DOCSLIB.ORG

California Agricultural Water Electrical Energy Requirements ITRC Report No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
California Agricultural Water Electrical Energy Requirements ITRC Report No California Agricultural Water Electrical Energy Requirements http://www.itrc.org/reports/energyreq/energyreq.pdf ITRC Report No. R 03-006 California Agricultural Water Electrical Energy Requirements FINAL REPORT December 2003 Prepared for Public Interest Energy Research Program Energy in Agriculture Program California Energy Commission 1516 9th St. Sacramento, CA 95814 by Charles Burt, Dan Howes, and Gary Wilson Irrigation Training and Research Center (ITRC) California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 805-756-2429 www.itrc.org www.itrc.org California Agricultural Water Electrical Energy Requirements http://www.itrc.org/reports/energyreq/energyreq.pdf ITRC Report No. R 03-006 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Irrigation Training and Research Center (ITRC) gratefully acknowledges the following agencies for providing tremendous assistance with information utilized in this report to estimate agricultural energy use by sector and region throughout California. − California Department of Water Resources − United States Bureau of Reclamation − California Energy Commission − Kern County Water Agency − Metropolitan Water District of Southern California − Arvin-Edison Water Storage District − Kern County Water Bank − Semitropic Water Storage District The Irrigation Training and Research Center would also like to acknowledge the participants in the November 24, 2003 workshop for their time and effort with reviewing the draft report and providing ideas for future research. Mr. Ricardo Amón California Energy Commission Mr. Joe Lima Modesto Irrigation District Ms. Lucille Billingsley U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Mr. Dirk Marks MWD of Southern California Mr. Dale Brogan Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District Mr. Tom Martin Durham Pump Co. Mr. Pete Canessa Center for Irrigation Technology Mr. Jonas Minton California Dept. of Water Resources Mr. Larry Dale Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Mr. Steve Robertson Robertson-Bryan, Inc. Mr. Mike Day Provost and Pritchard Engineering Group Dr. Larry Schwankl UC Extension, UC Davis Mr. Hicham ElTal Merced Irrigation District Mr. Harry Starkey Berrenda Mesa Water Storage District Mr. Russ Freeman Westlands Water District Mr. John Sugar California Energy Commission Mr. Andy Geyer Alsco-Geyer Irrigation Mr. Van Tenney Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Mr. Lance Goldsmith Eurodrip Mr. Marc Van Camp MBK Engineers Dr. Blaine Hanson UC Extension, UC Davis Mr. Scott Willett San Diego Co. Water Authority Mr. Rick Iger Kern County Water Agency Dr. Dennis Wichelns Dept. of Agricultural Economics, FSU Dr. Pramod Kulkarni California Energy Commission Mr. Tony Wong California Energy Commission Mr. Steve Lewis Arvin-Edison Water Storage District DISCLAIMER Reference to any specific process, product, or service by manufacturer, trade name, trademark, or otherwise does not necessarily imply endorsement or recommendation of use by either California Polytechnic State University, the Irrigation Training and Research Center, the California Energy Commission, USBR, or any other party mentioned in this document. No party makes any warranty, express or implied, and assumes no legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any apparatus, product, process, or data described in this report. Irrigation Training and Research Center -i- CEC Ag Water Energy Analysis www.itrc.org California Agricultural Water Electrical Energy Requirements http://www.itrc.org/reports/energyreq/energyreq.pdf ITRC Report No. R 03-006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... i Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. vii A. Water Currently Destined for Agricultural Irrigation ............................................. vii B. Transfer of Historical Agricultural Water to MWD ............................................... xii C. Potential Future Energy Requirements .................................................................. xiii D. Reservoir Sensitivity to Global Warming .............................................................. xix E. Impact of Water Policies ........................................................................................ xxi F. Future Research .................................................................................................... xxii Introduction ..............................................................................................................................1 Analysis Of Current Energy Requirements ..........................................................................2 District Surface Water Pumping ...........................................................................................2 District Groundwater Pumping .............................................................................................4 On-Farm Groundwater Pumping...........................................................................................6 On-Farm Booster Pumping .................................................................................................11 Conveyance to Districts ......................................................................................................15 Potential Future Energy Requirements ...............................................................................20 On-Farm Irrigation – Ideas to Reduce the Volume of Water Applied. ...............................20 Groundwater Banking .........................................................................................................27 Impacts from Future Water Transfers .................................................................................31 Urbanization ........................................................................................................................32 Desalination ........................................................................................................................36 Reservoir Storage Sensitivity to Climate Change ...............................................................40 Future Research .....................................................................................................................45 References ...............................................................................................................................46 Irrigation Training and Research Center -ii- CEC Ag Water Energy Analysis www.itrc.org California Agricultural Water Electrical Energy Requirements http://www.itrc.org/reports/energyreq/energyreq.pdf ITRC Report No. R 03-006 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Zones used for the agricultural energy analysis. Zones 1 and 4 are included in Zone 3 on the map. ............................................................................................. viii Figure 2. Indicates the average energy requirement for agricultural irrigation water applied in each zone (KWh/AF) during an average year .......................................... ix Figure 3. Shows where the majority of energy is used in the state for agricultural pumping. However, Zone 15 is in Kern County and western Fresno and Merced Counties. Most of the zone energy is used in Kern County for pumping. .....................................................................................................................x Figure 4. Change in the power source used to operate on-farm pumps in California. 1979-1998 data from USDA Farm and Ranch Irrigation Surveys. 2003 data from ITRC pump company survey. ..........................................................................10 Figure 5. The added energy required for the basic operation of the three case studies ..........28 Figure 6. General schematic of how water banking is accomplished in Arvin-Edison WSD. .........................................................................................................................29 Figure 7. The relationship of energy cost/savings for Arvin-Edison WSD. The energy savings is seen every year where the energy cost is spread out, assuming three years of “take” out of 10 years. .................................................................................30 Figure 8. Trends in California’s agricultural acreage and farm numbers (1964-1997) (1998 Farm & Ranch Irrigation Survey - Census of Agriculture, USDA) ...............33 Figure 9. Approximated cost of importing water into MWD of SC compared to the cost of seawater desalination in 1990 and 2002. Adapted from a figure in Chaudhry, 2003. ........................................................................................................36 Figure 10. Salt-gradient solar pond. Figure provide by Frankenberger et al., 1999. .............38 Figure 11. Average annual inflow compared to the estimated usable storage ........................41 Figure 12. Reservoir sensitivity analysis of Friant Dam. The shaded area indicates the reduction in outflow during the peak summer months. ............................................42 Irrigation Training and Research Center -iii- CEC Ag Water Energy Analysis www.itrc.org California Agricultural Water Electrical Energy Requirements http://www.itrc.org/reports/energyreq/energyreq.pdf ITRC Report No. R 03-006 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Total electrical energy requirement for agricultural water destinations by sector throughout California for an average year .................................................... vii Table 2. Estimated total applied irrigation
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]
  • PIT Tag Monitoring for Emigrating Juvenile Chinook Salmon at Three Flow Conditions
    PIT Tag Monitoring for Emigrating Juvenile Chinook Salmon at Three Flow Conditions Introduction Historically, California’s upper San Joaquin River (SJR) supported stable populations of fall- and spring-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). However, both populations were extirpated from the system in the mid-twentieth century following the development of Friant Dam (Moyle 2002). In response to the San Joaquin River litigation Settlement, the San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP) has implemented an objective to restore a naturally reproducing and self-sustaining population of Chinook salmon, as well as other fishes, in the system. Because the anadromous life-cycle of SJR Chinook salmon requires conveyance of juveniles from a riverine system to the Pacific Ocean to support the return of spawning adults, meeting this objective requires the consideration of environmental conditions and a connected river system. Though there are likely a multitude of environmental parameters that impact emigrating juvenile salmon, flow regime and predation are often cited as having a significant effect on travel speed and survivability (Raymond 1968; Berggren and Filardo1993; Michel et al. 2013). Flows in the SJR are highly regulated as means to support agricultural production, and non-native piscivorous fish in the restoration reach tend to occur more frequently downstream of Reach 1 (Gravelly Ford to confluence of Merced River; SJRRP 2013 I&M Report). Anecdotal evidence collected during SJRRP fish inventory and monitoring efforts suggests many of the non-native piscivores tend to reside in anthropogenic altered habitats (e.g., mine pits, altered channels, etc), which may pose a challenge to emigrating salmon. River flow conditions and water temperatures were managed during spring releases to elicit downstream fish movement with pulse flows and receding flows benches to avoid stranding.
    [Show full text]
  • 16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report
    16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report Jingfen Sheng John P. Wilson Acknowledgements: Financial support for this work was provided by the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy and the County of Los Angeles, as part of the “Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California” Project. The authors thank Jennifer Wolch for her comments and edits on this report. The authors would also like to thank Frank Simpson for his input on this report. Prepared for: San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy 900 South Fremont Avenue, Alhambra, California 91802-1460 Photography: Cover, left to right: Arroyo Simi within the city of Moorpark (Jaime Sayre/Jingfen Sheng); eastern Calleguas Creek Watershed tributaries, classifi ed by Strahler stream order (Jingfen Sheng); Morris Dam (Jaime Sayre/Jingfen Sheng). All in-text photos are credited to Jaime Sayre/ Jingfen Sheng, with the exceptions of Photo 4.6 (http://www.you-are- here.com/location/la_river.html) and Photo 4.7 (digital-library.csun.edu/ cdm4/browse.php?...). Preferred Citation: Sheng, J. and Wilson, J.P. 2008. The Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California. 16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report. University of Southern California GIS Research Laboratory and Center for Sustainable Cities, Los Angeles, California. This report was printed on recycled paper. The mission of the Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California is to offer a guide to habitat conservation, watershed health and recreational open space for the Los Angeles metropolitan region. The Plan will also provide decision support tools to nurture a living green matrix for southern California.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 85 Tuesday, No. 236 December 8, 2020 Pages 78939–79116
    Vol. 85 Tuesday, No. 236 December 8, 2020 Pages 78939–79116 OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER VerDate Sep 11 2014 19:59 Dec 07, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\08DEWS.LOC 08DEWS jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with FR_WS II Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097–6326) is published daily, SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Office PUBLIC of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, under the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) Subscriptions: and the regulations of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Assistance with public subscriptions 202–512–1806 Government Publishing Office, is the exclusive distributor of the official edition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC. General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 Single copies/back copies: The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general (Toll-Free) applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published FEDERAL AGENCIES by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public Subscriptions: interest. Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions: Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the Email [email protected] issuing agency requests earlier filing.
    [Show full text]
  • California's Water-Energy Relationship
    CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION California's Water – Energy Relationship Prepared in Support of the 2005 Integrated EPORT Energy Policy Report Proceeding (04-IEPR-01E) R TAFF S INAL F NOVEMBER 2005 CEC-700-2005-011-SF Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor 1 CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION Primary Author Gary Klein California Energy Commission Martha Krebs Deputy Director Energy Research and Development Division Valerie Hall Deputy Director Energy Efficiency & Demand Analysis Division Terry O’Brien Deputy Director Systems Assessment & Facilities Siting Division B. B. Blevins Executive Director DISCLAIMER This paper was prepared as the result of work by one or more members of the staff of the California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees, or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this paper; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This paper has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this paper. 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The California’s Water-Energy Relationship report is the product of contributions by many California Energy Commission staff and consultants, including Ricardo Amon, Shahid Chaudhry, Thomas S. Crooks, Marilyn Davin, Joe O’Hagan, Pramod Kulkarni, Kae Lewis, Laurie Park, Paul Roggensack, Monica Rudman, Matt Trask, Lorraine White and Zhiqin Zhang. Staff would also like to thank the members of the Water-Energy Working Group who so graciously gave of their time and expertise to inform this report.
    [Show full text]
  • The Story Behind Your Drinking Water Quality
    German Spanish Korean Chinese Annual Water Quality Report ~ Published June 2009 June Published ~ Report Quality Water Annual In fact, our water was far better than required for most standards most for required than better far was water our fact, In met all drinking water standards for health and safety again this year. year. this again safety and health for standards water drinking all met Aqueduct Las Virgenes Municipal Water District District Water Municipal Virgenes Las California Water Quality Report for 2008 for Report Quality Water Sierra Mtn Snow Mtn Sierra Lake Oroville in northern California northern in Oroville Lake Drinking Water Quality Water Drinking The Story Behind Your Your Behind Story The LVMWD For More Information PRSRT STD Board of Directors US POSTAGE Division 1 LVMWD PAID NO HOLLYWOOD CA Customer Service Charles Caspary PERMIT #8 Phone: (818) 251-2200 President Fax: (818) 251-2109 Division 2 E-mail: [email protected] Glen Peterson Additional information about drinking water safety and Secretary standards can be found at: MWD Representative Division 3 California Department of Public Health EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline Lee Renger Office of Drinking Water (800) 426-4791 Vice President 601 N. 7th St. www.epa.gov/safewater/standards.html Division 4 Sacramento, CA 94234-7320 (Information on how drinking water laws are www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/Pages/ established) Joseph M. Bowman default.aspx Board Member U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Centers for Disease Control Division 5 (EPA) and Prevention Jeff Smith Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water 1600 Clifton Road Treasurer 401 M Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30333 Washington, DC 20460 www.cdc.gov General Manager www.epa.gov/safewater/ (800) 311-3435 John R.
    [Show full text]
  • Chronology of Major Litigation Involving the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project
    Chronology of Major Litigation Involving the Topic: Litigation Central Valley Project and the State Water Project CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR LITIGATION INVOLVING THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT AND THE STATE WATER PROJECT I. Central Valley Project 1950 United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U.S. 725 (1950) Riparians on San Joaquin River downstream of Friant Dam sued for damages for impairment of their rights to periodic inundation of their “uncontrolled grasslands.” Under reclamation law, the United States had to recognize prior vested rights and compensate for their impairment. 1958 Ivanhoe Irrig. Dist. v. McCracken, 357 U.S. 275 (1958) Congress did not intend that Section 8 of the Reclamation Act, which generally makes state water law applicable to reclamation projects, would make the 160-acre limitation in Section 5 inapplicable to the CVP. If needed for a project, Reclamation could acquire water rights by the payment of compensation, either through condemnation, or if already taken, through actions by the owners in the courts. 1960 Ivanhoe Irrig. Dist. v. All Parties, 53 Cal.2d 692 (1960) State law conferred legal capacity upon irrigation districts to enter into contracts with federal government for CVP water. Districts could execute the contracts even though they contained the 160-acre limitation under federal law. 1963 Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609 (1963) Parties claiming water rights along the San Joaquin River downstream of Friant Dam sued the United States and Bureau of Reclamation officials, seeking to enjoin storage or diversion of water at the dam. The Court held that the courts had no jurisdiction over the United States because it had not consented to suit and the McCarran Amendment did not apply.
    [Show full text]
  • California Agricultural Water Electrical Energy Requirements ITRC Report No
    California Agricultural Water Electrical Energy Requirements http://www.itrc.org/reports/pdf/energyreq.pdf ITRC Report No. R 03-006 California Agricultural Water Electrical Energy Requirements FINAL REPORT December 2003 Prepared for Public Interest Energy Research Program Energy in Agriculture Program California Energy Commission 1516 9th St. Sacramento, CA 95814 by Charles Burt, Dan Howes, and Gary Wilson Irrigation Training and Research Center (ITRC) California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 805-756-2429 www.itrc.org www.itrc.org California Agricultural Water Electrical Energy Requirements http://www.itrc.org/reports/pdf/energyreq.pdf ITRC Report No. R 03-006 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Irrigation Training and Research Center (ITRC) gratefully acknowledges the following agencies for providing tremendous assistance with information utilized in this report to estimate agricultural energy use by sector and region throughout California. California Department of Water Resources United States Bureau of Reclamation California Energy Commission Kern County Water Agency Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Arvin-Edison Water Storage District Kern County Water Bank Semitropic Water Storage District The Irrigation Training and Research Center would also like to acknowledge the participants in the November 24, 2003 workshop for their time and effort with reviewing the draft report and providing ideas for future research. Mr. Ricardo Amón California Energy Commission Mr. Joe Lima Modesto Irrigation District Ms. Lucille Billingsley U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Mr. Dirk Marks MWD of Southern California Mr. Dale Brogan Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District Mr. Tom Martin Durham Pump Co. Mr. Pete Canessa Center for Irrigation Technology Mr. Jonas Minton California Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • Trinity Dam Operating Criteria Trinity River Division Central Valley Project-California
    ·rRlNITY ~IVER BASIN us RESOURCE LIBRARY BR TRINITY COUNTY LIBRARY T7 WEAVERVILLE, CALIFORNIA 1979 (c.l) Trinity Dam Operating Criteria Trinity River Division Central Valley Project-California TRINITY COUNTY JULY 1979 TRINITY RIVER BASIN RESOURC E LIBRARY TRINITY RIVER DIVISION CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT CALIFORNIA Trinity Dam Operating Criteria Prepared for the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Task Force July 1979 United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region 1 ~ 7 5 122 R 1 W R 1 E 2 23° \ R 10 W ( T 38 N ----- ·-----]r------------r-CANADA ' I • I WA r NORTH ~ J SHINGTON ' \ ' DAKOTA ) ___ 1 • \.-.. ..-- .. J, ': M 0 N TAN A !___ - ----\ ' \ souTH : i ,----- - ~ ~~ ,o. 0 R EGON ( ,_---, : DAKOTA I : IOAHo 1 I __ __ \ \~' I W YOMING ·----- ~ -- -----, ___ , ,I \ ~ ~u I ~ 0 ; ------1 , NEBRASKA ', 1\ ~ I I ·--------'--, ~ I NEVA 1' 1: 0 ~1 : t------- -'.) I I J \_ DA UTAH COLORADO: ANSAS ' ~,J t -+- ---1--- .. - ', : : I K .\ ~ I . ---- .... ~ ' I 4!< l o ' ------·------ -- -~----- ', ~ -r' "::: rJ A ~ '!> ','\_r) i t---! OKLAHOMA\ -:- . I , , r/ / ;' ARIZONA I' NEW MEXICO. L ______ 1_ MALIN-ROUND MOUNTAIN 500 KV ~ . ' ,... 36 : , I l PACIFIC NW-PAC/FIC SW INTERTIE ---, ' ' ', I, ---~-E~~'-;:--·;;::<_-'r EX A_(S ---i- - ~ ~ - t \. .. _;··-....., ~ CLAIR ENGLE LAKE IN 0 EX M A P '._\_ ~.:.. (__j ~ ) I I / \ I - BUREAU OF RECLAMATION HASTAL~l WHISKEYTOWN-SHASTA( rr TRINITY [NAT . lj r COMPLETED OR AUTHORIZED WORKS 34 TRINITY DAM & POWERP~LANT~- ? ) RECrATION AREAS (~ ,- DAM AND RESERVOIR LEWISTON LAKE TRIINir/cARR 230 KV ? 0 I <=::? r ~-~~- _./ TUNNEL ~<";:1 r ~ -+ ---< - .r') d,):3_ -}N , ··- •J?:y,--.___ N CONDUIT - ~~ wcAv~~VIL' 7 __r~\.
    [Show full text]
  • Cvp Overview
    Central Valley Project Overview Eric A. Stene Bureau of Reclamation Table Of Contents The Central Valley Project ......................................................2 About the Author .............................................................15 Bibliography ................................................................16 Archival and Manuscript Collections .......................................16 Government Documents .................................................16 Books ................................................................17 Articles...............................................................17 Interviews.............................................................17 Dissertations...........................................................17 Other ................................................................17 Index ......................................................................18 1 The Central Valley Project Throughout his political life, Thomas Jefferson contended the United States was an agriculturally based society. Agriculture may be king, but compared to the queen, Mother Nature, it is a weak monarch. Nature consistently proves to mankind who really controls the realm. The Central Valley of California is a magnificent example of this. The Sacramento River watershed receives two-thirds to three-quarters of northern California's precipitation though it only has one-third to one-quarter of the land. The San Joaquin River watershed occupies two- thirds to three-quarter of northern California's land,
    [Show full text]
  • Friant Division Facts
    FFrriiaanntt DDiivviissiioonn FFaaccttss FRIANT DAM Type Concrete gravity Location San Joaquin River above Friant, 17 miles northeast of downtown Fresno Groundbreaking Ceremony November 5, 1939 Basic Construction Period 1939-42 (Outlet gates installed in 1944; spillway drum gates installed in 1947) Outlets To the San Joaquin River, Madera Canal and Friant-Kern Canal Power Plants Operated by the Friant Power Authority (on the river and canal outlets), and by the Orange Cove Irrigation District (on a water line supplying the Friant fish hatchery) Named For The nearby town of Friant, recalling pioneer lumberman Thomas Friant Dimensions Structural Height 319 feet (97.23 meters) Hydraulic Height 296 feet (90.2 meters) Top Width 20 feet (6.1 meters) Maximum Base Width 267 feet (81.4 meters) Crest Length 3,488 feet (1,063 meters) Crest Elevation 581.3 feet (177.2 meters) above sea level Total Concrete Volume 2,135,000 cubic yards (1,632,325 cubic meters) Spillway Overflow section at dam's center controlled by three 18- by 100-foot gates, including two new rubberized air-filled bladder gates and one drum gate Elevation, Top of Gates 578.0 feet (176.2 meters) Spillway Crest Elevation 560.0 feet (170.7 meters) Maximum Release To River 59,770 cubic feet per second, on January 3, 1997 MILLERTON LAKE Total Capacity 520,500 acre feet (elevation 578 feet) Record Maximum Storage 530,452 acre feet, on January 3, 1997(elevation 580.01 feet) "Dead" Storage 135,000 acre feet (capacity below canal outlets) "Active" Storage 385,500 acre feet (maximum available for beneficial Friant Division use) Surface Area At Capacity 4,900 acres (1,983 hectares) Maximum Length 15 miles (24.1 kilometers) First Water in Reservoir October 20, 1941 (after temporary river outlets were closed) First Controlled Storage February 21, 1944 (after outlet gate valves were installed) Named For The town of Millerton, county seat of Fresno County from 1856-74, the site of which is inundated by the reservoir.
    [Show full text]
  • Reclamation's Salinity Management Plan
    Reclamation’s Salinity Management Plan Revised May November 2010 Actions to Address the Salinity and Boron Total Maximum Daily Load Issues For the Lower San Joaquin River Table of Contents Changing Landscape.........................................................................................................................1 Current Actions.................................................................................................................................2 Flow Actions.....................................................................................................................................3 New Melones Operations – Dilution Flows...............................................................................3 Water Acquisitions....................................................................................................................44 San Joaquin River Restoration Program..................................................................................55 Salt Load Reduction Actions ..........................................................................................................66 Grassland Drainage Area Salinity Reduction ..........................................................................66 Water Use Efficiency Grant Programs .....................................................................................77 Water Conservation Field Services Program......................................................................77 WaterSMART (previously Water 2025) Grant Program................................................
    [Show full text]