DOCSLIB.ORG

Salinity in the Central Valley an Overview

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Salinity in the Central Valley an Overview CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD Salinity in the Central Valley An Overview May 2006 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY State of California Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor California Environmental Protection Agency Dan Skopec, Acting Secretary REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD CENTRAL VALLEY REGION Robert Schneider, Chair Linda Adams, Vice Chair Paul Betancourt, Member Alson Brizard, Member Christopher Cabaldon, Member Kate Hart, Member Karl Longley, Member Sopac Mulholland, Member Dan Odenweller, Member Pamela C. Creedon, Executive Officer 11020 Sun Center Drive #200 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Phone: (916) 464-3291 eMail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/ DISCLAIMER This publication is a technical report by staff of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. No policy or regulation is either expressed or intended. i Salinity in the Central Valley An Overview May 2006 REPORT PREPARED BY: GAIL CISMOWSKI, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST WAYNE COOLEY, ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST LES GROBER, SR. LAND & WATER USE SCIENTIST JIM MARTIN, ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST MATTHEW MCCARTHY, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST RUDY SCHNAGL, SR. LAND & WATER USE SCIENTIST ANTHONY TOTO, WRC ENGINEER REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD CENTRAL VALLEY REGION CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: This report was prepared with guidance and assistance from the Salinity Committee. Committee members are: x Karl Longley, Central Valley Water Board Member & Committee Chair x Michael Boccadoro, Senior Vice President, The Dolphin Group x Celeste Cantu, Executive Director, State Water Board x Pamela Creedon, Executive Officer, Central Valley Water Board x Steve Chedester, Executive Director, San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors x Jerry Johns, Deputy Director, Water Resources Planning & Management, DWR x Steve Macaulay. Executive Director, California Urban Water Agencies x Jerry Meral, Environmental Public Policy Expert x Dan Odenweller, Central Valley Water Board Member SWRCB and RWQCB staff instrumental in the development of this report included: x Les Grober, Environmental Program Manager, State Water Board x Tom Howard, Chief Deputy Director, State Water Board x Gordon Innes, Senior WRC Engineer, State Water Board x Beth Jines, Deputy Director, State Water Board x Ken Landau, Assistant Executive Officer, Central Valley Water Board x Barbara Leidigh, Counsel, State Water Board x William Rukeyser, Director of Public Affairs, State Water Board x Vicky Whitney, Chief, Division of Water Rights, State Water Board Special thanks go to Sharon Norton, Graphic Designer a the SWRCB, and Alexis Morrell, Office Technician at the RWQCB, for their assistance in developing this document. iii Table of Contents 1.Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 1 2.Introduction ..................................................................................................................5 2.1. Nature of the Problem........................................................................................ 5 2.2. Stakeholders Impacted by Salinity..................................................................... 5 3.Problem Statement ...................................................................................................... 9 3.1. Impacts of Salinity.............................................................................................. 9 3.2. Geographic Setting .......................................................................................... 12 3.3. Salinity Sources ............................................................................................... 15 General Discussion .......................................................................................... 15 Specific Sources............................................................................................... 16 3.4. Technology/Management Practices................................................................. 19 Agriculture ........................................................................................................ 19 Municipal .......................................................................................................... 21 Industrial........................................................................................................... 21 Treatment......................................................................................................... 22 Disposal............................................................................................................ 24 3.5. Salt Budget ...................................................................................................... 26 Salt Budget Elements....................................................................................... 28 Data Sources and Methods.............................................................................. 37 Averaging Periods ............................................................................................ 38 Results and Discussion .................................................................................... 39 Future work ...................................................................................................... 50 3.6. Relevant Factors.............................................................................................. 51 Demographics .................................................................................................. 51 Social, Economic and Environmental Factors .................................................. 52 Environmental Justice ...................................................................................... 52 Public Trust ...................................................................................................... 53 4.Previous and Ongoing Efforts .................................................................................... 54 4.1. Interagency Drainage Program........................................................................ 54 4.2. University of California Salinity/Drainage Program .......................................... 55 4.3. SWRCB Technical Report on Agricultural Drainage to the San Joaquin River 55 4.4. SWRCB Decision 1641: Implementation of Water Quality Objectives in the Bay- Delta 55 4.5. Bay Area Regional Recycling .......................................................................... 56 4.6. USBR Drainage Feature Reevaluation EIS ..................................................... 56 4.7. San Joaquin River Salt TMDL.......................................................................... 56 4.8. CALFED........................................................................................................... 56 4.9. San Joaquin River Water Quality Management Group .................................... 57 5.Basin Planning ........................................................................................................... 57 6.Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 60 7.Appendix 1. ................................................................................................................ 61 8.Appendix 2. ................................................................................................................ 74 9.Appendix 3. ................................................................................................................ 80 10.Appendix 4. .............................................................................................................. 83 iv 11.Appendix 5. .............................................................................................................. 84 12.Appendix 6. ............................................................................................................ 107 13.Appendix 7. ............................................................................................................ 109 14.Appendix 8. ............................................................................................................ 112 15.Appendix 9. ............................................................................................................ 122 16.References............................................................................................................. 128 v List of Figures Figure 1. State of California Water Quality Control Regions and Basins..................... 12 Figure 2. Conceptual Movement of Salt in the Central Valley ..................................... 17 Figure 4. Statewide water project delivery data, discharge and estimated salt loads.... 35 Figure 5. Salinity trends in the San Joaquin River near Vernalis................................... 46 Figure 6. Historical Changes in EC in Fresno South Wells .......................................... 48 Figure 7. Map showing chloride hot spots below dairies and the Visalia water conservation plant - Visalia area (Boyajian & Ross, Inc. 1998. Groundwater Investigation Report, Visalia Water Conservation Plant, City of Visalia, Tulare County) .................................................................................................................. 49 Figure 8. Population projection by Basin ...................................................................... 51 Figure 9. Drainage-impaired lands in the San Joaquin Valley.....................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Conservation of Endangered Buena Vista Lake Shrews
    CONSERVATION OF ENDANGERED BUENA VISTA LAKE SHREWS (SOREX ORNATUS RELICTUS) THROUGH INVESTIGATION OF TAXONOMIC STATUS, DISTRIBUTION, AND USE OF NON-INVASIVE SURVEY METHODS Prepared by: Brian Cypher1, Erin Tennant2, Jesus Maldonado3, Larry Saslaw1, Tory Westall1, Jacklyn Mohay2, Erica Kelly1, and Christine Van Horn Job1 1California State University, Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program 2California Department of Fish and Wildlife Region 4 3Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute National Zoological Park June 16, 2017 Buena Vista Lake Shrew Conservation CONSERVATION OF ENDANGERED BUENA VISTA LAKE SHREWS (SOREX ORNATUS RELICTUS) THROUGH INVESTIGATION OF TAXONOMIC STATUS, DISTRIBUTION, AND USE OF NON-INVASIVE SURVEY METHODS Prepared by: Brian Cypher, Erin Tennant, Jesus Maldonado, Lawrence Saslaw, Tory Westall, Jacklyn Mohay, Erica Kelly, and Christine Van Horn Job California State University-Stanislaus, Endangered Species Recovery Program California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 4 Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park CONTENTS Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................... ii Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Methods .........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mendota Pool Bypass and Reach 2B Improvement Project Draft EIS/R
    Draft Mendota Pool Bypass and Reach 2B Improvements Project Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2009072044 June 2015 The San Joaquin River Restoration Program is a comprehensive long-term effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of Merced River and restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river while reducing or avoiding adverse water supply impacts from Interim and Restoration flows. Mission Statements The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American Public. The California State Lands Commission serves the people of California by providing stewardship of the lands, waterways, and resources entrusted to its care through economic development, protection, preservation, and restoration. Executive Summary INTRODUCTIONAND BACKGROUND Introduction and Background The Mendota Pool Bypass and Reach 2B Improvements Project (Project) includes the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Mendota Pool Bypass and improvements in the San Joaquin River channel in Reach 2B (Figure S-1). The Project consists of a floodplain width that conveys at least 4,500 cubic feet per second (cfs), a method Mendota Pool to bypass Restoration Flows around Mendota Pool, and a method to deliver water to Mendota Pool. The Project footprint and vicinity (Figure S-2) extend from approximately 0.3 mile above the Chowchilla Bifurcation Structure to approximately 1.0 mile below the Mendota Dam. The Project footprint comprises the area that could be directly affected by the Project. The Project study area or “Project area” includes areas directly and indirectly affected by the Project.
    [Show full text]
  • Westlands Water District – Warren Act Contract for Conveyance of Kings River Flood Flows in the San Luis Canal
    Final Environmental Assessment Westlands Water District – Warren Act Contract for Conveyance of Kings River Flood Flows in the San Luis Canal EA-11-002 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region South-Central California Area Office Fresno, California January 2012 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Table of Contents Page Section 1 Purpose and Need for Action ....................................................... 1 1.1 Background ........................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose and Need ................................................................................. 1 1.3 Scope ..................................................................................................... 1 1.4 Reclamation’s Legal and Statutory Authorities and Jurisdiction Relevant to the Proposed Federal Action.............................................. 2 1.5 Potential Issues...................................................................................... 3 Section 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action............................... 5 2.1 No Action Alternative ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation Draft
    Chapter 11 Geology and Soils This chapter describes the affected environment for geology and soils, as well as potential environmental consequences and associated mitigation measures, as they pertain to implementing the alternatives. This chapter presents information on the primary study area (area of project features, the Temperance Flat Reservoir Area, and Millerton Lake below RM 274). It also discusses the extended study area (San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the Merced River, the San Joaquin River from the Merced River to the Delta, the Delta, and the CVP and SWP water service areas). Affected Environment This section describes the affected environment related to geology, geologic hazards, erosion and sedimentation, geomorphology, mineral resources, soils, and salts. Where appropriate, geology and soils characteristics are described in a regional context, including geologic provinces, physiographic regions, or other large-scale areas, with some area-specific geologic maps and descriptions of specific soil associations. Geology This section describes the geology of the primary and extended study areas. Primary Study Area A description of the surficial geologic units encountered in the primary study area is presented in Table 11-1. Geologic maps of the primary study area and the area of project features are presented in Figure 11-1 and Figure 11-2, respectively. Draft – August 2014 – 11-1 Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation Environmental Impact Statement Table 11-1. Description of Surficial Geologic Units of the Primary Study Area Geologic Map of Millerton Lake Quadrangle, West-Central Sierra Nevada, California1 Formation Surficial Deposits General Features Abbreviation Plutonic rocks characterized by undeformed blocky hornblende prisms as long as 1 cm and by biotite books as Tonalite of Blue Canyon much as 5 mm across.
    [Show full text]
  • Tulare SWRP Public Draft
    Cottonwood Creek Storm Water Resource Plan Public Draft September 2018 Project Number 184031062 Prepared for: Tulare County Resource Management Agency Prepared by: Stantec 3301 C, Suite 1900 Sacramento, CA 95816 Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................... i Plan Objectives .......................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Objectives ....................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Plan Organization ............................................................................................ 1-1 Watershed Identification ........................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Watersheds and Subwatersheds .................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Political and Service-Area Boundaries ............................................................ 2-1 2.3 Water Quality Priorities ................................................................................... 2-6 2.4 Surface Water and Groundwater Resources .................................................. 2-7 Water Quality Compliance ........................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Land Use and Activities ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tranquillity Irrigation District to San Luis Water District, and Is Hereby Incorporated by Reference
    FONSI-14-009 Introduction In accordance with section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, the South-Central California Area Office of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), has determined that an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required for a series of annual exchanges at the Mendota Pool for up to 7,500 acre-feet (AF) of groundwater pumped from Tranquillity Irrigation District’s (TQID’s) well field. This Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is supported by Reclamation’s Environmental Assessment (EA)-14- 009, Five Year Groundwater Exchange Program - Tranquillity Irrigation District to San Luis Water District, and is hereby incorporated by reference. Reclamation provided the public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft FONSI and Draft EA between June 16th and June 20th. No comments were received. Background TQID and San Luis Water District (SLWD) have requested approval from Reclamation for a continuation of a series of annual exchanges at the Mendota Pool for up to 7,500 AF of groundwater pumped from TQID’s well field. The request is for Contract Years1 2014 through 2018. Similar exchanges have occurred in the past, the most recent of which was approved in 2011 and analyzed in EA-10-092 (Reclamation 2011). EA-10-092 analyzed the exchange at the Mendota Pool of up to 15,000 AF (not to exceed 7,500 AF in a given year) of groundwater pumped from TQID’s well field over Contract Years 2011 through 2013. Under this previous exchange program, groundwater was used by Reclamation to meet Central Valley Project (CVP) needs at the Mendota Pool.
    [Show full text]
  • Geomorphology of Segmented Alluvial Fans in Western Fresno County, California
    SEP 151964 n:~l~ l. i Geomorphology of Segmented Alluvial Fans in Western Fresno County, California GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 352-E Prepared in cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources Geomorphology of Segmented Alluvial Fans in Western Fresno County, California By WILLIAM B. BULL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION IN SEMIARID ENVIRONMENT GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 352-E Prepared in cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources A study of the interrelations of alluvial-Jan morphology, drainage-basin characteristics and tectonic and climatic events UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1964 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Page Page Glossary __________________________________________ _ v Geomorphology of the alluvial fans-Continued • Abstract __________________________________________ _ 89 Possible causes of fan segmentation_-------------- 103 Introduction ______________________________________ _ 89 Tectonic hypothesis _________ -_-------------- 105 Purpose and scope _____________________________ _ 89 Fans associated with progressively gentler Acknowledgments ______________________________ _ 90 stream gradients _____________________ _ 106 Geographic setting _____________________________ _ 90 Fan~ associated with progressively steeper Location and topographic features ___________ _ 90 stream
    [Show full text]
  • Part III, Ch 7-13, Mendota Pool Bypass and Reach 2B Improvements
    7.0 Biological Resources – Wildlife This chapter describes the environmental and regulatory setting for wildlife resources, as well as the environmental consequences associated with construction and operation of Project alternatives, including impacts and mitigation measures. 7.1 Environmental Setting This section describes the wildlife resources evaluated in this Environmental Impact Statement/Report (EIS/R), including wildlife habitat types and special-status wildlife species. Fish species are discussed separately in Chapter 5.0, “Biological Resources – Fisheries.” 7.1.1 Regional Setting The Project area lies within the San Joaquin Valley, which comprises the southern portion of California’s Central Valley. The San Joaquin Valley is bounded by the Sierra Nevada mountain range to the east, the Tehachapi Mountains to south, and the Coast Range to the west. With the exception of the Tulare Lake basin, the watersheds of the San Joaquin Valley drain into the San Joaquin River, which leads to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and ultimately into the San Francisco Bay. The San Joaquin River originates high in the Sierra Nevada. It rapidly descends and exits mountainous terrain in the area now occupied by Friant Dam. The river discharges to the valley floor near Gravelly Ford. Prior to agricultural development, the San Joaquin River and its main tributaries meandered across alluvial fans along the main axis of the San Joaquin Valley floor. The river distributed higher flows into a complex network of sloughs that branched off both sides of the river. It flowed through a flat, homogeneous topography and supported a limited riparian forest. The flat valley floor surrounding the riparian forest often took the form of extensive wetlands, dominated by tule marsh.
    [Show full text]
  • Mendota Bypass and Reach 2B Improvements Project EISR
    1 12.0 Hydrology - Flood Management 2 This chapter describes the environmental and regulatory settings for flood management 3 and environmental consequences and mitigation, which could potentially be affected by 4 implementation of Project alternatives. 5 12.1 Environmental Setting 6 The environmental setting for flood management includes a discussion of flood 7 protection history in the San Joaquin River basin, flood management structures, and flood 8 management operations and conditions. Much of the information presented in this section 9 was obtained from the Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation Initial 10 Alternatives Report Information Report, Flood Damage Reduction Technical Appendix 11 (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation [Reclamation] and California 12 Department of Water Resources [DWR] 2005) and is summarized below. 13 12.1.1 Historical Perspective of Flood Protection in the San Joaquin 14 River Basin 15 Historically, the San Joaquin River had insufficient capacity to carry heavy winter and 16 spring flows generated by precipitation and/or snowmelt within its channel banks. Once 17 flows exceeded channel capacities, the channels overflowed onto the surrounding 18 countryside, forming vast floodplains. Velocities in overbank areas were greatly reduced 19 from velocities in the channels reducing the sediment-carrying capacity of the water 20 allowing material naturally eroded from mountain and foothill areas to drop out of 21 suspension. In this way, over many years, the San Joaquin River built up its bed and 22 formed natural levees composed of heavier, coarser material carried by flood flows. Finer 23 material stayed in suspension much longer and dropped out when overflow water ponded 24 in basins that developed east and west of the river.
    [Show full text]
  • Fresno Slough Water District Multi-Year Transfers to Angiola Water District
    Draft FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Mercy Springs Water District and Fresno Slough Water District Multi-Year Transfers to Angiola Water District FONSI-12-021 Recommended by: _______________________________ Date: __________________ Rain Healer Natural Resources Specialist South-Central California Area Office Concurred by: _______________________________ Date: __________________ Chuck Siek Supervisory Natural Resources Specialist South-Central California Area Office Concurred by: _______________________________ Date: __________________ Randy English Chief, Resources Management Division South-Central California Area Office Approved by: _______________________________ Date: __________________ Michael P. Jackson Area Manager South-Central California Area Office U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation South-Central California Area Office July 2012 FONSI-11-013 Introduction In accordance with section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, the South-Central California Area Office of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required to approve a series of annual transfers between Mercy Springs Water District (Mercy Springs), Fresno Slough Water District (Fresno Slough) and Angiola Water District (Angiola). This Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is supported by Reclamation’s Environmental Assessment (EA)-12-021, Mercy Springs Water District and Fresno Slough Water District Multi-Year Transfers to Angiola Water District, and is hereby incorporated by reference. Background The State of California has historically experienced periods of drought and flooding. Water agencies strive to prepare for varying water supply conditions to the extent possible so that agricultural or urban water supply needs can be met regardless of the water year type. This is done by having a variety of water supply options that can be implemented as needed.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Biology of the San Joaquin- Tulare Basins, California: Analysis of Available Data Through 1992
    Aquatic Biology of the San Joaquin- Tulare Basins, California: Analysis of Available Data Through 1992 By LARRY R. BROWN Prepared in cooperation with the National Water-Quality Assessment Program U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 2471 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, 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. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1996 For sale by the U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services Box 25286 Federal Center Denver, CO 80225-0286 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Brown, Larry R. Aquatic biology of the San Joaquin-Tulare Basins, California : Analysis of available data through 1992 / by Larry R. Brown ; prepared in cooperation with the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. p. cm. (U.S. Geological Survey water-supply paper ; 2471) Includes bibliographical references (p. ). 1 . Freshwater biology California San Joaquin River Watershed. 2. Freshwater biology California Tulare Lake Watershed. 3. Aquatic organisms Effect of water pollution on California San Joaquin River Watershed. 4. Aquatic organisms Effect of water pollution on California Tulare Lake Watershed I. National Water-Quality Assessment Program (U.S.) II. Title. III. Series QH105.C2B667 1996 574.92'9794'8 dc20 96-21432 CIP ISBN 0-607-8621 4-9 FOREWORD The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey Describe how water quality is changing over (USGS) is to assess the quantity and quality of the time. earth resources of the Nation and to provide informa­ Improve understanding of the primary natural tion that will assist resource managers and policymak- and human factors that affect water-quality ers at Federal, State, and local levels in making sound conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Kings River Handbook 2009
    TThehe KKingsings RRiveriver HHandbookandbook Prepared by the Public Information Staff of KRCD and KRWA JJ. Randall McFarland, KRCD and KRWA Public Relations Consultant CCristelr L. Tufenkjian, KRCD Manager of Community & Public Relations Special material provided by James Provost The Kings River Handbook 4886 E. Jensen Avenue 4888 E. Jensen Avenue Fresno, CA 93725 Fresno, CA 93725 559.237.5567 559.266.0767 www.krcd.org www.kingsriverwater.org September 2009 Fifth Printing Permission to reprint is granted with credit to the Kings River Conservation District and Kings River Water Association Contents INTRODUCTION . .Page 3 A SYNOPSIS OF KINGS RIVER HISTORY . .Page 4 Beginnings Initial Development, Disputes, Solutions The Modern Era ALONG THE KINGS RIVER. .Page 15 The High Sierra Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir The River: Pine Flat to State Route 99 State Route 99 to Army and Island Weirs Clark's Fork, South Fork and Tulare Lake North Fork and James Bypass KINGS RIVER WATER USERS . .Page 29 Agricultural Water Users Urban Water Agencies Water for the Fishery Groundwater Kings River Support Agencies KRWA MEMBER UNITS . .Page 37 Upper River Agencies Lower River Agencies: State Route 99 to Army and Island Weirs South Fork Agencies: Army Weir to Empire Weir No. 2 Lower River Agencies: Empire Weir No. 2 and Tulare Lake Bed Lower River Agencies: Island Weir to Mendota Pool THE KINGS RIVER THROUGH HISTORY (TIME LINE). .Page 42 QUICK FACTS ABOUT THE KINGS RIVER . .Page 45 THE KINGS RIVER'S PROFILE . .Page 46 FEATURES ALONG THE RIVER . .Page 47 2 Introduction There is nothing in the world quite like the Kings River.
    [Show full text]