DOCSLIB.ORG

Bulletin 132-80 the California State Water Project—Current Activities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bulletin 132-80 the California State Water Project—Current Activities Department o Water Resource . Bulletin 132-8 The California State Water Project­ Current Activities ·and Future Management Plans .. October 1980 uey D. Johnson, Edmund G. Brown Jr. Ronald B. Robie ecretary for Resources Governor Director he Resources State of Department of . gency California Water Resources - ,~ -- performance levels corresponding to holder of the water rights. if the project capabilities as facilities are Contra Costa Canal should be relocated developed. Briefly, the levels of along a low-level alignment in the dt'velopmentcomprise: 1) prior to the future, the question of ECCID involve­ operation of New Melones, 2) after New ment will be considered at that time. Melones is operational but before operation of the Peripheral 'Canal, and SB 200, when implemented, will amend the 3) after the Peripheral Canal is oper­ California Water Code to include provi­ ational. sion that issues between the State and the delta water agencies concerning the The SDWA has indicated that the pro­ rights of users to make use of the posal is unacceptable. In March of waters of the Delta may be resolved by 1980, the Department proposed to reop­ .arbitration. en negotiation such that any differ- ·ences remaining between the Agency and WATER CONTRACTS MANAGEMENT the Department after September 30 be submitted to arbitration. The SDWA Thirty-one water agencies have entered also rejected that proposal. Before into long-term contracts with the State negotiations resume, SDWA wants to for annual water supplies from the State complete its joint study with WPRS. Water Project. A list of these agen­ The study concerns the CVP and SWP im­ cies, along with other information con­ pacts on south Delta water supplies. cerning each water agency and their ser­ vice areas, is shown in Figure 5. As o Central Delta Water Agency and Contra noted in Figure 5, cumulative deliver­ Costa County Water Agency. ies (Column.2 of the .Figure) include both Project and nonproject water deliv­ No current negotiations are in prog­ eries from SWP facilities. (Annual ress with either entity. water entitlement deliveries through 1979 are shown for each agency 1n Table B-5B of Appendix B.) o Byron-Bethany Irrigation District (BBID) Project water supplies in 1979, were The Department has drafted a pre 1 imin­ sufficient to meet all water contractor ary contract based on the North Delta requests for SWP water deliveries. Water Agency contract. The draft con­ Although runoff in the Sacramento and tract is presently being reviewed by Feather River basins during the 1979 BBID. water year (October 1, 1978 through Sep­ tember 30, 1979) was somewhat below nor­ o East Contra Cost~ Irrigation District mal, storage in SWPreservoirs was above (ECCID) . normal asa result of a large holdover from the wet year of 1978. Actual use During late 1979 and early 1980, meet­ of Project water by contractors in 1979 ings were held with ECCID to determine was below September 1978 projections of mutually acceptable contract qual- use in 1979 for Southern California, 1t1es. Substantial agreement has been South Bay, and Feather River servi.ce reached,and it is anticipated that a areas but slightly greater in the San contract will be completed during Joaquin Valley. Overall, 1979 Project 1980. This contract will assure ECCID .water deliveries, totaling over 2.9 mil­ of specified qualities at their pres- • lion cubic dekametres (2.36 million ent intake in Indian Slough. The con- acre-feet) .during the year, were highest tract will not require landowner rati­ of record since the SWP began operations fication,' since the Districti"l th-E> in 1962. 70 Table 3 of this and previous Bulletins ation and po~ulation served by the SWP. ,in the 132 series shows annual delivery The population totals, when compared to amounts of Project and nonproject water statewide amounts, show that the SWP to both long-term contractors and all accounts for a substantial part of the other agencies Which received water de­ statewide totals. liveries from facilities of the State Water Project. Actual and projected Water Deliveries in 1979 annual deliveries of both Project and nonproject water to contractors and non­ During 1979, the SWP provided water ser­ contractors are summarized in Table 1. vice to 36 agencies. These agencies in­ Column 2 of Figure 5 shows that seven cluded 23 long-term contractors and 13 contractors have yet to receive water noncontractors. Monthly deliveries to frQm Project water facilities. An each of the 36 are shown in Table 3 and ,eighth contractor, Napa County Flood summarized as follows: Control and Water Conservation District, has received only nonproject water, o 1 728 494 cubic dekametres which was pumped and delivered through (1,401,292 acre-feet) of 1979 entitl the SWP facilities. The water contract ment water to 23 long-term of one of the eight contractors, Palm­ contractors. ?'a1e Water District, calls for deliver­ ies of Project water beginning in 1972. o 247 455 cubic dekametres (200,604 ,H ever, the District has elected not to acre-feet) of entitlement makeup take water deliveries at this time. water, under Article 12(d) of the Contracts of the other seven specify long-term contracts, resulted from initial deliveries to be made after reduced water deliveries during the 1979. 1977 drought. Several contractors have obtained far 08 635 cubic dekametres (7,000 acre­ less water than the amount contracted feet) of entitlement makeup,~ater for, because current needs are less than under Article 14(b) of the long-term those projected at the time their con­ contract. tracts were signed in the early and mid- 1960's. Differences betwe~n contracted o 62 908 cubic dekametres (51,000 acre­ amounts (annual entitlements) and actual feet) of entitlement water to two con­ deliveries through 1979 may be deter­ tractors under delivery rights ac­ mined by comparing the annual entitle­ quired pursuant to the "wet weather" ment values shown in Table B-4 to the provisions in Article 45 of their actual delivered amounts shown in long-term contracts. Table B-5B. In 1979, fourteen contrac­ tors took less Project water than their o 799 788 cubic dekametres contracted 1979 entitlement amount (see (648,389 acre-feet) of surplus water Table 3). Overall cumulative State de- to six long-term contractors and two liveries of all types of water since noncontractors. 1962, including deliveries of SWP sur­ plus water to the 31 contractors, exceed 24 732 cubic dekametres {20,050 acre­ the cumulative total of all annual con­ feet} of emergency relief water to one tract entitlements through 1979. long-term contractor and one noncontractor. Figure 5 also contains maximum annual entitlement amounts for each contracting o 6 285 cubic dekametres {5,095 acre­ agency, total payments by agencies feet} of preconsolidation repayment through 1979, gross area assessed valu- water to Belridge Oil Company. o 33 862 cubic dekametres (27,452 acre Therefore, the need for pro; ec t wa ter in· feet) of local water to three long­ that area;" especially· for maintain ten~ contractors and two ground water basins, was well below that noncontractors. anticipated in the fall of 1978. State­ wide, 12 contractors in 1979 took a o 37 005 cubic dekametres (30,000 acre total of 533 138 cubic dekametres feet) of 1978 exchange water conveyed (432,216 acre-feet) less entitlement to Southern California storage in water than they had been initially sche­ ground water basins within the Metro­ duled to receive. politan Service area. o 129 588 cubic dekametres Makeup Water DeZiveries. Each of the (105,033 acre-feet) of Federal CVP contractors scheduled to receive Proj~ct water wheeled for eight San Joaquin entitlement water during 1977, with the Valley agencies. exception of Butte County and Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conserva­ EntitZement Water DeZiveries. Every tion District, acquired rights under f~ll the State obtains from each con­ Article 12(d) of the water supply con­ tractor an estimate of its future re­ tract to the future delivery of Project quirements for Project water. Estimates water. The future delivery amount received in the fall of 1978 showed that equalled the reduction in the initially 23 contractors projected need for . scheduled 1977 entitlement delivery 2 288 746 cubic dekametres (1,855,003 amounts made due to the drought. In ad­ acre-feet) of entitlement water in 1979 dition, two contractors, Antelope plus substantial quantities of surplus Valley-East Kern Water Agency and The and entitlement makeup water. The ap­ Metropolitan Water District of Southern proved report, entitled "Operational California, acquired future delivery Criteria for the State Water Project in rights to 5 905 cubic dekametres 1979" (The Rule Curve), showed that on (4,787 acre-feet) pursuant to Art- the basis of water supply conditions as icle 14(b); and 32 872 cuhic dekametres of December 1, 1978 "and Project water (26,649 acre-feet) pursuant to then in storage, all requested entitle­ Article 12(b) of their water contract as ment and entitlem~nt makeup water could a result of a" 1976 nondelivery. be delivered in 1979. Based on this, schedules approving the 1979 delivery of 2 261 632 cubic dekametres During 1979, 5 contractors (shown in (1,833,508 acre-feet) of entitlement Column 3 of Table 2) took delivery of a water were issued on December 15, 1978. total of 247 455 cubic dekametres Approved scheduled amounts were the sam (200,604 acre-feet) of Article L2(d) as the amounts requested in the fall, water. In addition, Kern County Water except for two schedules that were re­ Agency took delivery of the 8 635 cubic duced at the water contractors' request dekametres (7,000 acre-feet) of Article 14(b) water.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • KEY to ENDSHEET MAP (Continued)
    KEY TO ENDSHEET MAP (continued) RESERVOIRS AND LAKES (AUTHORIZED) 181.Butler Valley Res. 185. Dixie Refuge Res. 189. County Line Res. 182.Knights Valley Res. 186. Abbey Bridge Res. 190. Buchanan Res. 183.Lakeport Res. 187. Marysville Res. 191. Hidden Res. 184.Indian Valley Res. 188. Sugar Pine Res. 192. ButtesRes. RESERVOIRS AND LAKES 51BLE FUTURE) 193.Helena Res. 207. Sites-Funks Res. 221. Owen Mountain Res. 194.Schneiders Bar Res. 208. Ranchería Res. 222. Yokohl Res. 195.Eltapom Res. 209. Newville-Paskenta Res. 223. Hungry Hollow Res. 196. New Rugh Res. 210. Tehama Res. 224. Kellogg Res. 197.Anderson Ford Res. 211. Dutch Gulch Res. 225. Los Banos Res. 198.Dinsmore Res. 212. Allen Camp Res. 226. Jack Res. 199. English Ridge Res. 213. Millville Res. 227. Santa Rita Res. 200.Dos Rios Res. 214. Tuscan Buttes Res. 228. Sunflower Res. 201.Yellowjacket Res. 215. Aukum Res. 229. Lompoc Res. 202.Cahto Res. 216. Nashville Res. 230. Cold Springs Res. 203.Panther Res. 217. Irish Hill Res. 231. Topatopa Res. 204.Walker Res. 218. Cooperstown Res. 232. Fallbrook Res. 205.Blue Ridge Res. 219. Figarden Res. 233. De Luz Res. 206.Oat Res. 220. Little Dry Creek Res. AQUEDUCTS AND TUNNELS (EXISTING OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION) Clear Creek Tunnel 12. South Bay Aqueduct 23. Los Angeles Aqueduct 1. Whiskeytown-Keswick 13. Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct 24. South Coast Conduit 2.Tunnel 14. Delta Mendota Canal 25. Colorado River Aqueduct 3. Bella Vista Conduit 15. California Aqueduct 26. San Diego Aqueduct 4.Muletown Conduit 16. Pleasant Valley Canal 27. Coachella Canal 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Nikola P. Prokopovich Papers
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt4199s0f4 No online items Inventory of the Nikola P. Prokopovich Papers Finding aid created by Manuscript Archivist Elizabeth Phillips. Processing of this collection was funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and administered by the Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR), Cataloging Hidden Special Collections and Archives program. Department of Special Collections General Library University of California, Davis Davis, CA 95616-5292 Phone: (530) 752-1621 Fax: Fax: (530) 754-5758 Email: [email protected] © 2011 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Inventory of the Nikola P. D-229 1 Prokopovich Papers Creator: Prokopovich, Nikola P. Title: Nikola P. Prokopovich Papers Date: 1947-1994 Extent: 83 linear feet Abstract: The Nikola P. Prokopovich Papers document United States Bureau of Reclamation geologist Nikola Prokopovich's work on irrigation, land subsidence, and geochemistry in California. The collection includes draft reports and memoranda, published writings, slides, photographs, and two films related to several state-wide water projects. Prokopovich was particularly interested in the engineering geology of the Central Valley Project's canals and dam sites and in the effects of the state water projects on the surrounding landscape. Phyiscal location: Researchers should contact Special Collections to request collections, as many are stored offsite. Repository: University of California, Davis. General Library. Dept. of Special Collections. Davis, California 95616-5292 Collection number: D-229 Language of Material: Collection materials in English Biography Nikola P. Prokopovich (1918-1999) was a California-based geologist for the United States Bureau of Reclamation. He was born in Kiev, Ukraine and came to the United States in 1950.
    [Show full text]
  • Floods, Droughts, and Lawsuits: a Brief History of California Water Policy
    1Floods, Droughts, and Lawsuits: A Brief History of California Water Policy MPI/GETTY IMAGES The history of California in the twentieth century is the story of a state inventing itself with water. William L. Kahrl, Water and Power, 1982 California’s water system might have been invented by a Soviet bureaucrat on an LSD trip. Peter Passell, “Economic Scene: Greening California,” New York Times, 1991 California has always faced water management challenges and always will. The state’s arid and semiarid climate, its ambitious and evolving economy, and its continually growing population have combined to make shortages and conflicting demands the norm. Over the past two centuries, California has tried to adapt to these challenges through major changes in water manage- ment. Institutions, laws, and technologies are now radically different from those brought by early settlers coming to California from more humid parts of the United States. These adaptations, and the political, economic, technologic, and social changes that spurred them on, have both alleviated and exacerbated the current conflicts in water management. This chapter summarizes the forces and events that shaped water man- agement in California, leading to today’s complex array of policies, laws, and infrastructure. These legacies form the foundation of California’s contemporary water system and will both guide and constrain the state’s future water choices.1 1. Much of the description in this chapter is derived from Norris Hundley Jr.’s outstanding book, The Great Thirst: Californians and Water: A History (Hundley 2001), Robert Kelley’s seminal history of floods in the Central Valley, Battling the Inland Sea (Kelley 1989), and Donald Pisani’s influential study of the rise of irrigated agriculture in California, From the Family Farm to Agribusiness: The Irrigation Crusade in California (Pisani 1984).
    [Show full text]
  • 2. the Legacies of Delta History
    2. TheLegaciesofDeltaHistory “You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you.” Heraclitus (540 BC–480 BC) The modern history of the Delta reveals profound geologic and social changes that began with European settlement in the mid-19th century. After 1800, the Delta evolved from a fishing, hunting, and foraging site for Native Americans (primarily Miwok and Wintun tribes), to a transportation network for explorers and settlers, to a major agrarian resource for California, and finally to the hub of the water supply system for San Joaquin Valley agriculture and Southern California cities. Central to these transformations was the conversion of vast areas of tidal wetlands into islands of farmland surrounded by levees. Much like the history of the Florida Everglades (Grunwald, 2006), each transformation was made without the benefit of knowing future needs and uses; collectively these changes have brought the Delta to its current state. Pre-European Delta: Fluctuating Salinity and Lands As originally found by European explorers, nearly 60 percent of the Delta was submerged by daily tides, and spring tides could submerge it entirely.1 Large areas were also subject to seasonal river flooding. Although most of the Delta was a tidal wetland, the water within the interior remained primarily fresh. However, early explorers reported evidence of saltwater intrusion during the summer months in some years (Jackson and Paterson, 1977). Dominant vegetation included tules—marsh plants that live in fresh and brackish water. On higher ground, including the numerous natural levees formed by silt deposits, plant life consisted of coarse grasses; willows; blackberry and wild rose thickets; and galleries of oak, sycamore, alder, walnut, and cottonwood.
    [Show full text]
  • Peripheral Canal
    0 THE Volume 5, Number 4 RIPHERAL June 1981 CANAL ENVIRONS, a non-partisan environmental law natural resources newsletter published by King Hall School of Law, and edited by the Environmental Law Society, University of California, Davis. Designation of the employer or other affiliation of the author(s) of any article is given for purposes of identification of the author(s) only. The views expressed herein are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Uni- versity of California, School of Law, Envi- ronmental Law Society, or of any employer or organization with which an author is affiliated. Submission of Comments, Letters to the Editor, and Articles is encouraged. We reserve the right to edit and or print these materials. To the earliest Californians, conservation of water-the lifeblood Editorial Staff of all earth's children-was a sacred trust. Western water law, how- Editor-in-Chief ever, developed from the frontier ethic that whoever claimed some- Michael Endicott thing first owned it. Thus, in the California of 1981, water is treated Senior Editor and exploited as a commodity-a liquid gold. Woody Brooks Water is not scarce in California. Annual average run-off far Content Coordinator exceeds present and estimated future requirements. Unfortunately, George Wailes run-off occurs in winter and spring, when our needs are minimal. Editorial Coordinator Additionally, 70% of the total streamflow occurs north of Sacramento, Barb Malchick while 80% of the consumptive requirements lie farther to the south. California's extensive agricultural industry, which has rerouted large Manager Production amounts of surface water from marshlands to provide water for irriga- Anne Frassetto tion, is currently producing deserts.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Task Force on California's Water Future Commission for Economic Development
    Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons California Agencies California Documents 4-1982 Report of the Task Force on California's Water Future Commission for Economic Development Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_agencies Part of the Environmental Law Commons, Land Use Law Commons, and the Water Law Commons Recommended Citation Commission for Economic Development, "Report of the Task Force on California's Water Future" (1982). California Agencies. Paper 416. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_agencies/416 This Committee Report is brought to you for free and open access by the California Documents at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Agencies by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Report of the TASK FORCE ON CALIFORNIA'S WATER FUTURE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~~.As C0MMISSION FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT C33 Table of Contents I. Letter of Transmittal II. Executive Summary i III. Statement of Conclusions xi IV. Findings 1. The Task Force and the Issues 1 2. History of the Problem of Moving Water Through the Delta for Export 5 A. The Long tory of Alternative Delta Transfer Plans 5 B. Delta Water Quality Standards 11 3. DWR's Peripheral Canal 16 4. The Fisheries Questions 18 5. SB 200 23 A. Creation of the SB 200 Package - What It Includes 23 B. SB 200 - What It Will Cost 30 1. Cost Estimates 30 2. Assumptions Made Regarding Construction Scheduling, Costs, and Inflation Over the Construction Period 36 3.
    [Show full text]
  • State Water Project Trihalomethane Study - (April 1982
    STATE WATER PROJECT TRlHALOMETHANE STUDY /- Central District April 1982 · ., FOREWORD Trihalamethanes, ar THMs, are patential cancer causing chemicals farmed in drinking water when certain substances in the water react with chlarine during water treatment.. The primary materials that react to. farm THMs come fram decaying plants and arganic sails. Chlarafarm is the mast·camman type af TBM faund in municipal water supplies~ Cancern aver the widespread accurrence af TBMs in drinking water supplies has recently led to. Federal regulatians limiting their allawable cancentratians. Stud.ies by the Califarnia Department af Health Services, the Metropalitan Water District af Sauthern California, and ather agencies have pravided evidence that water taken fram the sauthern Sacramenta-San Jaaquin Delta is higher in TBM-forming agents than is water fram upstream of the Delta. Treated drinking water fram the southern Delta generally fails to meet the new drinking water standard~ As a result, agencies supplying drinking water fram this saurce are faced with the possible requirement to pravide ' additional castly treatment far TBM removal. The purposes of the State Water Project Trihalomethane Study were to investigate the sources of TBM-forming agents in the State Water Project and to evaluate potential means of reducing their concentrations. In particular, the propased Peripheral Canal was evaluated in terms of its effects in reducing cancentratians of these agents. The study concluded that aperation of the Peripheral Canal would significantly reduce the levels of THMs in the water supplies of Alameda; Contra Costa, and Santa Clara Counties, and Southern California. ~~~C~~ Chief, Central District iii CONTENTS FOREWORD iii ORGANIZATION .
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Impact Report Peripheral Canal Project
    SUMMARY OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PERIPHERAL CANAL PROJECT State of California THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES AUGUST 1974 03.J L/ In this secluded slough of the Delta Meadows Area, some of the characteristics of the early Delta ore still evident. FOREWORV The Calioonnia Vepantment on Waten Re-0ounce-0 (VWR) pnopo-0e-0 to conJtnuct the Peniphenal Canal a-0 an integnal 6eatune on the Calioonnia State Waten Pnoject (SWP). The canal would be a majon link o0 the authonized State Waten P~oject. It i-0 planned a-0 a joint-uJe oacility on the SWP and the 0edenal Centnal Valley Pnoject (CVP). It i-0 needed by 1980, to convey waten acno-0-0 the Sacnamento-San Joaquin Velta to the aqueducu on the SWP and CVP without undue neduction in Jupply on detenionation in quality, to connect centain advenJe envi~onmental condition-0 in the Velta, and to 6acilitate waten management in the Velta. A pnognam o0 -0taged conJtnuction by the State i-0 planned unden which 0edenal panticipation would be 0ea-0ible at any time. Thi-0 bnieo -0ummany on highlight-0 06 the Vnaot Envinonmental Impact Repont (EIR) 0on the Peniphenal Canal Wa-0 compiled with a-0-0i-0tance onom the oinm 06 Jone-0 and Stoke-0 A-0-0ociate-0, Inc., unden contnact to VWR, 0nom detailed matenial contained in the null Vna 0t EIR on the pnoject. It i-0 publi-0hed both a-0 an integnal pant 06 the null nepont and unden -0epanate coven. A-0 a pant Oo the null nepont, it i-0 intended to give the ~eade~ an ovenview and -0ummany o0 the null nepont.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Law 89-561 Be It Ernacted Hy the Senate and House Of
    80 STAT. ] PUBLIC LAW 89-561-SEPT. 7, 1966 707 Public Law 89-561 AN ACT September 7, 1966 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to engage in feasibility investigations '. of certain water resource development proposals. Be it ernacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the Water resource United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary development pro- of the Interior is hereby authorized— posaisr feasibii (a) to perform such additional analysis and studies as may ^'y investigations be required on the following proposals which are pending before the Congress : Region 1 Chief Joseph Dam project, Chelan division, Manson unit, along Lake Chelan in north-central Washington; Columbia Basin project, third powerplant, on the Columbia River at Grand Coulee Dam in Washington; Rogue River Basin project. Merlin division, on Jumpoff Joe Creek, a tributary of the Rogue River, in southwestern Oregon; Tualatin project, first phase, on the Tualatin River, near the city of Portland, Oregon; Walla Walla project, Touchet division, on the Touchet River in southeastern Washington; Yakima project, Kennewick division extension, near the mouth of the Yakima River in south-central Washington. Region 3 Lower Colorado River Basin project, in the Low^er Colorado River Basin in Arizona, California, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah. Region 5 Canton project on the Canadian River below the existing Canton Reservoir in northwestern Oklahoma; Columbus Bend project on the Lower Colorado River Basin in Texas; Palmetto Bend project on the Lavaca and Navidad Rivers in Texas. Region 7 Missouri River Basin project, Midstate division, on the north side of the Platte River in central Nebraska; Missouri River Basin project.
    [Show full text]
  • Trash Control Structures and Equipment: Literature Review And
    TRASHCONTROLSTRUCTURESAND EQUIPMENT: A LITERATURE REVIEW ANDSURVEYOFBUREAUOF RECLAMATION EXPERIENCE February 1992 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation Denver Off ice Research and Laboratory Services Division Hydraulics Branch . -"-- ,---, Bureau of Reclamation :PORT STANDARD TITLE PAGl 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO. 4. TITLEAND SUBTITLE PORT DA TRASH CONTROLSTRUCTURESAND 5. February T692 EQUIPMENT: A LITERATURE REVIEW r 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE AND SURVEY OF BUREAU OF RECLAMATION EXPERIENCE 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. I Tony L. Wahl R-92-05 I 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS I 10. WORK UNIT NO. Bureau of Reclamation 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. Denver Office Denver CO 80225 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD L COVERED 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE DlBR I Microfiche and hard copy available at the Denver Office, Denver, Colorado. 16. ABSTRACT The Bureau of Reclamation recently initiated research project NM022, Research and Development for Better Trash Screening and Cleaning Devices, as part of the WATER (Water Technology and Environmental Research) program. This report summarizes the results of initial investigations conducted in this research project, including a literature review, a survey of field problems encountered by Regional and Project offices, and site visits to several locations experiencing problems. This report discusses recent innovations in trashrack, trash screen, and trash rake technology, and makes recommendations for further investigations to be conducted under this research-project. 17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS a. trashrackd trash screensl trash rakes1 fish screensl aquatic weeds1 ice1 sediment 1 b IDENTIFIERS-- Central Arizona Pmjectl San Luis Valley Project1 mechanical trash rakes ( c.
    [Show full text]
  • Cvp Delta Division D3
    Delta Division Central Valley Project Eric A. Stene Bureau of Reclamation 1994 Table of Contents The Delta Division--Central Valley Project .........................................2 Project Location.........................................................2 Historic Setting .........................................................3 Project Authorization.....................................................6 Construction History .....................................................7 Division Operation.................................................7 Contra Costa Canal ................................................7 Table I ..........................................................8 Delta-Mendota Canal ..............................................13 Table II.........................................................14 Tracy Pumping Plant..............................................17 Delta Cross Channel ..............................................18 Contra Loma Dam................................................19 Post Construction History ................................................20 Settlement of the Project .................................................23 Uses of Project Water ...................................................24 Conclusion............................................................25 Suggested Readings ...........................................................25 About the Author .............................................................25 Table III....................................................................27
    [Show full text]
  • The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the Political Economy of California Water Allocation
    The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the Political Economy of California Water Allocation RACHAEL E. GOODHUE Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Berkeley SUSAN STRATTON SAYRE Assistant Professor of Economics, Smith College LEO K. SIMON Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Berkeley Independent Institute Working Paper Number 75 September 22, 2010 100 Swan Way, Oakland, CA 94621-1428 • 510-632-1366 • Fax: 510-568-6040 • Email: [email protected] • http://www.independent.org (This is a chapter from the forthcoming book Aquanomics: Water Markets, Bureaucracy, and the Environment, edited by B. Delworth Gardner and Randy T. Simmons) The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the Political Economy of California Water Allocation Rachael E. Goodhue, Susan Stratton Sayre, and Leo K. Simon Introduction Large-scale water problems of the nature discussed in this book are inherently difficult to solve. Water distribution and use decisions must be made within a complex system with economic, political, engineering, legal, and ecological dimensions. Any policy choice will impact all of these dimensions. Two critical tasks in the resolution of such debates are to characterize these multi-dimensional impacts for each potential solution and to identify instruments capable of implementing particular choices. Because of the system’s complexity, however, it is virtually inevitable that stakeholders’ interests will conflict under any chosen policy path. These conflicts would be relatively manageable in a world in which (a) property rights were fully defined, (b) benchmarks were available and generally accepted as bases for interpersonal welfare comparisons, and (c) interpersonal compensation was feasible. In such a world, the logical approach would be to choose the policy that maximized aggregate welfare, thus ensuring economically efficient outcomes.
    [Show full text]