DOCSLIB.ORG

Dam Fights and Water Policy in California: 1969-1989

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dam Fights and Water Policy in California: 1969-1989 University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Innovation in Western Water Law and Management (Summer Conference, June 5-7) 1991 6-7-1991 Dam Fights and Water Policy in California: 1969-1989 Harrison C. Dunning Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/innovation-in-western-water-law- and-management Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Courts Commons, Environmental Health and Protection Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Environmental Policy Commons, Hydrology Commons, Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, Litigation Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, Public Policy Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, Water Law Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Citation Information Dunning, Harrison C., "Dam Fights and Water Policy in California: 1969-1989" (1991). Innovation in Western Water Law and Management (Summer Conference, June 5-7). https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/innovation-in-western-water-law-and-management/19 Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School. Harrison C. Dunning, Dam Fights and Water Policy in California: 1969-1989, in INNOVATION IN WESTERN WATER LAW AND MANAGEMENT (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law, 1991). Also includes: Judge Terrence M. Finney’s decisions in Mono Lake Water Rights Cases, and The American River Decision: Balancing Instream Protection with Other Competing Beneficial Uses by Stuart L. Somach. Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School. DAM FIGHTS AND WATER POLICY IN CALIFORNIA: 1969-1989 also Judge Terrence M. Finney's decision in Mono • Lake Water Rights Cases The American River Decision: Balancing Instream Protection with Other Competing Beneficial Uses by Stuart L. Somach Harrison C. Dunning University of California - Davis School of Law Davis, California INNOVATION IN WESTERN WATER LAW AND MANAGEMENT Natural Resources Law Center University of Colorado School of Law Boulder, Colorado June 5-7, 1991 Copyright 1990 by the Journal of the West, Inc., 1531 Yuma, Manhattan, K5 66502, and reprinted with permission. No additional copies may be made without express permission of the author and of the editor of the Journal of the West. 14 JOURNAL of the \VEST Hetch Hetchy Valley before it was flooded to provide a water supply for San Fran- cisco. (Courtesy of the California State Library) Dam Fights and Water Policy in California: 1969-1989 Harrison C. Dunning WATER policy in California has been through many undoubtedly was that over San Francisco's project in the transitions since the prior-appropriation doctrine was first Hetch Hetchy Valley of Yosemite National Park. That developed in the mid-nineteenth century. The rise of valley was regarded by many, foremost among them John irrigated agriculture, the growth of coastal cities with their Muir, as one of the jewels of the Sierra Nevada, compara- demands for water-storage projects, and the rapid increase ble in beauty to Yosemite Valley itself. Muir and the still- in water-related outdoor recreation since World War II young Sierra Club fought hard to preserve Hetch Hetchy have all led to shifts in emphasis and, sometimes, to very Valley from the water project, but to no avail. Los Angeles dramatic changes in legal doctrine within the state. In had built its Owens Valley project, other urban areas in many instances the evolution has been provoked by a California would in the near future be enjoying water from highly publicized controversy over the proposed construc- the Mokelumne River and the Colorado River, and San tion or the operation of a dam or related facilities. These Francisco's plans for the Tuolumne River could not be dam fights have served to highlight the underlying clash in defeated by Muir. There was an important dam fight. one values regarding the best use of water and to give focus and which had a major impact on national-park policy) But it life to what otherwise might have remained rather abstract did not lead to any significant change in water policy in the policy debates. state. In this century California's most famous dam fight Dam fights in California in the last 20 years. however. Dunning: Ohm Fights and Muer Policy 1,1 California: 1969-1989 (Th have had very different outcomes. Some major water ; Rivers of development proposals have been defeated altogether and I I Northern Cal& )))) in L'T are today no longer live possibilities. Even more impor- tant. perhaps, is the way some of the dam fights have led to (r- CI\ rots / I a distinctively more preservationist and environmentally / I Phu' Ms on Aen•Isis sensitive water policy. In that regard, none has been more • I — Les tta. WOO , 500X0 MOW important than the dispute over Dos Rios. 0300.10*2.000,1%0 I7.$00.0 as =WPM - 34,10Pho VOW* I Dos Rios: Development of a California / I Van Ws 1.01:01X0 "Wild and Scenic" RiverSystem • Dos Rios was a large dam and reservoir proposed for the r4": Middle Fork of the upper Eel River on California's north coast. It would have been a major source of water supply 7.1 I for the State Water Project, with a storage capacity of over • N. seven million acre-feet of water. To understand its signifi- (It %, cance, one must understand something of the history of state involvement in water development in California. \ During the early decades of the twentieth century, the major players in California water development were water districts and cities. A multitude of districts developed the rivers of the Sierra Nevada as sources of irrigation water wean°, mar supply, while cities and special districts like the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Metro- 7 politan Water District of Southern California (MWD) brought water hundreds of miles m their urban service areas. Engineers for the state of California were on the sidelines, but they were busy making plans to emulate the districts and the cities by developing projects in the Sacramento Valley to supply water to agricultural areas in Rivers of Northern California. (Courtesy of the Johns Hopkins Univer the San Joaquin Valley to the south. sity Press. Published for Resources for the Future) These plans for a major state water project, however. The Dos Rios site on the upper Eel River. (Courtesy of the Cali- fornia Department of Water Re- sources) 16 JOURNAL of the WEST The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. showing the route for the proposed Peripheral Canal, defeated by the California electorate in 1982. (Courte- w of the California Department of Wa- ter Resources) .INTAKE STRUCTURE( AND FISHSCREEN OOD A PUMPING! p PI.ANT (Amu 1 ‘‘), - SECANAL RIO VISTA -SYCAMORE 4 CANAL LODI sag csNAL FOUNT SMILE AL ANTIOCH Carlo STOCKTON CONTRA COSTA CANAL INTAKC RELOCATION SOUTH AAAAA *ATER Was ITT PCN I AAAAAA CANAL IN•ROv(METrt FACILITIES 3 IM • PERIPHERAL CANAL O CIO • PERI PHERAL CANAL •11 RELEASE FACILITY. STAGE Ai Rana FACILITY. STAGES SERVICE ARIA -MINN mass PROTECTION FACILITIES MY* AAAAAAA A Mann" TRACY O PUNPING AAAAA •06 • co LLLLL STRUCTURE or cps met many frustrations. The fact that a state water project The principal supply features of the state project, initially would bring with it public power caused serious political widely known as the Feather River Project but now termed problems in the 1920s. Although these were overcome the State Water Project (SWP), paralleled much of the during the Great Depression, by then state officials had CVP: a major impoundment facility in the Sacramento • concluded they would not be successful in selling the Valley, this one on the Feather River near Oroville; use of bonds necessary to finance a state water project. As a river channels to convey released water to the Sacramento- consequence, the state's Central Valley Project (CVP) was San Joaquin Delta; pumps to lift water from the Delta into turned over to the federal government in 1935. Ultimately an aqueduct heading south; and an off-stream storage it was constructed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, reservoir in the San Joaquin Valley, to be shared with the which impounded water not only at Shasta Dam on the CV?. California's legislature endorsed these initial fea- upper Sacramento River, but also later at Trinity Dam on tures of the SWP in 1959, and with approval by the people the Trinity River on the north coast. That water is brought of the financing in 1960, construction of the project got by tunnel eastward to the Sacramento River, so as to join underway. the Shasta Darn water, most of which is exported to the San By 1964 the California Department of Water Resources Joaquin Valley. (DWR), which had been created in 1956 to design, build, After World War H, with the state economy recovered and operate the SWP, decided that the first additional and with many large landowners restive over restrictions supply facility for the SWP should be on the north coast. in federal reclamation law designed to ensure that feder- Just as the CVP had gone to the Trinity River, the SWP ally developed water be limited to family farm enterprises, would go to the Eel River, where there had been serious state officials again developed plans for a water project. flood problems which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dunning: Dam Fights and Water Policy in California: 1969-1989 17 The south shore of Mono Lake. (Cour- tesy of Ray Borton) The principal aqueducts which supply Southern California.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Folsom50booklet 1 5/10/2006, 10:22 AM This Booklet Was Printed in Cooperation With
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region Folsom50Booklet 1 5/10/2006, 10:22 AM This booklet was printed in cooperation with Folsom50Booklet 2 5/10/2006, 10:22 AM U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region Folsom50Booklet 3 5/10/2006, 10:22 AM Dedication I am pleased to offer my congratulations as Folsom Dam celebrates its 50th Anniversary. For half a century, through drought and flood, Folsom Dam has managed American River flows for the benefit of people, farms, industry, and the environment. Since its completion in 1956, it has effectively controlled flooding. Even several months before its final William E. Rinne completion, Folsom Dam prevented flood Acting Commissioner damage when a major tropical storm Bureau of Reclamation triggered rapid snowmelt. The dam impounded so much runoff that Folsom Lake filled in one week rather than the one year anticipated by engineers. It is estimated that this magnificent dam has prevented more than $5 billion in flood damage to downstream agricultural and urban areas, a testament to the foresight of the men and women who envisioned and built it. Today, Folsom Dam provides 500,000 acre-feet of water for irrigation and urban uses annually. It plays an important role in fisheries enhancement and water quality improvement in the San Francisco Bay-Delta. The dam also provides clean, renewable electricity. In 2005, it produced more than 690 million kilowatt hours. As a recreational facility, Folsom Lake is one of the most visited recreation areas operated by the California Department of Parks and Recreation.
    [Show full text]
  • 3A.12 Parks and Recreation - Land
    3A.12 PARKS AND RECREATION - LAND The two local roadway connections from the Folsom Heights property off-site into El Dorado Hills would not generate direct increases in population that could result in additional demand for parkland facilities in El Dorado County. Therefore, the “Affected Environment” does not contain a discussion of conditions in El Dorado County related to parks and recreation. 3A.12.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT Folsom Lake Folsom Lake State Recreation Area (SRA), located approximately 5 miles north of the SPA, serves the greater Sacramento area for recreation in the form of camping, hiking, biking, boating, and other outdoor recreation activities. The lake also hosts bass fishing tournaments that frequently draw fishermen from throughout the state. California State Parks manages the Folsom Lake SRA, which includes Folsom Lake and the surrounding facilities. The lake features approximately 75 miles of shoreline and 80 miles of trails that provide opportunities for hiking, horseback riding, nature studies, camping, and picnicking. There are seven major recreation areas with facilities located around the lake. The Folsom Lake SRA, including Folsom Lake, is one of the most heavily used recreational facilities in the California State Park system, with 2 to 3 million visitor days per year. Approximately 75% of the annual visitations to the Folsom Lake SRA occur during the spring and summer, and many (85%) of the Folsom Lake SRA activities are water dependent. The Lake Natoma sub-unit of the Folsom Lake SRA is located adjacent to the City of Folsom, between Hazel Avenue and Folsom Dam, upstream from the Sacramento County-operated portion of the American River Parkway.
    [Show full text]
  • Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure Network
    DA 17 DA 67 DA 68 DA 22 DA 29 DA 39 DA 40 DA 41 DA 46 N. FORK N. & M. TUOLOMNE YUBA RIVER FORKS CHERRY CREEK, RIVER Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure ELEANOR CREEK AMERICAN M & S FORK RIVER YUBA RIVER New Bullards Hetch Hetchy Res Bar Reservoir GREENHORN O'Shaughnessy Dam Network Configuration for CALVIN (1 of 2) SR- S. FORK NBB CREEK & BEAR DA 32 SR- D17 AMERICAN RIVER HHR DA 42 DA 43 DA 44 RIVER STANISLAUS SR- LL- C27 RIVER & 45 Camp Far West Reservoir DRAFT Folsom Englebright C31 Lake DA 25 DA 27 Canyon Tunnel FEATHER Lake 7 SR- CALAVERAS New RIVER SR-EL CFW SR-8 RIVER Melones Lower Cherry Creek MERCED MOKELUMNE Reservoir SR-10 Aqueduct ACCRETION CAMP C44 RIVER FAR WEST TO DEER CREEK C28 FRENCH DRY RIVER CREEK WHEATLAND GAGE FRESNO New Hogan Lake Oroville DA 70 D67 SAN COSUMNES Lake RIVER SR- 0 SR-6 C308 SR- JOAQUIN Accretion: NHL C29 RIVER 81 CHOWCHILLA American River RIVER New Don Lake McClure Folsom to Fair D9 DRY Pardee Pedro SR- New Exchequer RIVER Oaks Reservoir 20 CREEK Reservoir Dam SR- Hensley Lake DA 14 Tulloch Reservoir SR- C33 Lake Natoma PR Hidden Dam Nimbus Dam TR Millerton Lake SR-52 Friant Dam C23 KELLY RIDGE Accretion: Eastside Eastman Lake Bypass Accretion: Accretion: Buchanan Dam C24 Yuba Urban DA 59 Camanche Melones to D16 Upper Merced D64 SR- C37 Reservoir C40 2 SR-18 Goodwin River 53 D62 SR- La Grange Dam 2 CR Goodwin Reservoir D66 Folsom South Canal Mokelumne River Aqueduct Accretion: 2 D64 depletion: Upper C17 D65 Losses D85 C39 Goodwin to 3 Merced River 3 3a D63 DEPLETION mouth C31 2 C25 C31 D37
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Year in Review — California
    2020 Year in Review CALIFORNIA–GREAT BASIN REGION U.S. Department of the Interior January 2021 Mission Statements The Department of the Interior conserves and manages the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage for the benefit and enjoyment of the American people, provides scientific and other information about natural resources and natural hazards to address societal challenges and create opportunities for the American people, and honors the Nation’s trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities to help them prosper. 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. 2020 Year in Review: Highlights of Key Initiatives in the California-Great Basin Region Cover Photo: The “Three Shastas:” Shasta Dam, Shasta Lake, and Mount Shasta U.S. Department of the Interior January 2021 2020 Year in Review: Highlights of Key Initiatives in the California-Great Basin Region 3 Contents Welcome from Regional Director Conant ...................................................................................6 Implementing New Central Valley Project Operating Plan......................................7 Annual Report on the Long-Term Operation of the CVP and SWP for Water Year 2020 ......................................................................................................................8 Modernizing Reclamation Infrastructure
    [Show full text]
  • Open House Summary Report
    Nimbus Hatchery Fish Passage Project Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report Open House Summary Report Rancho Cordova, California US Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation California Department of Fish and Game February 2011 Contents Page 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................1 1.1 Overview of the Public Involvement Process ..............................................1 1.2 Description of the Public Involvement Process to Date ..............................2 2. Meeting Overview ..................................................................................................5 3. Comment Summary ...............................................................................................7 4. Future Steps ............................................................................................................9 4.1 Summary of Future Steps and Public Participation Opportunities ..............9 4.2 Contact Information .....................................................................................9 Table Page 3-1 Summary of Comments ...........................................................................................8 Appendix Draft EIS/EIR Public Involvement Materials Nimbus Hatchery Fish Passage Project EIS/EIR February 2011 Open House Summary Report i Acronyms Acronym Full Phrase CCAO Central California Area Office CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQA California
    [Show full text]
  • The Great New Year's Flood of 1997 in Northern California
    The Great New Year's Flood of 1997 in Northern California by Maurice Roos' The New Year's flood of 1997 was probably the largest in the 90-year Northern California record which begins in 1906. It was notable in the intensity, volume of flood water, and the areal extent from the Oregon border down to the southern end of the Sierra. Many new flood records were set. This was a classic orographic event with warm moist winds from the southwest blowing over the Sierra Nevada and dumping amazing amounts of rain at the middle and high elevations, especially over a 3 day period centered on New Year's Day. The sheer volume of runoff exceeded the flood control capacity of Don Pedro Dam on the Tuolumne River and Millerton Reservoir on the upper San Joaquin River with large spills of excess water. Most of the other large dams in northern California were full or nearly full at the end of the storms. Amounts of rain at lower elevations were not unusual. For example, downtown Sacramento in the middle of the Central Valley had 3.7 inches during the week from December 26 through January 2. But Blue Canyon, at the one-mile elevation between Sacramento and Reno, had over 30 inches, an orographic ratio of over 8, far more than the usual 3 to 4 for most storms. Many Valley folks could not understand that there was a problem because they were not seeing a lot of rain. Meanwhile, the entire northern Sierra was observing 20 inches, some 40 percent of average annual precipitation.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2. Project Update/Activities U.S
    Chapter 2 Project Update/Activities since Publication of the Draft EIR/EIS Chapter 2 Project Update/Activities since Publication of the Draft EIR/EIS This chapter is intended to provide an update on various aspects of the project that have changed since issuance of the draft EIR/EIS on August 8, 2003. Many of these changes are a result of comments received on the draft EIR/EIS during the comment period, which ended December 15, 2003. Changes to the project are presented in the list below, followed by a more detailed description of each. 1. Modifications to the layout and configuration of the intake facilities 2. Site identification for Zone 40 water treatment plant 3. Revised modeling and coordinated operation agreement assumptions 4. Water contract settlement agreements None of these changes results in new impacts. In some cases they result in a reduction of severity of impacts identified in the draft EIR/EIS. A revised summary of impacts and mitigation measures is provided at the end of this chapter in Tables S-1, S-2, and S-3. Table S-1 summarizes the significant environmental impacts and Table S-2 summarizes the less-than-significant environmental impacts of the FRWP alternatives. Table S-3 summarizes significant cumulative impacts. The tables are organized to present impacts by environmental topic area and to indicate the significance of each impact, available mitigation measures, and the significance of each impact if mitigation is implemented. Responsibility for Project Implementation As noted in Chapter 1 of the draft EIR/EIS, FRWA is a joint powers agency formed by the Sacramento County Water Agency and East Bay Municipal Utility District.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7: Alternative Evaluation
    Chapter 7 Alternative Evaluation The potential for water quality improvements in the Delta was evaluated in terms of the position of X2 and the resulting Delta outflows. Shifting X2 downstream improves the habitat for Delta smelt and reduces water quality stress for other species, including salmonids. X2 is a Delta management tool; it is defined as the distance in kilometers from the Golden Gate Bridge to the location where the tidally averaged near-bottom salinity in the Delta measures 2 parts per thousand (ppt). East of X2, water becomes progressively fresher, and west of X2 the water becomes more saline, until it reaches the ocean, which has a salinity of approximately 35 ppt. Habitat quality in the Delta is degraded when the salinity in the Delta increases. The highest salinities occur during the fall and early winter, when Delta outflow is at its lowest. Water quality degradation is most pronounced in Dry and Critical years. Figure 7-8 shows the change in the average X2 positions during September and October in Dry and Critical years for each of the alternatives. Alternative C performs best in terms of the shift in the location of X2 by 0.3 to 1.0 kilometer (km) seaward, followed by Alternative B and then Alternative A. Alternative D provides the least water quality benefit, with an average shift of 1 km to the east in July through August, and a 0.3 km shift in September through November. Shifting X2 requires a significant quantity of water. Releases from Sites Reservoir to improve Delta environmental water quality range from 174 TAF/yr under Alternative D up to 242 TAF/yr under Alternative C.
    [Show full text]
  • Folsom Lake State Recreation Area
    Folsom Lake State Recreation Area 7755 Folsom-Auburn Road • Folsom, CA 95630 • (916) 988-0205 Folsom Lake State Recreation Area offers scenic panoramas of open grasslands, rolling hills, the Sierra Nevada, Sacramento Valley, and the Bay Area’s Mount Diablo. Folsom Lake’s miles of shoreline and waterside trails attract millions of boaters, equestrians, cyclists, and hikers each year. RATTLESNAKES are common to the area and are FISHING is perhaps the most popular activity at important members of the natural community. They Folsom Lake. The fish varieties include trout, catfi sh, will not attack, but if disturbed or cornered, will large and smallmouth bass, perch, and kokanee. defend themselves. Give them distance and respect. Bottom anglers have even caught sturgeon. BOATERS should be alert for fl oating debris, Fishing regulations change annually, check with the particularly in spring, and underwater hazards created California Department of Fish and Wildlife at as the lake draws down in the summer. www.wildlife.ca.gov for current changes in catch limits and licensing requirements. QUIET HOURS are from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. Generators may be operated from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. PLEASE REMEMBER: Radios and other sound-producing devices must • Poison oak is nearly everywhere in the park. not be audible beyond your immediate campsite “Leaves of three, let them be!” Check with staff for regardless of the time, day or night. further information. • The consumption of any alcoholic beverage in all CHECK-OUT TIME is noon. If you wish to stay day-use areas and all shorelines of Folsom Lake another night, please re-register by 10 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Annual Report of Activities
    Annual Report of Activities October 1, 2017 to October 22, 2018 Weir and fish ladder at Nimbus Fish Hatchery on the Lower American River below Nimbus Dam. Photo credit: Spencer Marshall, Sarah Perrin, and Zarela Guerrero, USBR American River Group (ARG) November 2018 i Acronyms and Abbreviations ARG American River Group BiOp Biological Opinion cfs Cubic Feet Per Second CVP Central Valley Project CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife CWP Coldwater Pool FMS Flow Management Standard LAR Lower American River MRR Minimum Release Requirements NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation RM River Mile RPA Reasonable and Prudent Alternative RTDOT Real-Time Drought Operations Management Team SWP State Water Project SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TAF Thousand Acre-Feet TCD Temperature Control Device USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ii Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Background ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 American River Geographic Orientation ................................................................................... 1 1.2 Lower American River Historical Background ......................................................................... 2 Chapter 2 –Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) Actions (NMFS 2009 BiOp) ................................ 3 2.1 Summary of RPA Actions ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • State of the River Report
    Lower American River State of the River Report Water Forum 660 J Street, Suite 260 Sacramento, CA 95814 1 April 2005 Lower American River The Water Forum is a diverse group of business and agricultural leaders, citizens groups, environmentalists, water managers, and local governments in the Sacramento Region that have joined to fulfill two co-equal objectives: • Provide a reliable and safe water supply for the region’s economic health and planned development to the year 2030; and • Preserve the fishery, wildlife, recreational, and aesthetic values of the lower American River. In 2000, Water Forum members approved a comprehensive Water Forum Agreement, consisting of integrated actions necessary to provide a regional solution to potential water shortages, environmental degradation, groundwater contamination, threats to groundwater reliability, and limits to economic prosperity. The Water Forum Agreement allows the region to meet its needs in a balanced way through implementation of seven elements. The seven elements of the Water Forum Agreement are: 1) increased surface water diversions, 2) actions to meet customers’ needs while reducing diversion impacts in drier years, 3) an improved pattern of fishery flow releases from Folsom Reservoir, 4) lower American River Habitat Management Element, 5) water conservation, 6) groundwater management, and 7) the Water Forum Successor Effort (WFSE). The WFSE was created to implement the seven elements of the Water Forum Agreement over the next 30 years. Additional information can be found on the Water Forum’s web site at: www.waterforum.org. Water Forum 660 J Street, Suite 260 Sacramento, CA 95814 April 2005 2 Lower American River State of the River Report 3 Letter to Readers Dear Reader, This is the first lower American River State of the River Report.
    [Show full text]
  • The Genesis of the Placer County Water Agency
    a Heritage of Water: The Golden Anniversary of the Placer County Water Agency 1957-2007 Prepared by the Water Education Foundation Placer County History Book WEB1 9/10/2007, 3:08 PM Credits This book was prepared and published by the Water Education Foundation in conjunction with the Placer County Water Agency. The book tells the story of Placer County water from its role in the Gold Rush to the formation of the Placer County Water Agency, which has managed the county’s water resources for 50 years. Editor: Sue McClurg Authors: Ryan McCarthy, Janet Dunbar Fonseca, Ed Tiedemann, Ed Horton, Cheri Sprunck, Dave Breninger and Einar L. Maisch Design and Layout: Graphic Communications Printing: Paul Baker Printing Photos: Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley • William Briner • California State Archives (F3757:3) • California State Library • California State Parks – Auburn State Recreation Area Collection • Dave Carter • City of Rocklin • Placer County Water Agency • Ryan Salm/Sierra Sun • Special Collections, University of California, Davis • U.S. Bureau of Reclamation • USDA NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) • U.S. National Forest Campground Guide • Karina Williams/Lincoln News Messenger • Bill Wilson On the cover: Hell Hole Reservoir (top) and building the Middle Fork Project PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY P.O. Box 6570 717 K Street, Suite 317 144 Ferguson Road Sacramento, CA 95814 Auburn, CA 95604 (916) 444-6240 (530) 823-4850 www.watereducation.org www.pcwa.net Copyright 2007 by Water Education Foundation • All rights reserved ISBN 1-893246-97-3 2 Placer County History Book WEB2 9/10/2007, 3:09 PM Foreword by David A.
    [Show full text]