; •
\~'I'~ STUDY :\.~CRT STILLHA.Trn w'ILDLITE MAI:AG.El.fE...T\"1' AREA BY f.AR..~Y B. RIChARDS HATER CONSULTAlfr
AUGUST, 1962
·'
000145 WAT.r:.. H STUDY REPORT STILLWATER \o.'ILDLIFE ti.ANAGDU:NT AREA
Preface
The primary purpose of this study is to ass~ble and evaluate vater records
that are in the files of the T:-uckee-Carson Irrigation District, Fallon, Nevada.
These are the same records that the 3ureau of Reclamation has used in its opera-
tional a.'1d routing studies in connection with the proposed 'i-lashoe Project.
Tabulations and summaries of these records will be included in this report to
support conclusions reached. Basically, this study is designed to determine the
relation of the proposed 1-!ashoe Project and the Stillva.ter Wildlife Management
D:l 1958 the Kational Coneress in Washington created a Cccmission titled,
"Outdoor Recreation. Reserves Review Commission". I quote from their report to ·' Congress in 1962: "i-later is e. focal point in outdoor recreation".
1. P.istorical Water-use Practices of Ne"Wlands Project
To determine the va.ter use pra.ct ices on the !~e"Wl.a:ld.s Project, records of
the supply, diversion, and distribution, of vater for the entire period of
record--eenerally 41 yee.rs--.....ere used. Certain basic conclusions used by the
Bureau of Reclamation on this will be pointed out ~~ere the results of this
study differ from Reclamation's assumptions.
The evaporation and seepage loss figures used by the Bureau of Reclamation
in its Washoe Project studies are open to q_uestion. The Reclamation Bureau has
used a constant figure--a yearly figure--while actually the seepage and evapora-
tion loss in lAhontan ReserYoir and the Truckee Canal ve.ry frot:l year to yee.r,
depending on certain factors that affect evaporation--vater temperature, ambient
air ter.rperature, latent beat of the vater, vater depth, vind movement and surface
e.rea. ... OOtJ14o 2
A study vas published in the Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division, ------=-Proceedings --of ---the American Society --of Civil Engineers, "Evaporation From Pyramid e.nd \-.'inne::1ucca Lakes, Nevada.", by S. T. Eard.ing and E. P. Osgood, dated March,
1962. This study is the result of a long period of observation by the authors.
Conditions of this study are comparable to conditions in the still.... -ater lo.'ildlife
Management Area, both as to elevation, climate, and temperature. The result of
this study vould indicate that the methods used by the Bureau of Reclamation in
determining evaporation on Lahontan Re2ervoir and the Truckee Canal should be
carefully revieved.
s. T. f~ding vas hired by the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District to evalu-
ate the Washoe Project and its effect on the Truckee-carson Irrigation District.
Eis r-eport is dated January 15, 1960. I quote directly from this report, Page 6:
"LOSSES IN IAH011TAN RESERVOIR
''Storage in Lahontan is subject to evaporation loss and percolation. water
absorbed as the reservoir rises may return to the reservoir as it lovers. Some
of the vater vhich percolates from storage becomes leakage and does not return
to storage. Records of evaporation have been secured from observation of an
evaporation pan at the reservoir. Ccnpariaons of inflov, outflow, evaporation,
and change of storage on hand have been used to co."npute the monthly percolation
losses or bains that have occurred under the historical operations. These
results were used to derive a relationship betveen the percolation and the
other it~~ ~bich affect its amount.
"The most recent of such results are those of the Bureau of Reclamation.
In their 1951 report on the Nevlands Project, the Bureau derived relationships
for the reservoir losses at lahontan for both rising and falling stages. These
were used to estimate the losses that vould occur under future operations when
70,000 acres vere irrigated by the Truckee-carson Irrigation District. 000147 3
"For the 34-year period 1916-17 to 1949-50 the Bureau found a mean annual evaporation of 32,500 acre-feet and a mean annual net percolation loss of 32,200 acre-feet. These itens totaling 64,700 acre-feet are in addition to the estimated
delivery demand of 424,100 acre-feet used by the Bureau for the irrigation of
70,000 acres in the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District."
As indicated by the records, in certain years it has been necessary to 15pill vater excess to irrigation needs at Lahontan Dam. Such water has gone to the
stillwater Wildlife l'/.a.nagement Area and Carson I.ake Pasture (Greenhead. Club), and bas contributed largely to the creation ot the marsh and the l!lB.iDtenance of the present developments. The Hs.shoe Project proposes to capture the l!l8.jor portion of these spills iD Hatasheamu Reservoir. This vill destroy a substantial part of the •-ater supply \.rhich was fo:r-.nerly contributing to the Stillwater \-.'ildli:fe
Management Area.
The 'Washoe Project is largely subsidized· by pover and flood control. The flood control regimen vould be established by the Corps of Engineers of the u. s.
Arr:Iy. Long experience has shown that these tvo interests are often inimical to irrigation interests and can, and often do, waste water that could be used for irrigation on farmland.s B.!ld marsh areas.
2. Prospective Water-use Practices of Newla.nds Project under Washoe Project
Figures taken from Bureau of Recl.em.ation reports and some other reports dealing with future water use on the Newl.ands Project have been B.!lalyzed to determine how these conditions will effect the vater supply of tbe stillwater
Wildli:fe Management Area.
In 1958 the author and the Water Resources Engineer of the Sierra Pacific
Power Company in Reno were appointed by the Nevada Interstate C001pact Commission to ma.ke a study of lands available in the basins of both the Carson and the
000148 4
Truckee Rivers vhich had potential for future development as residential,
industrial, or farm areas, or for recreational use, a.nd the approx:L'!lB.te amount
of vater necessary for complete development of these areas was determined. Attached
hereto as Plate D is a sum:nary of these lands in the Carson River Basin. Some of
these areas are nov under various stages of development. The vater supply for
these lands vould have to come from the Carson River a.nd would result in reduced
flovs to the rrevlends Project and the Stillwater Wildlife Management A:rea. '!'his
report is on file with the California-Sevada Interstate Ccmpa.ct Commission.
The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife should develop within its
organization men, or else hire outside help to obtain men, vho are qualified to
continually study such probleos where water supply may be threatened and should
not accept new studies or reports that might effect this wter supply without
careful study and re-evaluations of such proposal..s. A policy of indifference
and e.cquiescence to these proble!!la vill lead, inevitably, to the vi.ld waterfowl
follovin6 the path of tbe passenger pigeon to extinction and the disappearance
of any need for resting and nesting areas for extinct birds.
3· Possible Effects of Irrigation of India."l Lands Under \-/ashoe Project
The Truckee River Decree, In the District Court of the United states in and
for Nevada, in Eg_uity fucket A-3; The U. S. of America, Flaintii'f YS. The Or-:
Water Ditch Company, et al, Defendants, sets out the extent of the Pyramid lake
Reservation Indians' right for agricultural ~~ter in the amount of 30,o86 acre feet a.."l!lually. Whether this ~s all of the wter right to vhich the Indians are
entitled is a question that is as yet u."ldetermined. The Truckee River Decree,
although it sets out the Indian agricultural right, does not provide where this
'W'B.ter is to co!:l.e fro:n. As the situation nov stands under this Decree, if the
00014~1 5
Indians vould de.rrw.nd their full amount of water; that vater would have to come
out of the Nevlands Project supply and 'liOU.ld reduce the amount avail.a.ble for
diversion on the Project to that extent.
It would be ">ell to point out at this time that the construction of the
Nevlands Project included the diversion d..am on the Truckee River at Derby. This
dam completely destroyed the big cutthroat trout in Pyramid Lake. This vas a remarkable fishery. It furnished a substantial part of the food supply of the
Pyramid Lake Indians and provided fishing in the Truckee River--including Lake
Tahoe. These fish are now e..xtinct--thanks to Derby ~. The same disregard for recreational and econcmic uses under Washoe Project, as proposed, will do the seme tb..ing to the Stillwater ·.vndlife Management Area marsh and the waterfowl vill follow the path of the Pyramid Lake trout .
4. t.Jater Historically Available to the Stillwater Area and Carson Lake Pasture
The •-ater that bas been delivered to the Carson lAke Pasture and the Still water ~ildlife Management Area in the past bas been drainage water, spills over
Lahontan, end winter paver water. The records do not show that Sizy deli very direct from lahontan has ever been made to these tvo areas. The actual record of quantities delivered is not too good.
I refer at this point to a water requirement analysis report made by Dale
Sutherland, Wildlife Management Biologist, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, dated January 18, 1957, as to the past supply of water to the Stillwater Wildlife
Management Area and the future supply required. These records 1ncllcate that at its current stage of develo:poent the Stillwater Wildlife Management Area can beneficially use 131,000 acre feet of water annually. Under ultimate develop- ment this amount could be raised to 154,000 acre feet. AI!. indicated by Plate D,
consumptive use of >mter may reach 63 1 000 acre feet annually at Carson lake Pasture.
00 0150 6
5. Future Water Available to Still1oreter Area under \ola.sboe Project
An analysis of the tabulations and the assu::xptions used by the Bureau of
Reclamation in its studies on the '.lashoe Project indicates that under conditions
of washoe Project the supply of vater to the Still•~ter Wildlife Management Area
vould be greatly direinished and vould be of a quantity vhich vould maintain only
a very small part of the prese:nt develop:1ent as a marsh e.nd, in effect, vould
destroy the Stillwater Area a.s an important point in the Pacific Flyvey.
Under 'dashoe Project, points of vater delivery would re:nain the same, but quantities would be dbinished. As a possible measure to obtain so:ne additional drain water , tva possible drain d!versions could be accomplished to procure vater nov going to Canvasback Club lands.
A study of the Draina{;e Ha:? of the Ivevla.::His Project shovs that the ::lB.jor w-ater supply going into the l"a.""lage~ent Area bas come from one trunk drainage systeo, the Diagonal Drain. The tvo nev possible drainage diversions are:
( 1) The first in Sect ion 24; Tovnship "1ft., N. , Range 30 E. , MDB&M. This vould require the construction of a short canal and a pumping plant. This diversion vould supply the drainage water fro:n an area comparable to, or slightly larger than; the area \rhich has supplied the vater to the !l.a.na.ge::nent Area in the past.
(2) The second possible diversion would be in Section 36, Township 20 N.,
Range 30 E., !.A})B&l>'.. This vould require the construction of a canal approximately
4 miles long, with a capacity of approximately 30 crs., and vould deliver water into the ~ea in Section 7, Township 20 N., Range 31 E., l®E&H, and vould provide drain w-ater fro:n a substantial area. These diversions of drain vater, nov being used at the Canvas back Gun Club and the ::ent -Oser holdings, vould come under direct and cor:Iplete control of the stillwater \-.'ildlife !IJB.Ilagenent Area. Up to
000151 7
10,000 acre feet of water of this type is nov being consumptively used on the mentioned private lands annually.
6. Availability of Kev Water Sources
Additional sources of vater to ~e nade available in relation to the Truckee- carson Irrigation District operations are practically no~existent. u~der the present conditions; and under Washoe Project conditions, it will be necessary for the District to salvage drain.a.ge waterwha"e'a' this could be done. This vill be water that has fornerly gone :!.nto the Stillvater wilCJ.ife Hanageu ent Area.
Hashoe Project conditions vould force the District into a maj or canal lining project vhich, again, vould nean less water in the drains and less wo.ter to the
Management Area.
At the present time the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District's ~~ing Leard of Directors has di~iculty recognizing,~ or ignores, that the still~o.ter wildlife
Me.nage:nent Area is a.'1 economic unit vhich should be considered part of the eco::J.or:xy of the Ne-w lands Project in Churchill County. '7ne Board also fails to recognize that any vater supply proble::1s \oo'i th the Wildlife Area should be given the sa':le consideration as the vater supply to the irrigated lands set by the Board. ~be
Truckee-Carson Irrigation District Eoard does~'t seau to be able to recognize the econo::nic importance of an area like the Stillvater Wildlife 1 · £.nage;!l e~t /l.:rea in connection with the Nevla.'"lds Pro ~ ect. Tangi"c le a.'"ld inta..ngible values are involved which may not be so readily evaluated in ter.rus of ~ney but which are of i;mnense value to the econor:J.ic stability of northwestern !ievada and to sene :... extent to the entire population of the United states •hich is interested in various types of outdoor recreation. An att~pt will be made to coopare both the tangible and intangible values of the stillvater 'i-li ldlife Hana.ge:!!lent Area in the s~ of this report.
00015 2 8
7· quality of Water
Due to the i:lcrea.sing use of detergents for various purposes, and the L'1B.bil- ity of present sewage treatment p~ts to destroy these detergents, the ~uality of 'lffiter going into the stillwater '..!ildlife i·la.Da.be:nent f..rea should be carefully watched. N3 the areas around ?.eno a.."l.d Sparks on the Truckee R~ ver E:.Ild Carson
City and Iiew mp::.re on the Carson River continua.l.ly gro•r, the a:J.ount of detergents getting into the stree::1 flO\o{ fro::~ the treat:-:1ent plants will increase a."ld could reach the point where it would. ser:..ously effect plant t;rowth in the Stillw.ter
~h area and also seriously effect the vaterfovl nov utilizin; the A:eu.
1 It is not yet kno>m vhether the effects of these deter.:;ents are c·.nulati ve.
This should be carefully watched by the Pureuu of S:;>ort Fisheries a.:1d 'r!ildl:..fe to deter:!l.ine vhether these detergents would effect vildlife, possibly by reC.ucing reproduction or shortenin6 life periods. A proe;ra.:n of syste::atic vo.ter sa":l?line; should be set up to determ~ne at all t~es the amount of this contamination entering the still'lffiter Wildlife l·~at;e;:Jent f..ree.
Wildlife biologists should vetch contL~uously to see if these detergents a=e effecting the refuge areas in a.'1Y ·w~ay. At the present time there see.":l.s to be sone evidence to support the fact that these detergents are already effectin£ fishing in areas in the ~J ewlanC.S Project where fo!'Taerly fishi..ne ~as been enjo:,•ed.
S~ and Conclusions
A person traveling the higb~~ys at present cannot help but be ~zed by the gro·.. '"'.....ng number of people that are en: oying the Public Daoain, Public ?arks, and. areas such as the vildlife refuges. ~~ch areas provide recreational uses for types that vary fro:n rock hounds and bird watchers to bunters and fishe!'::len. For ..... this reason alone, the Fish and ~ildlife Service should use every effort to secure definite water supplies for the Stillwater Wi ldlife JJ.ana..~enent Area. The sa.:Je
000153 9 forces are at wrk today that destroyed the buffalo and the passenger pigeon and could in time destroy most of the present or possible future wildlife areas. Un less the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife takes a definite and positive stand on water supply to refuge areas 'W'here the water supply to the area is involved vith other interests, or vhere future denands may be made on the ~~ter supply for other purposes, such waters may be forever lost.
Under the Washoe Project studies, the Bureau of Reclamation has assigned credit for certain recreation benefits that vill accrue under the Washoe Project.
On the other band, the Washoe Project operations will certainly destroy, or greatly limit, the recreation areas in the stillwater Wildlife Management Area and reduce the value of Lahontan Reservoir for recreation. When these values are balanced against each other, the Bureau of Rec~tion should subtract these suns from its cost-benefit ratio figures or else make definite commitments for water enough to maintain the recreational areas at still~~ter 1-.'ildlife Ma.na.ge!!lent Area a.nd
Lahontan Reservoir already developed.
The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and 1-.'ild.life should take a definite stand on
~-ater supplies to the still~-ater Axea and should obtain firm co:r.:oitl:lents from both the California-Hevada Interstate Cor:rpact Co:::Jrrlssion and the :Bureau of Reclamation as to this water supply. I suggest that this can be argued from three vie~'J>OL'lts to establish water rights for the Managecent Area.
A. Use of water since the wildlife area \78.8 established.
B. The possibility of establishing the existence of riparian rights to the
Area should be thoroughly exa:::lined by the legal staff of the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
C. The theory genera.l.lY spoken of as paramount rights that dates back to the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This treaty affects this general area vhich
000154 10 ceded to the United States--including the Stillwater Wildlife Management Area.
Under this treaty, va.ter 1n the area vas ceded vith the la.'ld and as attached to the land.
It 'lrould be superfluous to :point out the econcmic values involved in these management areas--they are f'ul.ly covered by existing studies and reports--easily available.
Intangible values cannot be deter.nined in terms of money. In Nevada, at the present time, for a total of $15 for licenses and permits a citizen has the right to use and enjoy the outdoor benefits of any kind--including hunting and fishing--in Nevada for a. year. What value can be placed on this condition in terms of the American-vay of life and where else in the vorld, except in the United
States, does this condition exist 7 '1'he value of this should be kept in mind always by the Agencies that are involved in maintaining these conditions.
The construction of' the Washoe Project, as presently planned, vill lead inevitably to a greatly reduced, or d.estruction ot, the Still'W'B.ter 'Wildlife l.fanagement Area. In establishing a definite water right for the stillwater Wil.d li!'e Ha.na.ge::1ent Area, the legal department of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service should. give thorough study to the idea of the Wildlife Service intervening in the as yet undete:nnined Carson River Suit to the end that a definite va.ter supply could be set up for the still'IJB.ter Wildlife Ha.na.gement Area. A positive stand should be taken on all of these water riE;ht problems and not be "let go by the board" due to indif":ference or unsettled :policy.
The Truckee-Carson Irrigation District, as a party to the Three-Way Agre~~ent that created the stillvater Wildlife Ma.nagement Area, has not kept good. faith, and at times has been antagonistic tovard.s the Still'IJB.ter Wild.li!'e Ma.nagement
Area and since the creation of the Management Area has ma.de several drainage
000155 ll diversions that have reduced the supply of water available for the 14anagement Area.
This is another reason that the Bureau of Sport Fisheries ~~d h~ldlife should give serious consideration to the idea of withdrawing the e~tire stillwater Wild- life Manage.'":lent Area for wildli:fe purposes--assU!Iling it obtains a firm water supply for the still~~ter Area.
?.eferences l. Bureau of Recls..-:Jation 's report , ''Preliminary Data on ~later Supply of the
l:e..,.land.s Project", dated Dece;:1ber 14, 1951.
2. .!3ureau of Recla:na.tion 's report, ''Washoe Project Report H.D. 181, 84th Co!l6ress,
First Se6sion, Ter:ninal Flovs and Terminal Flow study of the Carson-Truckee
Hater Conservancy D1str:..ct".
3· "?.sti..nated i.,later Use of the Truckee-carson 3a.sin", by H. E. Richards and
Robert Leighton, Nevada Division of the Cdlifornia-l~eva.da Interstate Canpa.ct
Cam:nissi.on.
4. "water Requirements Esti.Date, Still·.;ater,Hildlife Manage!:lent Area"> dated
January 18, 1957, by D::l.le Sut~erland, Wildlife Il.anagement :::.iologist, Bureau
• of Sport Fisheries a..."ld \·lildlife.
5. ''Evaporation From Pyra.:;;.id and 1dinnemucca Lakes, I·ievada", by E. P. Osgood and
s. T. Hardint;, dated Harch, 1962.
5. Report prepared for Truckee-Carson Irrigation District on effect of Washoe
Project on Truckee- Carson Irrigation District by S. T. Barding, dated
January 15, 1960.
7. Stream Flov Records in the files of Truckee-carson Irrigation District: Fallon,
Nevada.
3. Outdoor Recreation Reserves Reviev Commission's report to Co~-eas in 1962.
Harry :B. Richards l O~ S AU£"Ust ~0. 1962 Water Consultant U U 15 PLATE A DISCUSSION
The gross vater supply to the UeYl.a.nds Project for any year is taken as the
"'!: sum of Column 1, Gain or Loss in lAhontan Reservoir storage j Coli.llll!l 2, Carson
River Supply at Fort Churchill, and Column 3, Truckee Canal St.'P})ly e.t Derby Dam,
for the period March 15 to November 15. This represents, for each year, the actual
ve.ter vhich h.a.s been available during the irrigation season. This analysis differs
from the Bureau of Recl&~tion's studies, vhere total yearly flows Yere taken of
the Carson River and Truckee Canal as the supply, and arbitrary quantities vere
assumed to be lost through evaporation and storage. Col~ 4 contains, or shovs,
&ross quantities of w~ter that were actually released at Lahontan Dam in the years
of the study. • j The \.Jeighted l-iean figures shovn at the bottcrn of each colunn "Were obtained
-oy a method that 'Weights the data for individual years vith regard to the fre-
quency vith 'Which they occur--giving consideration for years that deviate videly,
either above or belaY, the median. This is in contrast to the method of Arith- metical l•ieans used by the Bureau of 2ecla."nB.tion in its washoe Project studies .
.Arithmetical Hea:1s do not give a clear picture of the i'uture vater supply because they ca.•mot yeigh in those ::,-ears that deviate 'Widely from the median 'With regard to the frequency Yith which these years occur. Weighted Means give a true picture of what the "\o:ater supply 'W'ill be in the succeeding years, equal to the period used L'l the study- 'rleigbted Heans, ·,.rhere years deviate widely from the median, giYe a s:naller figure than the Arithmetical J.1eans e.nd more truly represent actual conditions. The method used to deter.nine these Heighted Hean.s involves the use of logaritrns to properly -weigh in both the high and loY years.
The Bureau of Reclamation report, entitled "Preliminary r:e.ta on Hater Supply of the Newland.s Project", dated Dece!:lber 14, 1951, and "Wa.ahoe Project Report H.D.
000157 PlATE A DISCUSSION - Continued
181, 84th Congress, First Session, Terminal Flow and Ter2i.nal Flow Stl!dy or the
Carson-Truckee Water Conservancy District'', using the :period 1922-1950, b.:.ve been used for purposes or co!:lparison i..n co:>rnpiling ?late A.
The validity of the average a'"Ulual quantities show.1 u the above I:J.entioned reports, where Ari thrnet:!.cal Heans have been used; ls questionable. Such figures do not show a true picture or the w~ter supply.
000158 PlATE i3 D::;:SCUSSION
This tabulation is taken from the vater use files in the Truckee-Carson
Irrisation District Office and is the actual record of vater use on the Nevland.a I Project for tbe 26-year :period 1935-60. Gross Su:p:ply, as sho'lm under Column 5, is the sa.:::1e as Coltrnn 4 on Flate A, i.e._. the sun~ o.f the gain or loss in lahontan
Reservoir Storage; supply of Carson River at Fort Ci:urchill; and Truckee Canal su:p:ply at Derby Dam : for the :period March 1) to r~over:1ber 15. Sorae figures in the taoulation reprenent ~~ter s:pilled at Lahontan Dan that vent directly to the
Still~-ater wildlife Hanage;:nent Area. Colunn 6 shovs ca:'18.l and lateral loss due to see:page and e\~poration :plus operational losses that arise in manipulation of the canals a..."ld laterals for delivery of Yater. The quantities sho\ffi in Colton
6 indicate a rather vide annual variation in seepaee, evaporation, a..."ld operational loss fib~es. Col~"l 7 sho"I{S the actual qua..."ltity of ....ater dive1~ed for irrigation frO'.:t Lahontan and the Truckee Canal. Column. 8 shovs the part of this sup:ply that was lost due to seepa(;e, evaporation, and operational loss in the canal system; and Column 9 sboys the a-:Jow.:;.t actually deli Yered to far.!lla...'1ds .
...
• f ..
000159 PLATE C DISCUSSION
Plate C is a bydrograph indicating Lahontan Reservoir ~~ter releases for the period 1930 to 1960. The water spilled and winter paver wter columns repre::;ent vre.ter that he.a gone into the stillvater Wildlife M.anagement Area.
Under Washoe Project conditions, these quantities would largely disappear as they 'I.'Ould be taken up at We.tashea.mu Reaervoir. Washoe Project vould require that any 'l.~ter that is used for winter power generation at Lahontan be stored in suppleznental reservoirs for irri88-tion use the following season. This would :1ea.'1 that these quanti ties shown in the hydrograph would no longer be available to the Stillwater '1-lildlife Hanasenent Area.
000160 PLATE F DISCUSSION
This is a tabulation shoving the vater situation through the non-irrigating months.
Col~ 1 represents gain in acre feet of storage at Lahontan Reservoir dur- ing the non-irrigation season.
Column 2 is total vater available to Lahontan Reservoir during the non-irrigation season.
Col~ 3 is total loss of water to Lahontan during the non-irrigation season and includes Truckee Canal loss, Lahontan evaporation and seepage, and flood spills (in years marked vith an asterisk).
Column 4 figures represent historic vinter power water releases at Lahontan
Reservoir. This vater ha.s mostly gone into the stillvater Wildlife Management
Area. This is -water that will not be available to Stillvater under operations of the Washoe Project. Washoe Project would require that any vater used for winter power generation at the Lahontan Power Plant be stored in supplemental reservoirs for irrigation use. These supplemental reservoirs are: Sheckler
Reservoir: S-Line Regulating Reservoir, Ole's Pond Reservoir, and the Harmon
Reservoir. The present capacity of these supplemental reservoirs is approximately
20,000 acre feet. The winter use of water for power Jrould be li.mi ted to this amcnmt under washoe Project. As indicated by Column 4, power releases at
Iahontan have provided approxir:la.tely 50,000 acre feet annually to the still-water
Wildlife Management Area. This water would be lost to the Still-water io!ildli:fe
Management Area under Washoe Project.
Column 5 indicates the actual winter loss at Lahontan Reservoir due to seepage and evaporation. The amount varies somewhat each year and is not an average annual figure (entire year) as assumed by the Bureau of' Reclamation in its Washoe Project Studies. Years during which flood spills were released are indicated by an asterisk. 000161 PlATE G DISCUSSIOH
Fle.te G is a so.1mary of a 30-year day-to-day study of the Truckee Canal at the Derby Diversion Dam.
ColU!Ill'l 1 represents tbe ar:1ount of water historically diverted into the
Truckee Canal at Derby Dam.
Colunn 2 ind.:.cates tbe quantity of water 'l.'"hich could bave been diverted bad the full capacity of the Truckee Canal, assuned at 1,000 cfs., been utilized. v!as!loe Project :proposes to util:!.ze this quantity of "tJater at the proposed ..... 'h'atas~1 earm :Ji vis ion ou the Carson ~i ver. Act ual:y, the WJOll:jt of additional water which could be diverted would depend also upon the availability of storage space in La.Oontan Reservoir and anticipated flow on the Carson ~i ver at Fort
~urchill. i~hoe ?ro~ect studies indicate ~• average additional diversion through the 7ruckee Canal, over past •historical use figures: of 20:000 acre feet a..'1.Dually. As indicated by data in Column 2, 20, 000 acre feet of divert ible water are not always available at :;)?rby Dazl. This would indicate the :cecessity of additional storage o~ the Tr~ckee 21ver to provide car~JOVer water to be r~e av-ailable at :uerby De.m. lJ:::mg-terJU carryover storae;e is "lOt feasible ~"1der cli:J.atic and soil conditions in this area--tl:e evaporatioa a... Column 3 indicates t~e total possi~le diversion of 7ruckee River water throuGh the Truckee Canal--asslllJ.i~g conditio:1G of water surplus do not exist at Lahontan Reservoir ~d t~e Carson River. Col~ 4 represents the quantity of water historically by-passed down the Truckee RiYer at D:?roy Da."n ; .::;e~erally duri.ng periods of peak ru.1off when flow exceeds capacity of the Truckee Canal. 000162 PlATE G DISCUSSION - Continued Culur:m 5 shOYs tbe ~nount of \.'ater ty-pasaed to Truckee River at Derby Dam under conditions utilizing full 1,000 cfs. capacity of ~ckee Cru1al. Col-...u.m 6 represents gua.1tity of water historically by-passed down the Truckee ~iver to ful:fill irrlgation require::Je!lts--the r~jor part of this quantity is delivered after the peak runoff period reducing the quantity of vater divert ible at Der1::·y Drun. 000163 PIATE A NE'W!Alms PROJECT - GROSS HATER SUPPLY {Before Losses) Period - March 15 to November 15 (1) (2) (3) (4) IA.l10HTAN STORAGE CA...~N RIVER AT TRUCKEE CANAL AT TOTAL GROSS YEAR GAIN OR LOSS FORT Ch1JRCHILL DERBY MM SUPPLY 1920 ll6,740 105,821 141,538 364,099 1921 4,150 224,551 178,8TI 407,578 1922 32 .19() 389,279 168,496 589,965 1923 86,280 226,243 202,497 515,020 1924 197,032 29,038 71,227 297 ,297 1925 3: 520 2ll,647 182,297 397,464 1926 158 , 008 68,6TI 102,109 328,794 1927 Gain 268,514 220,341 442,595 1928 139:TIO 127,116 144)~45 4ll,331 1929 104,913 58,155 ll9,396 282,464 - 1930 56 .. 384 1'15' 307 179,539 351.,230 193l 70_.135 i 32,606 48,101 150,842 1932 Gain 256,495 187,810 421. , 374 1933 105,813 94,171 98,757 298,741- 1934 69,955 30,552 78 .. 5TI 179,084 1935 Gain 1.87,394 157,116 343,379 1936 Gain 2il,592 199,400 401.,658 1937 89,ll0 181,957 137,ll3 408.180 1938 25,251 4?2,838 104,028 6o2:ll7 1939 134,803 76,280 138,379 349,462 1940 70,992 209,659 152,033 432,684 1941. Gain 196,595 212,513 4o8, 788 1942 39,423 275,393 156,370 471,186 1943 84,143 268,697 142,286 495,131 1.944 136) 550 113,702 162,T70 413,022 1945 76,881 237,579 157,369 471.,829 1946 81,902 171,325 202,005 455,232 1947 154,472 91,190 156,665 402,327 1948 71 :252 ll6,629 190,624 378,505 1949 123,969 135,480 174,670 434,ll9 1950 19,572 216,003 265,432 501,007 195l 131,278 96,019 246,888 474,185 ~952 Gain 503,168 255,757 742,595 l953 ll5,070 173,288 242,291 530,649 1954 188,1TI 119,821 187,390 495,383 1955 125,086 31,2ll 172,844 379,141 1956 27_.257 358,926 228,917 615_.100 1957 104,332 171,649 241,896 517,8TI 1958 65,o67 298,720 241,5X)6 605,693 1959 228,351 48,943 152,235 429,529 1960 il9, 730 34,738 186,637 341,105 Weit;hted. Hean 73,483 141,250 161_.340 4ll, 500 000164 IATZ B IRRIGATION USE - NEW"IAIIDS PROJECT Period - March 15 to November 15 ( 5) (6) (7) (8) (9) "•- G~OSS SEEPAGE, EVAPORATION, l;EI' St.J'PPLY DELIVZRED rrP.R SUPPLY OPERATIONAL LOSSES DIVERTED LOSSES TO FAPJI,S 1935 343 .. 379 45,642 297,737 134,076 163,661 1936 401 ,658 Bo, 398 .321,26o 138 .. 308 182,952 1937 4o8,180 84,014 324_.166 137 ,541 186,625 1938 6o2 , ll7 216 ,250 385 ;867 220,986 164.881 1939 349 ,462 18,194 331,268 155,453 175 ,815 1940 432 ,684 76,964 355,720 152 :437 203,283 1941 4o8,788 84,506 .324,282 151,212 173,070 1942 471,186 106,184 365,002 174,915 190,o87 1943 495 ,131 134,022 361,109 168,030 193,079 1944 413,022 46,827 366,195 175,639 190,556 1945 471 .. 829 88,131 383,698 193,512 190 ,186 1946 455 :232 52 , 591 402 _. 641 202,810 199,831 1947 402,327 27 ,146 375,181 176,638 198:543 1948 378,505 36 , o89 342,416 160,567 181 ,849 , 949 4-34_.119 74,033 ../" 360,086 164' 741 195,345 .950 501,007 122 , 622 378/385 195,697 182 ,688 951 474,185 24 .. 973 449,212 234,334 214,878 952 742,595 324 , 945 417,650 218,578 199,072 1953 530 ,649 161,868 368,781 177,076 191,705 1954 495 .. 388 100,937 394,451 201,746 192,705 1955 379,141 87,367 291,774 ll9, 731 172,043 1956 615 ,100 241,847 373,253 194,776 178,477 1957 517 .. 877 142,147 375,730 196,220 179,510 1958 605,693 262,162 343,531 143,576 199,955 1959 429,529 33,486 396,043 189,667 2o6,376 1960 341 ,105 78,595 262,510 92,702 169 .. 8o8 000165 TOTAL DIVERSIONS 1,007,300 A .F. PlATE D TOTAL CONSUMTIVE USE 605,275 A. F. RETURN FLOW 4 02,025 A. F. REQUIRED, STATE Ll NE 605,275 A. F. · STATE LINE CARSON VALLEY 50,000 ACRES DIVERTED 200,000 A.F. CON . USE 100,000 EAGLE VALLEY 6~000 ACRES DIVERTED 24,000 CARSON PLAINS CON. USE 12,000 10,000 ACRES DIVERTED 21,760 CON. USE 10,880 NEW EMPIRE 4,000 ACRES DIVERTED 16,000 ALKALI FLAT CON. USE 8,000 3,200 ACRES DIVERTED 13,040 CON. USE 6,520 SILVER SPRINGS 22,0 00 ACRES DIVERTED 88,000 CON . USE 44,000 NEWLANDS PROJECT 67,500 ACRES DIVERTED 437,500 CON. USE 287,750 - CARSON LAKE I 21,000 ACRES STILLWATER WILDLIFE CON. USE 63,000 154,750 ACRES CON . USE 150,000 - . 0 WATER REOUI RMENTS AND LAND ACREAGE -GARSON RIVER SYSTEM IN NEV. Q Q16 6 PlATE E M3AN AIINUA.L v.:ATER SUPPLIES - NEVliANDS PROJECT (In Acre Feet) 3ureau of ReclB!!lB.tion - ',la.shoe Project Report Tr-uckee Ca..::13l at Derby Da::l - Arithmetical Hean 398,000 Carson River at Fort Chu:-chill - Ari. thmetical Mean 228, 6oo Total Total Gross Sun:ply - Plate A, This Report - Weighted l-1ean Di.:fference 215,100 The subst~•tial d;~ferenc~ bet>veen the tva gross supply figures, 215,100 acre feet annually, indicates thet the ~~reau of Recl~~tion has greatly overestimated the :future ""ater su::p:ply tc the St:!.llva.ter 'Yiildli..fe J.ianagement Area. This results pa.--tly from the :nethod of using Arithmetical Means which do not accurately predict water a\railability. This is evidence t~at t~e constr~ction of the Washoe Project, as prese~t~v plruL~ed, ~~ll lead to the reduction--or destruction--of the stillvater S. T. Earding Report on ·~later Availability to the Newland.B Project - (It en 6) Quoting from s. T. Harding's January 15, 1960, Report prepared f'or the 71--.lckE=e- Carson Irrigation District on the effect of the Hashoe ?reject on the Irrication District; ?age 9: "USE OF HATER FOR COJ.1HUI'ITTY PAST"u!'..ES AND 1-.l:LD LIFE '"No provision for a 'I.""E.ter supply f'or such uses ha.s been m.a..d.e in the preceding discussion. Here again there is not a dependable vater supply for such uses in excess of the demands for crop lands. The value of both pasture use and vild life refUges is recognized and all of the surplus stre~ flov and drain and return flovs 000167 PLATE E - Continued that may be available should be used for such uses. S'..1ch uses, however, should not be recognized to the extent vhe~e they can require delivery of vater needed for crop land either with the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District or in other crop areas on the Truckee or Carson Rivers. The District has control of its ovn use of vater on its co~ity pastures. It should be careful in any agre~nents for vater for vild life use to restrict its oblibations to delivery to ~~ters not useful or usable for District purposes." 000168 PlATE F NEWIANDS PROJECT WATER SUPPLY - NON-IRRIGATING M)NTHS Period - November 16 to Harch 14 (1} (2) (3) (4) (5) Supply of carson R. at LahontWl Fort Churchill Reservoir Plus Truckee Total Hinter Pover Net Year Gain Canal at Head Loss Releases Loss 1950-51 84,510 357,989 273,479* 63,250 210,229* 1951-52 52,173 197,186 145,013* 62,584 82,429* 1952~53 93:6o3 189,871 96,268 TI,463 18,805 1953-54 99:2TI 178:3lt8 79,071 54,901 24,170 1954-55 103,360 151,737 48,377 30,793 17,584 1955-56 141,693 305,448 163,755* 45,374 ll8,381* 1956-57 76,626 180,027 103,4ol 66,769 36,632 1957-58 50,6o5 171,259 120,654 TI,287 43,367 1958-59 98,852 1.82,363 83,511 54,951 28,56o 1959-60 117,474 133,56o 16,o86 6,229 9,857 * Amount includes flood control releases at Lahontan 00016:-) !ATE G 30-YEAR HISTORI CAL STUDY TRUC".t (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) TRUCKEE ADDITIO!iA.L ADJtJSTED TRUC"f.EE P.TV'ER ADJUS'!'LD BY-PASS FOR YEA...q CANAL DIVERTil313 CAlU\.1 3Y-PASS ?.Y-?ASS IP.RIGATior: 1930 243 .. 076 14 _. 667 257:743 32,176 11,415 6, 094 1931. 83,034 649 83,683 4,462 3,812 1932 231 ,295 33 .. o81 269 , 376 109,866 64,832 6,953 1933 133.-175 10, 797 143,972 22,928 6,833 5,291 1934 125 ,609 5,411 131.,020 12,414 2,942 7,003 1935 191,756 25 ,001 216 , 757 123,304 86,286 6,336 1936 271.558 52 .. 747 324 ) 305 168,387 105,686 9,953 1937 182 , 577 139,082 321 .- 659 237' 573 89,159 9,337 1938 133,995 319,398 453 , 393 718,510 388,800 10,993 1939 210,740 64 ,137 274,877 73,074 8,937 1940 2_36,432 183 .. 546 420 ,028 330 ,305 135,624 ll,135 1941 269,102 129,030 398,132 175,042 34,622 ll,386 1942 189 .. 887 286_.692 476 , 579 528,507 230,376 ll,743 ·,q. 3 200,987 269,957 470, 94h 688,632 404,3.10 14,355 944 238,6::7 52 , 741 291:378 60,o43 9,573 945 270,682 102 ,250 372:932 161,166 49,785 8,862 1946 257,313 132 .. 869 390,182 192,904 53,430 9,018 1947 247,643 27,4o9 275,052 33,294 5,871 1948 290, 563 8 .. 428 298,991 20,o84 5,4o5 6,052 1949 259,949 2,o88 262,037 9,309 2,821 4,791 1950 363 .. 484 .I 86,587 450,071 381,342 290,430 5,888 1951 321 , 542 143, 5o4 465,046 235,8o8 85,730 7,013 1952 357,582 203,718 561,300 954,936 7~,6o2 8,749 1953 368,799 125,068 493,867 279,891 145,993 8,681 1954 309,569 22;607 332,176 44,458 15,277 6,415 1955 286,606 9,o48 295 ,654 73,194 56,614 7,531 1956 345,112 169,62.2 514 ,734 452,416 274,879 8,019 1957 366,826 3.1,921 398,747 99,168 58,364 8,517 1958 368_.613 77,954 lt46, 567 425,925 341,989 5,980 1959 267,677 3,866 271 , 543 ll, 300 388 7,256