DOCSLIB.ORG

Napa River Sediment Tmdl Baseline Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Napa River Sediment Tmdl Baseline Study SFEI Watershed Program Pearce et al. NAPA RIVER SEDIMENT TMDL BASELINE STUDY: GEOMORPHIC PROCESSES AND HABITAT FORM AND FUNCTION IN SODA CREEK Sarah Pearce Matthew O’Connor Robin Grossinger Lester McKee A technical report of the Regional Watershed Program San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) Oakland, CA Final Report This report was funded from a grant awarded to SFEI through the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 205(j) Water Quality Planning Program in order assist the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the Region 2 Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the Region 9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to reduce, eliminate, or prevent water pollution and to enhance water quality. SFEI Contribution 63, October 2002 i SFEI Watershed Program Pearce et al. This report should be cited as: Pearce, S., O’Connor, M., Grossinger, R., and McKee, L., 2002. Napa River TMDL Baseline Study: Geomorphic Processes and Habitat Form and Function in Soda Creek. A Technical Report of the Regional Watershed Program, SFEI Contribution 63. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, CA. ii SFEI Watershed Program Pearce et al. Table of Contents Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................v Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ vii Disclosures ..................................................................................................................... viii Objectives ...........................................................................................................................1 Background .......................................................................................................................1 Napa Valley Setting ...........................................................................................................2 Population .......................................................................................................................2 Climate ............................................................................................................................2 Runoff .............................................................................................................................2 Land Use and Native Species ..........................................................................................5 Geology ...........................................................................................................................6 Methods ..............................................................................................................................7 Selection of the creek for study (Soda Creek) .................................................................7 Selection of field locations on Soda Creek......................................................................8 Physiology of Soda Creek Watershed..............................................................................8 Soils of Soda Creek Watershed......................................................................................11 Climate and Land Use of Soda Creek Watershed .........................................................12 Vegetation and native species habitat of Soda Creek Watershed..................................12 Hypotheses ....................................................................................................................13 Field methods ................................................................................................................13 Watershed Science Approach ...................................................................................13 Channel cross-sections .............................................................................................17 Surface sediment size analysis ..................................................................................17 Subsurface sediment size analysis ............................................................................18 Bank characterization ...............................................................................................19 Field measurements of slope .....................................................................................20 Hydraulic analyses ....................................................................................................20 Continuous channel metrics ......................................................................................20 Gravel bars and mobile sediment deposits ............................................................20 Pool type and size .................................................................................................22 Bank conditions and erosion .................................................................................23 Large woody debris (LWD) ...................................................................................23 Historical research methods...........................................................................................24 Training of volunteers and staff from local stakeholder groups....................................25 Results ...............................................................................................................................25 Landscape history ..........................................................................................................25 Changes in Soda Creek’s connection to the main stem of the Napa River................27 Changes at Silverado Trail .......................................................................................32 California Department of Fish and Game stream surveys .......................................32 Interviews with local residents ..................................................................................35 Channel geomorphology ...............................................................................................35 Surface grain size variation by reach .......................................................................35 Subsurface grain size variation ................................................................................38 Stream slope by reach ...............................................................................................39 iii SFEI Watershed Program Pearce et al. Cross-sections ...........................................................................................................41 Large woody debris (LWD) .......................................................................................41 Pools .........................................................................................................................48 Sediment deposits and bars .......................................................................................51 Bank Erosion .............................................................................................................59 Bank characterization ...............................................................................................62 Channel hydraulic geometry .....................................................................................64 Discussion .........................................................................................................................68 Working hypotheses ......................................................................................................69 Study design ..................................................................................................................70 Anadromous fish habitat ...............................................................................................71 Barriers to migration ................................................................................................72 Spawning habitat ......................................................................................................75 Rearing habitat .........................................................................................................79 Flooding and sedimentation ..........................................................................................83 Riparian vegetation .......................................................................................................90 Comparisons between three Napa River tributaries ......................................................91 Recommendations ...........................................................................................................95 References ........................................................................................................................96 iv SFEI Watershed Program Pearce et al. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During the Fall 2002 and Spring 2003 empirical observational data were collected in Soda Creek pertaining to geomorphic behavior, current channel condition and function, and change over time. Soda Creek, a tributary to the Napa River, is mostly open space, with small areas of vineyard, grazing and rural residential housing. Soda Creek historically and currently supports salmonid spawning and rearing, and also provides habitat for other aquatic species. Data collected included surface and subsurface grain size measurements, channel cross-section geometry, channel slope, bank and riparian vegetation characteristics, bank condition, large woody debris (LWD) in the bankfull channel, debris jams, number, type and volume of bars and sediment deposits,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 4.11 Hydrology General Plan DEIR
    4.11 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section discusses and analyzes the surface hydrology, groundwater, and water quality characteristics of the County and the proposed project. This analysis addresses impacts to hydrology and water quality and identifies mitigation measures to lessen those impacts. See Section 4.12 (Public Services and Utilities) for a more detailed discussion regarding water supplies and demand. Specifically, this section provides the following information regarding hydrology and water quality that are evaluated in this DEIR: • Identification of current hydrologic baseline of the County associated with surface water and groundwater conditions that includes identification of key watersheds and associated water features, precipitation, flood conditions, groundwater basins and associated conditions of the basins and water quality (see Section 4.11.1 below and Appendix H). • A description of the current federal, state, regional and County policies, regulations and standards that are associated with the hydrologic conditions of the County (see Section 4.11.2 below). • Identification of significant hydrologic impacts associated with the proposed General Plan Update (see Section 4.11.3 below). The impact analysis makes use of hydrologic modeling to identify the type and degree of potential impacts based on a range of potential vineyard development conditions in the future (see Appendix H) as well as consideration of current Napa County Conservation Regulations (County Code Chapter 18.108) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are typically applied to mitigate impacts (see Appendix I). 4.11.1 EXISTING SETTING SURFACE WATER Napa County is located within the Coast Range physiographic province northeast of San Francisco. The County is bordered to the east by California’s Central Valley and to the west by the Coast Ranges.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
    City of American Canyon ‐ Napa Airport Corporate Center Project Draft EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 3.5 ‐ Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 3.5.1 ‐ Introduction This section describes the existing geology, soils, and seismicity setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on the Geotechnical Investigations prepared by Raney Geotechnical, Inc. and included in this EIR as Appendix E. 3.5.2 ‐ Environmental Setting Regional Geology Napa County is located within the California Coast Range geomorphic province. This province is a geologically complex and seismically active region characterized by sub‐parallel northwest‐trending faults, mountain ranges, and valleys. The oldest bedrock units are the Jurassic‐Crustaceous Franciscan Complex and Great Valley sequence sediments originally deposited in a marine environment. Subsequently, younger rocks such as the Tertiary‐period Sonoma Volcanics group, the Plio‐Pleistocene‐age Clear Lake Volcanics, and sedimentary rocks such as the Guinda, Domengine, Petaluma, Wilson Grove, Cache, Huichica, and Glen Ellen formations were deposited throughout the province. Extensive folding and thrust faulting during the late Crustaceous through early Tertiary geologic time created complex geologic conditions that underlie the highly varied topography of today. In valleys, the bedrock is covered by thick alluvial soils. The project site is located within the southern portion of the Napa Valley, which consists of a large northwest‐trending alluvial plain flanked by the Mayacama Mountains the west and the Howell Mountains to the east. The West Napa Fault is located within the southern portion of the Napa Valley and the Concord‐Green Valley Fault is located near the Howell Mountains along the east side of the valley.
    [Show full text]
  • Napa Valley Preferred Wine Country DAY TRIPS X
    NVdaytrips-0413_Layout 1 4/25/13 9:55 AM Page 1 Spring/Summer 2013 Napa Valley Preferred Wine Country DAY TRIPS x x x x FuN x FACT x NINE TRIpS WINE TASTING from Calistoga to Carneros A publication of FORTY-SEVEN9 TASTING ROOM REVIEWS Dining Directory1 47 plusand Varietals Chart NVdaytrips-0413_Layout 1 4/25/13 9:55 AM Page 2 TO CLEAR LAKE Lake E TT LAN ENNE B RD Berryessa Old Faithful ANYON TS C SUMMERS Geyser 29 BUT LANE BBS TO GEYSERVILLE ESTATE TU ALEXANDER VALLEY CALISTOGA Pre 128 LN PAGES 12>15 O NC CALISTOGA LI BALLOONS POPE VALLEY TO L A SUMMIT WINERY E SANTA ROSA W SUM A M STERLING LAKE IT LA DUN K E E G DR A VINEYARDS T T O C E T I D H W MEA POPE VALLEY ARK H L BRAVANTE OWEL L FRANK MTN E CASTELLO AN FAMILY L VIADER LE DI AMOROSA BA BURGESS CRYS TAL On & Around SPR IN G M S IU R A IT N A S HOWELL MTN RK PA R EE LODI D D9 Win PAGES 16>21 BALLENTINE HO ARK EER P W D EL ST. CLEMENT L MT N SI LEY ROS VAL CONN 29 SP RING MTN T MTN AT LL PR HOWE ST BERINGER E POP A ON MADR MERRYVALE SAGE CANYON VINEYARDS K HILL WINE CO. R OA NEWTON CHARTE VINEYARDS LOUIS M. PAGES 34>37 MARTINI RUTHERFORD ORD RF HI RUSTRIDGE E LL HILL ST. HELENA . H LN T L U D R V.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report Contents
    CDM Camp Dresser & McKee In Association with San Pablo Bay Watershed Restoration Framework Program November 2000 Prepared for: This document is best viewed with Adobe Acrobat Reader Version 4.0 (free) And Internet Explorer 5.0 (free) Final Report Contents Welcome and User’s Guide Section 1 – The New Watershed Restoration Approach 1.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Regulatory Framework..............................................................................................1-3 1.3 Overview of the History of National Water Protection Efforts..........................1-3 1.4 The Benefits of Aquatic Habitat Restoration .........................................................1-4 1.5 The Watershed Approach .........................................................................................1-5 1.6 The Science of Aquatic Restoration .........................................................................1-6 1.7 An Overview of Restoration Efforts to Date in the San Pablo Bay Watershed1-6 1.8 Summary ......................................................................................................................1-8 Section 2 – Description of the San Pablo Bay Watershed 2.1 Overview......................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Physical Description...................................................................................................2-1 Geologic
    [Show full text]
  • Guild of Sommeliers' Napa Valley Staff Training Guide
    STAFF TRAINING MODULE Napa Valley Napa Valley, America’s most iconic wine region, appears saturated with the vine, yet it only accounts for a mere 4% of California wine. 45,000 acres of vineyards carpet the valley floor and dot surrounding hillsides and mountains. With an emphasis on luxury wines, this small region on California’s North Coast has cemented its image as a destination for wine tourists from around the globe, and as a world-class producer of Cabernet Sauvignon. Every third vine in Napa is Cabernet, yet the valley’s complex soil patterns, coupled with changing degrees of altitude, sunlight, and temperature, provide a diversity of source material for the winemaker to sculpt into wine. Nor is Cabernet the whole story; hundreds of varieties, from Sauvignon Blanc to Charbono to Zinfandel, thrive somewhere in the valley’s gentle, Mediterranean climate. 1 History As the second region nationally designated as an “American Viticultural Area”, Napa Valley AVA dates to 1981, but the valley’s rich history of viticulture began in the late 1830s. Spurred along by the booming days of the 1849 California Gold Rush, Napa wines achieved occasional international notice in the latter half of the 19th century, and some of today’s houses, such as Charles Krug, Schramsberg, and Beringer, date to the 1860s and ‘70s. In 1880 Scottish poet Robert Louis Stevenson famously pronounced Napa’s wines as “bottled poetry” during a honeymoon sojourn in the valley. Robert Mondavi The specter of temperance and Prohibition loomed large, and the valley’s industry was crippled with passage of the 18th Amendment.
    [Show full text]
  • Ground-Water Resources in the Lower Milliken–Sarco– Tulucay Creeks Area, Southeastern Napa County, California, 2000–2002
    Prepared in cooperation with the Napa County Department of Public Works Ground-Water Resources in the Lower Milliken–Sarco– Tulucay Creeks Area, Southeastern Napa County, California, 2000–2002 Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4229 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Ground-Water Resources in the Lower Milliken–Sarco–Tulucay Creeks Area, Southeastern Napa County, California, 2000–2002 By Christopher D. Farrar and Loren F. Metzger U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4229 Prepared in cooperation with the NAPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2008-19 Sacramento, California 2003 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. For additional information write to: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey Placer Hall, Suite 2012 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819-6129 CONTENTS Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Purpose and Scope ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Description of Study Area..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • City of Napa Bicycle Plan
    City of Napa Bicycle Plan Prepared for Napa County Transportation & Planning Agency City of Napa Submitted by Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Questa Engineering Corporation 490 Mendocino Avenue 475 14th Street 1220 Brickyard Cove Road Suite 201 Suite 290 Suite 206 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Oakland, CA 94612 Point Richmond, CA 94801 voice 707.542.9500 voice 510.444.2600 voice 510.236.6114 web www.w-trans.com web www.questaec.com January 2012 Acknowledgments Project Team City Staff Napa County Transportation & Planning Agency Jacques Larochelle, Public Works Eliot Hurwitz, Program Manager Director Paul Price, Executive Director Eric Whan, Assistant Public Works Renée Kulick, Administrative Assistant Director Helena Allison, Traffic Engineer Jason Holley, Senior Civil Engineer Consultant Team Jean Hasser, Principal Planner (Retired) Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Steve Weinberger, PE, PTOE, Principal City Council Mary Jo Yung, PE, PTOE, Traffic Engineer Allan Tilton, PE, Traffic Engineer Jill Techel, Mayor Josh Abrams, Transportation Planner James Krider, Vice Mayor Angela McCoy, Editing/Formatting Peter Mott Dalene J. Whitlock, PE, PTOE, Report Review Juliana Inman Mark van Gorder Questa Engineering Corporation Jeffery Peters, Principal Margaret Henderson, ASLA, Principal Planning Commission Aaron Fulton, GIS Specialist Shaun O’Bryan, GIS Specialist Gordon Huether, Chairperson Tom Trzesniewski, Vice Chairperson Michael Murray Project Steering Committee Arthur Roosa Carol Whichard Michael Costanzo, Executive Director Napa
    [Show full text]
  • 2019-10-10 Napa Countywide Bicycle Plan FINAL Dm.Pdf
    Page 1 Acknowledgements Project Team Napa Valley Transportation Authority Diana Meehan, Senior Program Planner/Administrator Danielle Schmitz, Director-Programs, Projects & Planning Alberto Esqueda, Senior Program Planner/Administrator Kate Miller, Executive Director NVTA Active Transportation Advisory Committee Frances Knapczyk, Chair Joel King, Vice Chair Barry Christian Mike Costanzo Cruz Correa Marissa Coyne Dieter Deiss Trinity Talbott Napa County Bicycle Coalition Patrick Band, Executive Director Madeline Oliver, Program Coordinator Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition Philip Sales, Executive Director Bay Trail Maureen Gaffney, Principal Planner, SF Bay & Water Trail Programs ABAG/MTC Napa Open Space District John Woodbury, General Manager Consultant Team Toole Design Jessica Zdeb AICP Megan Wooley-Ousdahl AICP Brooke DuBose AICP Jacob Nigro Sara Schooley Sara Rauwolf Jonathan Yuan Rincon Consultants, Inc. Jonathan Berlin MESM Page 2 Staff City of American Canyon Brent Cooper, Community Development Director Cheryl Braulik, Engineer Steve Hartwig, Public Works Director Creighton Wright, City of Napa Eric Whan, Acting Public Works Director Lorien Clark, Transportation Planner Town of Yountville Joe Tagliaboschi, Public Works Director Nathan Steele, Senior Management Analyst Debby Hight, Deputy Public Works Director Preya Nixon, Management Analyst City of St. Helena Erica Ahmann-Smithies, Public Works Director Tobias Barr, Public Works Project Manager Aaron Heckock, City of Calistoga Mike Kirn, Public Works Director County of Napa Steve
    [Show full text]
  • Supplemental Rules for Napa County Implementing
    COUNTY OF NAPA PLANNING, BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1195 THIRD STREET SUITE 210 NAPA, CA 94559 (707) 253-4417 Initial Study Checklist (form updated January 2019) g, Build 1. Project Title: Lyons Vineyard Conversion, Agricultural Erosion Control Plan (ECPA) File #P19-00496-ECPA 2. Property Owner: Richard and Sylvia Lyons 3. County Contact Person, Phone Number and email: Donald Barrella, (707) 253-4417, [email protected] 4. Project Location and Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN): 8280 Wild Horse Valley Road, Napa, CA 94558; APN 033-190-004 Section 34, Township 06 North, Range 03 West, Mt. Diablo Base Longitude 38° 19’ 17.05” N / Latitude 122° 10’ 32.63” W 5. Project sponsor’s name and address: Acme Engineering Inc. 1700 Soscol Avenue, Suite 9 Napa, CA 94559 6. General Plan description: Agriculture, Watershed and Open Space (AWOS) 7. Zoning: Agricultural Watershed (AW) 8. Background/Project History: The parcel includes existing vineyards blocks and a single-family residence with guest cottage (Building Permit #B98-00606). The parcel also had an entitlement to convert an approved temporary trailer to a farm labor dwelling unit for one agricultural employee to manage existing vineyard (Use Permit #P93093-FLD, October 8, 1993). There are three previous erosion control plans associated with this parcel for a total of 11.6 acres of existing vineyard, including: #91530-ECPA was approved on September 8, 1992, which allowed conversion of approximately 10 acres to vineyard in three phases that have all be developed. #97061-ECPA was approved on September 23, 1997, and allowed conversion of approximately 6.1 acres to vineyard in four phases.
    [Show full text]
  • FORTY-NINE9 TASTING ROOM REVIEWS1 Plus Dining Directory and 49 Varietals by Winery CALISTOGA PAGES 7=14
    Spring/Summer 2012 Napa Valley Preferred Wine Country DAY TRIPS x x x x FuN x FAcT x NINE TRIpS WINE TASTING from Calistoga to Carneros A publication of FORTY-NINE9 TASTING ROOM REVIEWS1 plus Dining Directory and 49 Varietals by Winery CALISTOGA PAGES 7=14 On & Around HOWELL MTN PAGES 15=21 SAGE CANYON ST. HELENA PAGES 32=36 PAGES 22=31 RUTHERFORD/ OAKVILLE PAGES 37=43 See the complete Napa Valley map on pages 78 & 79 OAK KNOLL/ STAGS LEAP DAY TRIP PAGES 44=48 ROUTES NAPA PAGES 49=56 COOMBSVILLE PAGES 57=61 MT. VEEDER/ LOS CARNEROS PAGE 62=67 Not to Scale 49 preferred Napa Valley Preferred Napa Valley Tasting Room Reviews 1313 Main Fine Wine, Retail, Tasting Bar 54 Anderson’s Conn Valley Vineyards 21 Arger Martucci Vineyards 29 August Briggs 10 Baldacci Family Vineyards 45 Ballentine Vineyards 24 Beringer Vineyards 26 DAY9 Wine Tasting Trips TRIPS Bravante Vineyards 18 Burgess Cellars 20 Ca’Momi Winery & Enoteca 52 Calistoga 7-14 Calistoga Wine Stop 9 Castello di Amorosa 12 On & Around Howell Mountain 15-21 Chappellet Winery 36 St. Helena 22-31 Corley Family Winery – Monticello 48 Cuvaison Estate Wines – Calistoga 8 Sage Canyon 32-36 Cuvaison Estate Wines - Los Carneros 65 Ehlers Estate 23 Rutherford/Oakville 37-43 Etude Wines 67 Farella Vineyard 58 Oak Knoll/Stags Leap 44-48 Frank Family Vineyards 13 Hagafen Cellars 47 Napa 49-56 The Hess Collection 63 Coombsville 57-61 Kuleto Estate 35 Merryvale Vineyards 27 Mt. Veeder/Carneros 62-67 Mumm Napa 40 Napa Valley Wine Train 53 Nichelini Family Winery 34 ON THE COVER: COURTESY OF ST.
    [Show full text]
  • A FLORA of the VACA MOUNTAINS, CALIFORNIA John Wendy
    A FLORA OF THE VACA MOUNTAIN S, CALIFORNIA John Wendy Willoughby B.A., Ca lifornia State University, Sacramento THESIS Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MA ST ER OF ARTS in BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO A FLORA OF THE VACA MOUNTAINS, CALIFORNIA A The sis by John Wendy Willoughby Approved by: ~rr;~I!!'~·s~=;j;' /,-7-L,=~~r-.:-'7---- ______ 1 Cha i r F~~frr/ .,-fYl'--"-l,:caJt:...;.:-AA..:..".,,,:i"''---"-W:..Mf________ ' Sec 0 n d Re a de r Marda L. West ~~~~~~~~u}~~. ~uJ~~~~2~~L---_--, Third Reader Harold W. Wiedman Date: Name 0 f Student! John Wendy Willoughby I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the Manual 0 f Instructions for the Preparation and Submission of the Master's Thesis or Master ' s Project, and that this thesis or project is suitable for shelving in the Library. Signature Date Graduate Coordinator or Chair Department of Biological Sciences .. ---......... Abstract II of A FLORA OF THE VACA MOUNTAINS, CA LIFORNIA by John Wendy Willoughby Statement of Problem: This study was undertaken to provide as complete an account as possible of all the vascular plants growing without cultivation in the Vaca Mountains, California. This written flora will be of use to those interested in the plants of the area for practical or aes­ thetic reasons and to those concerned with broader phyto­ geographical questions. It provides more detailed informa­ tion than that available in more general floras on the habitats of the plant taxa present in the Vaca Mountains and offers more recent taxonomic treatments of those taxa found in the range.
    [Show full text]
  • H Ydrology and W Ater Q Uality
    A PPENDIX I H YDROLOGY AND W ATER Q UALITY ........................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE NAPA PIPE PROJECT NAPA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 25, 2011 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE NAPA PIPE PROJECT NAPA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA REVISED AUGUST 25, 2011 PREPARED BY WITH TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE BY WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE NAPA PIPE PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope of the Water Supply Assessment............................................ 1 1.2 The Project............................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Water Purveyor...................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Water Demands...................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Water Supplies....................................................................................................... 4 1.5.1 Groundwater .............................................................................................. 5 1.5.2 Imported Surface Water Supplies ............................................................ 10 1.5.3 Recycled Water Supplies ........................................................................
    [Show full text]