 

Sincerely yours, 

(Mrs.) Willa Baum, Head 
Regional Oral History Office 

cc: Mr. Gerald Giefer 


Gerald J. Giefer 

Born in St. Paul, Minnesota; undergraduate degree 
(1950) in English literature tram the College of St. 
Thomas, St. Paul; graduate degree (1951) in Library 
Science fron the University of Minnesota; has worked 
with the libraries of Highlands University, Las Vegas, 
Mew Mexico (1951-53); University of Minnesota (1953-55); 
Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado (1955-59); 
and, since 1959, Water Resources Center Archives, 
University of California, Berkeley. Publications in 
the Archives series include, among others, Water wells; 
an annotated bibliography; Water: a subject heading 
list; and Index to periodical literature on aspects of 
water in California.