THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS rc< Nl STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PUBLICATIONS OF THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES EDWARD HYATT, State Engineer Reports on State Water Plan Prepared Pursuant to Chapter 832, Statutes of 1929 BULLETIN No. 31 SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN A plan for flood control and conservation of waste water. Present and future importation requirements. Sources of outside supply. Salinity intrusion. 1930 80998 LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OAVIS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENT 4 ORGANIZATION 5 EKGliXEEKING ADVISORY COMMITTEE 6 CHAPTER 832, STATUTES OF 1929 7 FOREWORD 8 Chapter I SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS :_._ 9 Statement of problem 10 Description of basin 10 P^lood control and conservation of flood waste 11 Summary of items and cost 11 Conservation of miscellaneous and intangible wastes 13 Present basin shortage and supply 13 Salt water intrusion ; 13 INiKsible supplies froin outside 14 Sewage 14 Metropolitan Water District 14 Mohave River 15 Conclusions 17 CHAI'TER II GENERAL SITUATION ON SANTA ANA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES 19 Water rights 22 Chapter III WEST END OR CHINO BASIN SYSTEM 23 San Antonio Creek 23 Ciicamonga Creek 25 Deer and Day Creeks 29 Chapter IV LYTLE CREEK SYSTEM 32 Works planned 33 Chapter V MISCELLANEOUS CREEKS AND WORKS 37 Works planned 37 Devil's Canyon 37 Waterman and East Twin Creeks 37 Sand Creek and Little Sand Creek 37 City Creek -__ 37 Mill Creek 38 San Timoteo Creek 38 Chapter VI UPPER SANTA ANA RIVER 39 Stream flows 40 Analyses 41 Accomplishment of Forks Reservoir 43 Accomplishment of Filirea Reservoir 44 Comment 44 Development in canyons 45 Santa Ana spreading works 45 Santa Ana River revetments 46 Chapter VII LOWER SANTA ANA RIVER 47 Chapter VIII COST ESTIMATES 53 Proposed San Antonio Creek improvement 53 Proposed Cucamonga Creek spreading works 54 Proposed Deer and Day Creeks spreading works 55 Proposed Cucamonga Creek flood channel 56 Proposed Deer and Day Creek flood channel 57 Proposed Ontario flood channel 58 Proposed Lytle Creek spreading works 59 Proposed Lytle Creek flood channel 60 Alternate plan No. 1 61 Alternate plan No. 2 62 Proposed Lytle Creek debris dam 63 Proposed Devil's Canyon flood channel 64 Proposed Waterman and East Twin Creeks protective works 65 Proposed Little Sand Creek debris dam 66 Proposed Sand Creek debris dam 66 Proposed City Creek protection works 67 Proposed Santa Ana si)reading works 67 Proposed Santa Ana River debris dam 68 Proposed Santa Ana River bank protection 68 Proposed Extension of Mill Creek spreading works 69 Proposed San Timoteo Creek channel protection 69 Forks Reservoir on Santa Ana River 70 Filirea Reservoir on Santa Ana River 73 PLATE I FORKS RESERVOIR FILIREA RESERVOIR KEY MAP OF FEATURES INVESTIGATED U-- ±^jr TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACICNOWLEDGMENT 4 ORGANIZATION 5 ENGINEERING ADVISORY COMMITTEE (J CHAPTER 832, STATUTES OF 1929 7 FOliEWORD 8 Chapter I SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS !___ 9 Statement of problem lU Description of basin 10 Flood control and conservation of flood waste 11 Summary of items and cost 11 Conservation of miscellaneous and intangible wastes i;i Present basin shortage and supply 13 Salt water intrusion : 13 I'ussible supplies from outside 14 Sewage 14 Metropolitan Water District 14 Mohave River 15 ( 'i inclusions 17 Chapter II GENERAL SITUATION ON SANTA ANA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES 19 Water rights 22 Chapter III WEST END OR CHINO BASIN SYSTEM 23 San Antonio Creek 23 Cucamonga Creek 25 Deer and Day Creeks 29 Chapter IV LYTLE CREEK SYSTEM 32 Works planned 33 Chapter V MISCELLANEOUS CREEKS AND WORKS 37 Works planned 37 Devil's Canyon 37 Waterman and East Twin Creeks 37 Sand Creek and Little Sand Creek 37 City Creek :'.V Mill Creek . 3s San Timoteo Creek 3S Chapter VI UPPER SANTA ANA RIVER 39 Stream flows 40 Analyses 41 Accomplishment of Forks Reservoir 43 Accomplishment of Filirea Reservoir 44 Comment 44 Development in canyons 45 Santa Ana spreading works 45 Santa Ana River revetments 46 Chapter VII LOWER SANTA ANA RIVER 47 Chapter VIII COST ESTIMATES 53 Proposed San Antonio Creek improvement 53 Proposed Cucamonga Creek spreading works 54 Proposed Deer and Day Creeks spreading works 55 Proposed Cucamonga Creek flood channel 56 Proposed Deer and Day Creek flood channel 57 Proposed Ontario flood channel 58 Proposed Lytic Creek spreading works 59 Proposed Lytle Creek flood channel 60 Alternate plan No. 1 61 Alternate plan No. 2 62 Proposed Lytle Creek debris dam 63 Proposed Devil's Canyon flood channel 64 Proposed Waterman and East Twin Creeks protective works 65 Proposed Little Sand Creek debris dam 66 Proposed Sand Creek debris dam 66 Proposed City Creek protection works 67 Proposed Santa Ana .sjireading works 67 Proposed Santa Ana River debris dam 6R Proposed Santa Ana River bank protection 68 Proposed Extension of Mill Creek spreading works 69 Proposed San Timoteo Creek channel protection 69 Forks Reservoir on Santa Ana River 70 Filirea Re.servoir on Santa Ana River 73 LIST OF PLATES Plate Page I Key Map of Features Investigated Frontispiece II Major Basins of Santa Ana Basin following 18 III San Antonio Creek Flood Channel 24 IV Cucamonga Creek Spreading Works 26 V Cucamonga and Deer-Day Creek Flood Channels 28 "VI Deer and Day Creeks Spreading Works 30 VII Lytle Creek Spreading Works 34 VIII Lytle Creek Flood Channel -, 36 IX Miscellaneous Woi-ks on Creeks North of San Bernardino following 36 X Miscellaneous Works on Santa Ana River and Creeks East of San Bernardino following 38 XI Structural Details — Dikes and Channels 48 XII Structural Details — Gates and Cross Walls 49 XIII Structural Details — Debris and Rock Fill Dams 50 XIV Proposed Reconstruction of Diversion Wall No. 1, Cucamonga Spreading Works 51 XV Sections of Concrete Gravity Dams 52 2—80998 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The following special coinitiittees representing different sections of Santa Ana Basin cooperated with the State in working out the plan for flood control and conservation in the sections which each represents. While it is not intended to imply each member of each committee is in full accord with the details of the plan herein proposed, the advice and assistance of the several committees was at all limes readily giv(?ii and was of great value. CUCAMONGA BASIN Albert Reynolds, Chairman, Manager, San Antonio Water Company Ralph Shoemaker, Engineer, Cucamonga Water Company Royal V. Ward, Engineer, San Antonio M^ater Company John Klusman, Manager, Cucanwnga Water Company Austin W. Burt, City Manager, Ontario LYTLE CREEK C. A. Hutchinson, President, Lytle Creek Water Users Assoeiatimi William Starke, Waier Superintendent, San Bernardino H. I. Van Frank F. G. Creason J. V. McGregor J. E. McManis SANTA ANA RIVER Francis Cuttle, Chairman, President, Water Conservation Association WiLLARD Smith, Chairman of Board of Supervisors, Orange County G. S. Hinckley, City Engineer, Redlands R. E. Swing, State Senator R. D. Skelley W. W. Hoy (4) ORGANIZATION B. B. Meek ^ Director of Public Works Edward Hyatt State Engineer This report was prepared by Harold Conkling, Deputy State Engineer W. P. RowE Special Assistant E. D. Stafford Besident Engineer (5) ENGINEERING ADVISORY COMMITTEE This investigation was outlined and the report prepared with the advice and in consultation with the following committee of consulting engineers : Paul Bailey C. T. Leeds f. h. fow^ler j. b. lippincott L. C. Hill A. L. Sonderegger G. S. Hinckley H. A. Van Norman (6) CHAPTER 832, STATUTES OF 1929 A71 act making an appropriation for work of exploration, investigation and preliminary plans hi furtherance of a coordinated plan for the conservation, development, and utilization of the water resources of California including the Santa Ana river, Mojave river and all water resources of southern California. [I object to the item of $450,000.00 in section 1 and reduce the amount to $390,000.00. With this reduction I approve the bill. Dated June 17, 1929. C. C. Young, Governor.] The people of the State of California do enact as follows: Section 1. Out of any money in the state treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of four hundred fifty thousands dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated to be expended by the state department of public works in accordance with law in conducting work of exploration, investigation and preliminary plans in furtherance of a coordinated plan for the conservation, de- velopment and utilization of the water resources of California including the Santa Ana river and its tributaries, the Mojave river and its tributaries, and all other Avater resources of southern California. Sec. 2. The department of public works, subject to the other provi- sions of this act, is empowered to expend any portion of the appropria- tion herein provided for the purposes of this act, in cooperation with the government of the United States of America or in cooperation with political subdivisions of the State of California ; and for the purpose of such cooperation is hereby authorized to draw its claim upon said appropriation in favor of the United States of America or the appro- priate agency thereof for the payment of the cost of such portion of said cooperative work as may be determined by the department of public works. Sec. 3. Upon the sale of any bonds of this state hereafter author- ized to be issued to be expended for any one or more purposes for which any part of the appropriation herein provided may have been expended, the amount so expended from the appropriation herein provided shall be returned into the general fund of the state treasury out of the proceeds first derived from the sale of said bonds. S— 80998 ( 7 ) FOREWORD This report is ouv of a series of bulletins on tiie State Water Plan issued b}^ the Division of Water Resources pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 832, Statutes of 1929, directing further investigations of the water resources of California. The series includes Bulletins Nos. 25 to 86 inclusive. Bulletin No. 25, "Report to Legislature of 1931 on State Water Plan," is a summary report of the entire investigation. Prior to the studies carried out under this act, the water resources investigation had been in progress more or less continuously since 1921 under several statutory enactments. The results of the earlier work have been published as"Bulletins Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19 and 20 of the former Division of Engineering and Irrigation, Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the former Division of Water Rights and Nos. 22 and 24 of the Division of Water Resources. The cost of importing a supply from sources outside the Pacific Slope sufficient in magnitude for Santa Ana Basin precludes serious consid- eration of such importation for Santa Ana Basin alone. The South Pacific Coast Basin, of which Santa Ana Basin is a part, considered as a whole must import water to sux)plement its deficient local supplies and the Metropolitan AVater District of Southern California is actively pressing a project for tliis purpose. Santa Ana Basin can participate in this and obtain supplemental supplies. This is briefly considered herein but the principal part of this bulletin deals with a plan for flood control on Santa Ana River and tributaries and conservation of the present flood wastes for use in Santa Ana Basin. <8) CHAPTER I SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Santa Ana Bas.in is a part of what has been designated the "South Coastal Basin," which includes the drainage areas of Los Angeles, San Gabriel and Santa Ana rivers (except San Jacinto River basin, a tributary of Santa Ana River), the small streams on the coast west of Los Angeles and the coastal plains of Orange and Los Angeles counties. The water supply of the South Coastal Basin is insufficient and to provide a complete supply, water must be imported from distant points. The Metropolitan Water Distr.ict was organized for this purpose and lias made an exhaustive investigation of a plan to transport water from the Colorado River. The state also has investigated a plan for bring- ing water from Colorado River to serve the entire coastal area of southern California south of the north line of Ventura County. Thus, the situation as to an outside supply for Santa Ana Basin is different from that in San Joaquin Valley discussed in previous bulle- tins. If the plans of the Metropolitan Water District are consummated, a supply believed to be sufficient for present and prospective shortage ,in the South Coastal Basin will be brought into the area. In view of this, no additional investigation of outside sources sufficient for the ultimate needs of Santa Ana Basin was thought to be justified for this report. There have been considered, however, two other possible importations for Santa Ana Basin from nearby sources. One possi- bility is Mohave River and the other is sewage from the Los Angeles metropolitan area. The first is insufficient for present needs of Santa Ana Basin. Furthermore since the water supply of Mohave Basin is not sufficient for the irrigable land in that basin the transfer of w^ater from it would limit its development. The second, while an importation so far as Santa Ana Basin is concerned, is a transfer of water from one part of South Coastal Basin, with insufficient supply as a whole, to another part. For these reasons these possibilities are in a different category than the possibilities investigated for the San Joaquin Valley, to which it is proposed to transfer water from the Sacramento Valley, where there is a surplus, to upper San Joaquin Valley, where there is a general shortage such as exists in South Coastal Basin. The bodj^ of this report deals entirely with a plan for conserving local supplies and preventing flood damage. Water supplj^ and basin shortage were discussed at length in Bulletin 19, "Santa Ana Investi- gation," issued in 1929, and the salient items are briefly mentioned in this chapter. The possible outside supplies also are considered and the approximate cost and possibilities are given. This chapter therefore, is more than a review of the body of the report. It briefly digests not only the body of this report, but also certain parts of Bulletin 19, the approximate results of the investigations of Metropolitan Water District in so far as they have been reported to date (November 30, 1930), and the results to date of certain research work which is still in progress by agencies other than the state. (») 10 DIVISION OF WATEK RESOURCES Statement of Problem. The -water problem wliieli confronts Santa Ana Basin as a whole may be subdivided into the following?: (1) Conservation of water now Avastin.u. (a) Flood wastes into ocean; (b) Miscellaneous wastes into ocean from drains, sewers, etc; (c) Waste by evajioration and transpiration from seeped lands. (2) Flood control. (3) Importation of water from outside soiirces to provide for (a) Present shortage in underf>round basins; (b) Additional draft on the underground basins as unirrigated lands overlying the underground reservoirs come under cultivation ; (c) Lands in tlie valleys not overlying underground reservoirs and also lands lying on hills and foothills. (4) Protection from salt water intrusion into the pumping area of the Coastal Plain. Except as to the last, the above list gives the logical sequence of steps in the problem, although in point of time they may overlap and one may merge with another. Protection from salt water intrusion is a matter of immediate concern. Conservation of flood wastes and flood protection go hand in hand. Description of Basin.''' Santa Ana Basin is divided sharply into two parts. The upper is called herein Upper Santa Ana Valley or Upper Valley and the lower is called Lower Basin. The division is made bj' the Santa Ana range of mountains through which Santa Ana River has cut its way. The canyon thus formed is called Lower Santa Ana Canyon. Chino Basin is the west end of the Upper Valley. Reference to the frontispiece will make the matter clearer than a description possibly can. Chino Basin f has two small subbasins at its northern margin named Pomona and Cucamonga. respectively, but not shown on the frontispiece. The northeast part of Upper Santa Ana Valley is known as Upper Basin and can be separated into two parts, the western dominated by Lytle Creek and the eastern by Santa Ana River. • See fi'ontispiece. t Chino Basin was called Cucamonga Basin in Bulletin 19. The change in name is made to accord more nearly with local usage. Cucamonga Basin is often called Upper Chino Basin. SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN 11 Flood Control and Conservation of Flood Waste. The following' featiTres would in their entirety afford flood control and practically complete conservation of flood wastes : Upper Santa Ana Valley. West End. Ksti mated Cost San Antonio Creek flood channel $317,500 Ciicamonga Creek spreading- works 241,400 Deer and Day Creeks spreading works :139,700 Cueamonga, Deer-Day, and Ontario flood channel 768,700 51,667,300 Lytle Creek. Debris dam 395,300 Possible gravel storage in mountains 104,700 Spreading and revetment works 358,300 Flood channel 277,200 ],13r.,500 Miscellaneous Creeks Xorth of San Bernardino. Devil's Canyon 40,200 W'aterman and East Twin Creek 42,900 Little Sand Creek 20,200 Sand Creek 25,600 City Creek 49,500 178,400 Santa Ana Biver. Spreading works 350,400 Debris dam 255,800 Possible gravel storage in mountains 244,200 Bank protection 219,300 1,069,700 Mill Creek. Spreading works 42,800 42,800 San Tinioteo Creek. Flood channel and protection 140,800 140,800 Total Upper Valley $4,234,500 Lower Santa Ana Basin. (Costs given under this heading are only approximate because they are under more detailed investigation by a separate board of eng-ineers retained by Orange County Flood Control District.) Reservoir in Lower Santa Ana Canyon ?10,000,000 Channel improvement and acquisition on Santa Ana River below Lower Santa Ana Canyon, Reservoir.s on Santiago Creek 2,000,000 Total Lower Basin $12,000,000 Grand Total $16,234,500 The construction of these should give complete protection from damage from a larger flood on the river and each tributary than any yet recorded in the Santa Ana Basin, in so far as needs can be seen at this time. They would not be interdependent in their effect on floods. The works in the Upper Valley would be of local benefit and would not help the situation on the Lower Basin. The reA-erse obvi- ously also would be true. Tn addition to flood control, practically ;ill tlie wntei' now wasting into the ocean through the channel of Santa Ana River would be sal- A'aged. The estimated average annual salvage of tlie Avaste of the past thirty-six years is 30,000 acre-feet out of an estimated average annual flood waste into the ocean of 33,000 acre-feet. As the annual discharge of these streams is extremely errat.ic there would be some years in wliich the amount of water saved would be negligible and others in which it would be very large. The amount wasted in 1916 is estimated at 286,000 acre-feet and this is the only year in the past thirty-six when all the waste could not have been saved. 12 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES It is thought probable that about 25 per cent of the water thus salvaged v7ould be available in the Upper Santa Ana Vallej'- and the remainder in the Lower Basin only ; i. e., the Coastal Plain of Orange County. A very large proportion of the salvage in tlie Upper Valley would be accomplished by spreading the flood waters on Santa Ana Cone at the debouchure of the river from the mountains. While no more water could be salvaged in total by constructing reservoirs in the mountain headwaters of either the river or the tributaries, more could be made available in the Upper Valley by such reservoirs. Filirea reservoir on Santa Ana River is the cheapest and, by construe- in g this to its maximum capacity of 4000 acre-feet, it is estimated an average of 2400 acre-feet annually more could be made available in the Upper Valley at a capital cost of $670 per acre-foot. This would not aid in protection from major floods, nor do data indicate that there is a shortage of supply in the basin along the Santa Ana River in the eastern part of the Upper Valley, to which area the water so salvaged would be available. The cost of other reservoirs in the mountain head- waters of either the main river or its tributaries is much greater per acre-foot of additional salvage. The cost is exceptionally large on the tributaries, and, like Filirea, the function of such reservoirs would be to transfer the location where the water would be available, from the Lower Basin to the Upper Vallej'. As data indicate that there is no long time average shortage of replenishment in the eastern part of the Upper Valley which is supplied partly or wholly by Santa Ana River, water salvaged there would reach the Lower Basin until such time as demand in that part of the Upper Valley exceeds replenishment. The addition to the supply of Chino Basin by the works listed would be verjT^ small because there is little flood water to save. Even without snch works, only a small part of the floods esca])e on tlie surface from the basin to Santa Ana River. The works on the tributaries entering Chino Basin before enumerated, could be expected to do all that is practicable and should help the .situation in the small basins at the upper margin of Chino Basin by causing more percolation there. A board of engineers retained by Orange County Flood Control Dis- trict is now restudying the formerly proposed program of the district. Only very approximate costs of the items on the Lower River are given in the foregoing list and the items themselves are included subject to any i-ecommendations which may be made by the board of engineers just mentioned. The works in the Upper Valley would be largely for spreading and their magnitude would be greater than any yet attempted. Construc- tion of spreading works is different from much other engineering con- struction and can proceed progressively. In view of this and the jiossibility of obtaining new and valuable information from observation of the first unit of a particular spreading project, which would make it possible to change the next unit to secure better results, the work in the Upper Valley should proceed on a program covering several years to give opportunity for observation. This is true also w.ith the debris dams and utilization of gravels for storage in the mountains. If experience justifies a larger program of construction of debris dams and gravel storage in the mountain sections of Lytle Creek and Santa Ana SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN 13 River than has been included in tlie foregoing list, additional work should be done. Conservation of Miscellaneous and Intangible Wastes. Water escapes into the ocean from the Lower Basin through the joint sewer outfall of the cities of Santa Ana, Anaheim, Orange, Fuller- ton, Placentia, La Habra and Garden Grove, through drains and swamps along the coastal fringe and by floods from the miscellaneous creeks in Orange County not tributary to Santa Ana R.iver, but which, in the main, contribute to the water supply of the area also supplied from Santa Ana River. Water is lost along Santa Ana River by wasteful evaporation from wild plant life. The total amount of all these wastes was estimated at 67,000 acre-feet annually in Bulletin 19. Some of this, such as drainage and sewage, can be readily salvaged. Salvage of floods from the creeks is embraced in the plans so far proposed by the Orange County Flood Control District. Salvage of the wasteful evaporation from wild plant life along the river from Colton, in the Upper Valley, to Yorba, at the head of the Lower Basin, can be accomplished only by lowering the water plane or other- wise destroying the present vegetation. This is a more complex prob- lem than is salvage of the wastes previously mentioned, and it is unlikely that it can be accomplished in total. However, it may be that suffi- cient of this would be saved to bring the total of easily salvaged water to an amount equal to half the total estimated waste, or approximately 33,000 acre-feet. Present Basin Shortage and Supply. The annual recharge averaged over the past thirty-six years is less than the present demand, although from present data a reliable evalu- ation of the deflciency ,is difficult. Bulletin 19, with data available up to the beginning of 1928, estimated that the demand at that time exceeded average recharge by 83,000 acre-feet annually. The demand has increased since then, and ou the basis of the foregoing estimate the present overdraft should be about 100,000 acre-feet. Certain other data, however, do not indicate so large an overdraft. The estimated shortage may be compared with the total probable salvage of present wastes, estimated at 63,000 acre-feet annually, of which 30,000 acre-feet is flood waste through Santa Ana River channel and the remainder made up of miscellaneous wastes noted in the foregoing section. The shortage is concentrated in Chino Basin and the Coastal Plain. Lytle Creek Basin may also have a shortage, even with greater pumping lifts tlian at present. Bulletin 19 states the area using water in Santa Ana Basin ,is 368,000 acres (1928), that the average rate of increase in development had been 10,000 acres per year since 1912 and that there are 226,000 acres as yet uncultivated, of which 186,000 acres are on the valley floor. Where this overlies a water plane from which pumping is possible it has a water r,ight and, as it is developed, will draw on the already deficient underground supplies. Salt Water Intrusion. This is a matter which as yet is not serious in Santa Ana Basin, although certain wells near the ocean are pumping salt water. A fur- 14 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES ther lowered Avater table in the Coastal Plain will increase the danger of such intrusion. One certain way to guard against it is by main- taining the water table at sufficient height, with consequent possible loss of Avater into the ocean. Regardless of the results of mathematical calculations comparing supply with demand on the Coastal Plain, there must be sufficient water to guard against intrusion and. so far as known now, surplus is the onlj^ barrier which will keep salt water out. The amount necessary is indeterminate with present knowledge. POSSIBLE SUPPLIES FROM OUTSIDE Sewage. The only sewage outfall of magnitude in the South Coastal Basin is that of Los Angeles City at Hyperion. Others are those of the harbor cities, the Los Angeles County Sanitation District and Orange County cities previously noted. The total quantity is now 161,000 acre-feet annually, which is more than sufficient to suppl}^ the pres- ent deficiency in Santa Ana Basin. The annual increase in sewage is consideraljle. Preliminary estimates indicate sewage from Los Angeles can be purified sufficiently for irrigation use and transported to the Santa Ana Il.iver wash at Yorba, just below Lower Santa Ana Canyon, or can be put into main conduits of the ditch companies in Orange County at a cost of not more than $15 per acre-foot, exclusive of amortization. The cost of purification in this estimate is based on costs found in experimeiital installations. This is the cheapest source of foreign sewage for Orange County as a Avhole. Although estimates have not been made, it is believed it would cost from two to two and one-half times as much to deliver it in Chino Basin from the same source. There are two difficulties with sewage utilization. One is the natural prejudice against its use on the part of those who do not understand the matter,, but time and education should gradually eliminate this. The other difficulty lies in getting a guarantee from the organization which produces the sewage that it v,'i]\ not dispose of it in some other way. Without such guarantee construction for its utilization would not be justified. Metropolitan Water District. Tlie act authorizing formation of the IMetropolitan Water District provides that any water di.strict incorporated for service of water in other than municipal territory can join the district and that water shall be prorated in accordance with assessed valuation of the diiferent units. The western boundary of San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange counties coincides closely with the western boundary of Santa Ana Basin. Including Los Angeles County, practically the entire assessed valuation of the four counties is in South Coastal Basin, comprising the area in Avhich the Metropolitan District is functioning at the present time. Therefore, the total assessed valuation of the four counties can be used as a fairly accurate measure of the amount of water Santa Ana Basin will receive should it organize and join the district. The three eastern counties have an assessed valuation Avhich, when adjusted to conform witli tliat of Los Angeles County, is about 10 per cent of the total. On tlie same adjusted basis the assessed valua- SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN 15 tiou of the three counties is about 18 per cent of the total found by adding the assessed valuation of the three counties to the assessed valuation of all the units in Los Angeles County now in the district.* The Metropolitan District has examined the details of a conduit from Colorado River of 1500 second-foot capacity in order to prepare for a bond election for financing its construction. xMthough a route has not at this writing been definitely selected, yet it is assumed for discussion in this report that an aqueduct of this capacity will be built and that with the aqueduct functioning to capacity the cost of water laid down in South Coastal Basin will be $25 per acre-foot without amortization. On the basis of the foregoing assumption, if Santa Ana Basin should form a water district or districts embracing the entire basin, and join the Metropolitan District, it would receive at least 150 second-feet of water from the Metropolitan District, assuming, of course, that the ent.ire agricultural and urban area of South Coastal Basin joins the district and that the ratio of assessed valuations remains as at present. If no more than the present units in Los Angeles County join the Metropolitan District, Santa Ana Basin would receive 270 second-feet. The first quantity gives 109,000 acre-feet annually and the second 195,000 acre-feet annually. "While the smaller of the two quantities ,is believed to be sufficient for present overdraft, there will be further overdraft, due to increased development, before the district's aqueduct can be completed. How- ever, if local wastes are salvaged in the meantime it should be possible to keep pace with the increased demand in the basin until the aqueduct shall have been completed. The annual acre-foot cost will be the same in both eases when the total amount is used, provided cost is based on assessed valuation, but, unless demand equals the larger supply when the water is brought in, the cost per acre-foot of imported water actually utilized will be larger with the larger quantity. This will be compensated for, in part at least, by smaller pumping lift, due to higher water plane caused by surplus water. In addition, this surplus will be valuable as insurance against intrusion of salt water into the Coastal Plain. While ultimate needs in Santa Ana Basin will be greater than the maximum of the foregoing quantities, plus local salvage, it will be many years before the ultimate demand is reached. The addition of a large supply to the area ^vill relieve the present tension and make it possible to plan the next step. It may be possible, under such condi- tions, to introduce economies in methods of obtain,ing present supplies which now are handicapped by legal strictures. For future needs it may be found that there is a permanent surplus of aqueduct w^ater which may be purchased, that the Metropolitan District Act may be changed to provide at least partial proration in accordance w.ith needs, instead of in accordance with assessed valuations, and that utilization of sewage or other reclaimable wastes will be possible in any area because of the large general supply, without handicap due to lack of ownership as is the case at present when use of sewage from the metropolitan area is proposed. * September 1, 1930. 4—80998 16 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES In the above, Santa Ana Basin is treated as a whole. For Chino Basin as a wliole, liowever, the only part of the program which would be of material benefit is importation of water, but an importable sup- ply available without complications is difficult to find. It may be that wet years will relieve the present difficulties in the upper margin of Chino Basin or it may be that, with assurance of large supplies in the future by iiu])ortation for the whole Santa Ana Basin, a teni])orary supply can be procured from some source not now available. Mohave River Mohave River rises on the north side of San Bernardino range and is lost in the sinks of Mohave Desert. Its principal forks in the moun- tains are West Fork and Deep Creek (East Fork), which unite near the base of the mountains. The average annual run-off from the mountain headwaters was estimated at 98,000 acre-feet in Bulletin 5. "Flow in California Streams," Division of Engineering and Irrigation, State Department of Public Works. Preliminary estimates indicate it is feasible, from the physical standpoint, to control the run-off of the river so that an average annual amount approximating 70,000 acre-feet can be diverted through the mountains to Santa Ana Basin. Diversion of such an amount would require purchase and control of Arrowhead Lake and diversion of some of the tributaries of Deep Creek into it. Without control of Arrowhead Lake an average annual amount estimated at approxi- mately 60,000 aere-feet can be brought to Santa Ana Basin. The approximate construction cost of d,iverting 60,000 acre-feet to Santa Ana Basin and distributing it along the upper margin of the basin from San Bernardino to Pomona is estimated at $9,000,000. The diversion of this amount would involve acquisition of water rights on Mohave River to an unknown extent and the complete cost would be greater than that sum. The practicability of the engineering features of this plan depends on the feasibility of Porks Reservoir, the foundations for which have not been explored. Forks Reservoir lies on West Fork just above its junction with Deep Creek. It has been surveyed to a capacity of 113,000 acre-feet w.ith water surface 160 feet above stream bed. The cost ])er aci-e-foot of water diverted to Santa Ana Basin and distributed along the upper margin of the basin can not be estimated accurately because of lack of knowledge as to cost of purchasing rights. After paying for this, the cost might be as large as that for water obtained through the Metropolitan Water District. Estimates of cost of diverting other smaller amounts have not been made, but indications are that such amounts can be diverted from West Fork to Santa Ana Basin at reasonable cost for construction features. In this case also, nothing is known as to the cost of purchas- ing rights. Diversion of an average annual amount of from 15,000 to 20,000 acre-feet would leave sufficient water for present development in Mohave Basin, plus some expansion. The present irrigated area in Mohave Basin is approximately 8000 acres. The sixth biennial report (1916-1918) of the Department of Engineering, California, gives the gross agricultural area in Mohave Basin as 325,000 acres. Two irrigation districts on the east and west SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN 17 mesas above Victorville, covering a gross area of 100,000 acres, have been proposed. The biennial report states that the soil is of good quality. One of these .irrigation districts is being promoted at present, but the other is quiescent. Diversion of any part of Mohave River to Santa Ana Basin will cur- tail irrigation possibilities in jMohave Basin. In addition to removing water from an area of deficient supply it would transfer it to an area whicli, although short of water now, has potentially a complete supply through plans for other importation. The utmost possible diversion from Mohave River, together with salvage of local waste in Santa Ana Basin is believed to be more than sufficient to offset the present shortage in Santa Ana Basin, but the margin is not large. Continued development in Santa Ana Basin would have to depend on si ill otlier outside supplies. The Mohave River, if entirely diverted to Santa Ana Basin, would relieve the present .shortage in Chino Basin and around San Bernar- dino, but it is believed other supplies would eventually have to be imported into this area, even if Mohave River were brought in and used entirely for it. CONCLUSIONS 1. Present underground water supplies in Santa Ana Basin are overdrawn, even when long time average, instead of the present period of deficient replenishment, is considered. 2. Salt water intrusion from the ocean into the pumping fields of the Coastal Plain is rendered possible by this overdraft. 3. Conservation of flood wastes into the ocean, of miscellaneous drainage, sewage and other wastes into the ocean, and of intangible wastes from seeped laud would help this situation, but would not be sufficient. Importation of an outside supply also is neccessary to pro- vide for present shortage, to provide for increases in demand and to guard against salt water intrusion. 4. Conservation of flood waste would also give protection from damage by floods. Conservation of flood waste and flood protection go hand in hand in Santa Ana Basin. 5. Construction of the items listed under the heading ' ' Flood Control and Conservation of Flood Waste" would give protection against a larger flood than any yet recorded on the Santa Ana River and its tributaries and would conserve 90 per cent of the present flood waste into the ocean through the channel of Santa Ana River. 6. Conservation of other miscellaneous and intangible present wastes of water also is necessary, but difficulties lie in the way of salvage of a considerable part of such wastes. 7. Salvage of flood wastes will give negligible aid to Chino Basin as a whole and inadequate help to the Lower Basin (Coastal Plain). 8. Salvage of other miscellaneous wastes will help the situation in the Coastal Plain to a considerable extent. 9. To obtain a fuU supply for present and future development, water must be imported from outside. 18 DIVISION OF watp:r resources 10. Salt water intrusion into the Coastal Plain can be prevented by keeping the water plane near the ocean at a high level, which may mean importing water in addition to that necessary to supply irrigation and other needs. 11. Injurious concentration of alkali in the underground water especially near the ocean can be prevented only by a supply in excess of consumptive u.se by i)lant life, etc.. so that sufficient water to carry off the alkali can drain into the ocean. 12. Salvage of local wastes is necessary at once unless sufficient outside supplies can be brought in immediately and made available in localities where .shortages exist. 18 Any ])laj] for bringing in outside waters for the agricultural areas of Santa Ana Basin involves organization of the area into one or more districts. I PLATE II SAN JACI^4T0 !~ '\ j ^1 1 Cf .0/' J A C 1 N T'-0 "'^-^'^f^' f; ,c^^ B A S Tn '^V ^^^^^^"' n MAJOR BASINS Fernet OF SANTA ANA BASIN 18 DIVIimON OF WATKR HESOTTRCES 10. Salt water intrusion into the Coastal Plain can be prevented by keeping the Avater ])lane near the ocean at a higrh level, which may- mean importing- water in addition lo that necessary to supply irrigation and other needs. 11. Injurious concentration of alkali in the underground water especially near the ocean can be prevented only by a supply in excess of consuni])tiv(^ use by ])lant life, etc., so that sufficient water to carry off the alkali can drain into the ocean. 12. Salvage of local wastes is necessary at once unless sufficient outside supplies can be brought in immediately and made available in localities where shortages exist. 18 Any plan for bringing in oulside waters foi- the agricultural areas of Santa Ana Basin iuAolves organization of the cirea into one or more districts. LEGEND MOUNTAIN a FOOTHILL AREAS BASIN BOUNDARIES l'Jsan BER^ ARDiNo !l„tir 'tl^ r 1^- 5 1 N SANTA ANA UIVEK BASIN 19 CHAPTER IT GENERAL SITUATION ON SANTA ANA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES In Bulletiu 19, "Santa Ana Investigation," whieli reported on the work of the Divis.ion of Water Resonrees, State Department of Public Works, np to and including 1928, it was stated: The tributaries west of Lytle Creek, except iu the most violent floods, sink into the gravels before they reach the river. Coiiseeiuently, channels are not maintained across the lower Cucamonga Basin. Property damage results whon the extraordinary flood carves new channels and forces its way to the river. The method of control will be to increase percolation by proper spread- ing works, located where property improvements are small, thus dissipating the water in the same way that nature now does in the gravel cones, supple- mented by channels wlicre necessary to carry the excess to the river. Cost of reservoirs in these tributaries precludes recourse to them. Ultimate extent of spreading works will be dictated by experience. The tributaries east of Lytle Creek have the same characteristics as those west, but there is less waste laud, property improvements are much greater and distance to the river is less. Spreading works here also are indicated but these may have to be supplemented by channels to the river. The larger tributaries present a different problem. The discharge of Lytle Creek is large, and property through which it flows has high value. Hazard to life exists in Colton. A resen^oir of 50t>0 acre-feet capacity may be built in Turk P>asin. which will i"educe floods about 2500 second-feet and eimble them to be spread iu the channel and on the east side to an extent or diverted to the Rialto area, or they may go to the river direct through an improved channel. Both San Timoteo Creek and Temescal Creek are sus- ceptible of reservoir control, but possible jiroperty damage is not large and channel improvement would almost eliminate it. On Santiago Creek a reservoir of 24.0(X) acre-feet cai)acity at upper or lower sites would reduce the capital flood to I'MOO second-feet through the city, which capacity could be tn-ovided by almost negligible chann<>l improvement. All control on tributaries by spreading or proi>erly designed flood control reservoirs contribute to reduc- tion of flood hazard on the river itself. The greatest possible damage is from the river. From the physical standpoint the most obvious combination on the river is (1) reseiwoirs in Santa Ana Canyon and Mill Creek in the mountains, but near the debouchure into the valley. (2) superspreading on the cone, (3) channel improvement and protection works in the migratory section from above San Bernardino to a point opposite Colton, (4) a reservoir in lower Santa Ana Canyon and (5^ channel improvement from the canyon to the ocean. Such a combination would give regulation above each dangerous reach of the river and alrnve each sju-eading ground, and an improved and confined channel below. It would also function well from the standpoint of conservation because of the large aieas of irrigated land below each reser- voir. The separate uuits which comprise the foregoing combination in Santa Ana Valley should receive careful consideration of cost, as compared to benefit, before adoption. It will be noted that no recommendations are made in the above. The intent of Bulletin 19 was to set out the salient facts and conclusions about each feature susceptible of being- used in flood control and con- servation of Santa Ana Basin water. The more important features are mentioned in the above paragraphs. The legislature of 1929 a])propriated funds for further stndy of the water resources of Santa Ana Basin. As Orange County formed a 20 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES district in 1927 for the purpose of flood control and consei-vation of all Avaters wasting: in Orange County and as the program at first laid down is being exhaustively restudied by a board of engineers retained by the district, wliose recommendations are expected in the not distant future, tlie work of the state has been confined to the Upper Santa Ana Basin or Vcilley. Statements hereinafter made in regard to hydrological features of conservation and flood control at and below Lower Santa Ana Canyon are based on Bulletin 19, above men- tioned and also on data contained in a report by the. former Chief Engineer of Orange County Flood Control District dated April, 1928. It should be realized that changes in the features discussed may be recommended by the board of engineers now retained by the district and that any progi-ani herein outlined foi- the lower river is tentative only. Discussion is here lim,ited to the Santa Ana River system which embraces the river and its tributaries. Santiago Creek is the only important tributary in the lower area. All of the other small streams in the Lower Ba.sin reach the ocean through other channels. Study of the situation reveals that a reservoir in Lower Santa Ana Canyon, or, as a substitute, a reservoir at the Jurupa site on the river above the canyon and between Corona and Riverside, possibly with auxiliary reservoirs on Temescal and Chino creeks, is necessary for flood control below the canyon, and also that such a reservoir is neces- sary for complete conservation of the waters of Santa Ana River. As estimated in Bulletin 19 the average waste during floods originating above the canyon has been 26,000 acre-feet per year during the thirty- four years dating back from the season of 1927-28. The Chief Engineer of Orange County Flood Control District estimated that a reservoir of 180,000 acre-foot ca]iacity is necessary to reduce the capital flood to 6000 second-feet past the city of Santa Ana. Tie also e-^tiniateil such a reservoir would conserve 97 per cent of the long-time average annual discharge in the canyon, which is estimated to average 148,000 acre-feet annually. Three per cent of this is 4400 acre-feet, which represents the average annual loss with the reservoir constructed. It should be stated that most of the 148,000 acre-feet is rising Avater, naturally regulated and fully used below. Assuming that the above estimated waste of 26,000 acre-feet represents a quantity which may be called the average waste, the salvage by means of this reservoir would be 21,600 acre-feet, or in round figures 22,000 acre-feet, ]ier year. In other words, about 83 per cent of the long-time average flood waste from above Lower Santa Ana Canyon would be salvaged without other works. The present report deals only with the past thirty-six years and for that period it is estimated this reservoir would have salvaged an annual average of 23,000 acre-feet. The annual flow of the Santa Ana .system is widely erratic. Features in the Upper Valley which would conserve water would be so expen- sive and so small in comparison with the run-off of the larger floods that whatever can be done toward salvage and control in the Upper Valley would have little effect on the amount of water reaching the Lower Canyon in these floods. Consequently, if the waters of the stream arc to be salva<::ed and if flood control in the Lower Basin is to Ix' accomplished in thi.s way, a reservoir on the lower river is SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN 21 necessary and its capacity will be dictated by the requirements for control of the capital flood. This would give excess capacity jn the years of more moderate floods. In a few words, this is the key structure for flood control in the lower river. It would conserve practically all the water now wasting from the Upper Valley. Flood control also is necessary in the Upper Valley independent of the needs of the Lower Basin. Additional water sup- plies also are needed above, and while 4 reservoir in the Lower Canyon would conserve practically the entire waste it would make water available for use only in the Lower Basin. As before stated, possibilities in the Upper Valley for conserving more than a small part of the large floods do not exist. Estimates ind,i- cate that even at the Filirea reservoir site, wh,ich is the cheapest in the headwaters and which would be utilized only for smoothing out peaks so that additional water could be conserved by causing ,it to sink underground on Santa Ana River cone near the mountains, the capital cost for the reservoir alone would approximate $670 per acre-foot of average annual yield of only 2400 acre-feet. There are, however, possibilities in tlie Upper Basin for conserving, at reasonable cost, a considerabl? portion of the waste of the average years. This water would be available there. Such conservation works also would aid in flood control in the Upper Valley, but, as stated before, these works would not reduce the storage capacity necessary in the lower river for control. If the upper works are constructed, most of the run-off in the floods of high 3'ears and portions of the floods of the years of average run-oft* will reach the Lower Canyon, w^hile varying amounts would be conserved in the Upper Valley. Conservation in the entire Santa Ana Basin ,is dependent on utiliza- tion of underground storage. This is particularly true of the Upper Valley where feasible surface reservoirs are almost nonexistent. Most of the streams of the Upper Valley have cones of such magnitude and of such porous character that spreading works which will act as detention reservoirs can be constructed and thus smooth out peaks and greatly increase percolation. In themselves, these would reduce the flood hazard in the Upper Valley materially. Spreading can be done on the gravel beds in the mountains and these beds can be pumped after flood season and the water conveyed to the valley. Small dams, which may be called debris dams, can be constructed to store small amounts of water, hold back debris from the valley and create new gravel beds. FJood control in Upper Santa Ana Valley encounters the prob- lem of debris disposal and such dams, in addition to conservation features, would aid in this. As a whole the entire program of flood control and conservation in the Upper Valley is one of numerous small features. In the Lower Basin it is a matter of a few large features. The fact that the program in the Upper Valley is one of small features fits in well with a plan of progressive development desirable there. The art of constructing spreading works is not yet fully developed. Enough has been done to indicate its possibilities and its limitations. Such Morks as are proposed as a result of this study are unprecedented in magnitude. Each should bo conservatively and pro- gressiveh" built so that results can be observed and changes made as 22 DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES indicated. This is true also of the construction of the barrier dams proposed in the mountains. One near the canyon mouth would prevent debris from reaching the valley until it is filled. Then another could be built. Likewise, development of underground reservoirs in the mountains should proceed slowly. The program ,in the Lower Basin would consist principally of con- structing a few large resei'A'oirs and channel control. Construction of a reservoir once started should proceed rapidly to completion. Water Rights. This report does not deal with the question of water rights. Due to the complex legal and physical situation on the Santa Ana, practically nothing can be done without furnishing ground for an attack based on one kind of water right or another. Unless these matters are settled, either by tacit consent or by formal agreement, the work will be delayed or may be stopped. This calls for practically complete agree- ment on the part of water users below any works proposed for any con.servation program. As to this matter it may be said that the works proposed herein for the Upper Valley are ,in regions from whence comes, as estimated in Bulletin 19, about 50 per cent of the waste into the ocean through Santa Ana channel, but it is believed they would not retain more than half of this 50 per cent. In other words, it is thought that not more than 25 per cent of the average flood waste can be thus retained in the Upper Valley. The percentage in high years would be much less. This estimate is, of course, based on very insufficient data and does not l.i-(>teii(1 to be more than a rough approx,imation. SANTA ANA KIVER BASIN 23 CHAPTER III WEST END OR CHINO BASIN SYSTEM The group of tributaries on the west side of Upper Santa Ana Valley and west of Lytle Creek discharge into the Chino Creek trough and thence into Santa Ana River. Each has created its separate cone on which spreading may be accomplished and which requires its own tlood control works. Below the cones, stream channels become more or less indistinct because onlj' dur.ing the more severe floods does water flow across the basin to the river. Protection from flood damage requires adequate channels from the cones to the river. It was found that all the streams, except San Antonio Creek, could best be concen- trated in one channel leading to a deep draw flowing direct to the river .instead of into Chino Creek. As the works for San Antonio Creek are planned, the stream would follow its present channel to Chino Creek. The general map of Santa Ana Basin shown in Plate II gives the location of the various works herein discussed. In the following pages the detail of works on the different tributaries and the main stream are discussed. San Antonio Creek.* San Antonio Creek, while subject to floods, has a better sustained flow than the creeks to the east because it comes from a higher and more retentive drainage area. The salient facts pertaining to the water- shed are : Drainage area 25.0 square miles Average annual discharge 16,600 acre-feet Peak flood flow used in design of flood channel 10,000 cubic feet per second Spreading works. — These are now well developed on San Antonio Creek. Los Angeles County Flood Control District has constructed works to cover the entire w^est side below the diversion works constructed some years ago. On the east side the Pomona Conservation Association is constructing additional spreading works and when these are com- pleted all the available area will be covered. The best data available indicate that 350 second-feet of water were absorbed during the 1927 flood. It is thought by engineers of the district that at least 500 second-feet can be absorbed when the new works on the east side are completed. All of this work is be.iug done by local organizations and no additional spreading Avorks are pro- posed in this report. Channel protection. — San Antonio Creek forms the approximate bound- ary between Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, and Los Angeles County Flood Control District has constructed protection works along the west s.ide to Holt avenue. The creek leaves Los Angeles County at Franklin avenue and flows entirely on the San Bernardino side of the county line. Protection on the east side is required from * See Plate III. 5— -80998 24 DIVISION OF WATER RESOUBOES PLATE in -■J ■ r^H I ■S'/V ■ SAN ANTONIO CREEK FLOOD CHANNEL ro'-is /V '^^^^i,';^.. ^'Ve, SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN 25 Holt avenue north about 9000 feet. Below Holt avenue the channel should be improved for a distance of eight miles to the point v^^here it enters the narrow valley of Lower Chino Creek, which is separated from the main valley by a range of low hills. Of the eight miles, three and eight tenths miles are on San Antonio Creek and the remainder on Chino Creek. Damage which might occur for the next seven miles to the Santa Ana River does not warrant protection works. The grade in this portion is flat and the soil is of a heavy character which does not wash. The greatest possible damage would be the flooding by slowly moving Avater of a few fields not planted in high quality crops. Of the eight miles which should be improved there are one and five tenths miles that require very little excavation as, in most places, the channel has ample capacity to carry the 10,000 second-foot estimated peak flood. On the remaining six and one half miles there are already levees, but these should be increased in size and one moved back to give required capacity. A right of way 300 feet wide is assumed. The estimated cost of these works, given in detail on page 53, aggregates $317,500. Cucamonga Creek. Drainage area 10.3 square miles Estimated peak flood flow 1__ 4,000 cubic feet per second Existing spreading worliS. — At the debouchure from the mountains, Cucamonga Creek enters a deep cut in the debris cone. Th.is is about 900 feet Avide and about 100 feet in depth at the deepest point. The cut gradually becomes shallower as it proceeds from the mountains and at a point about a mile and a half from the mountains the stream begins to bifurcate and may follow one of several channels. About $40,000 has been expended by San Antonio Water Company and Cucamonga Water Company in constructing w^eirs for spreading water in the bottom of the channel. This construction consists of rock and Avire Avails across the channel. The upper tAvo are at right angles to the axis of the stream and are approximately 2200 feet apart. At a point 700 feet doAvnstream from the loAver Avail another extends diag- onally doAvnstream from the Avest bank. This is equipped with gates and cross Avails at right angles to the Avail immediately beloAv the gates to aid diversion for spreading. At a point 4000 feet doAA-nstream from the diagonal Avail there are three Avails across three different channels and running diagonally doAvnstream from the AA'est bank. These spread the Avater and also diA'ert it toAvard the east channel, through Avhich it passes out of Cucamonga Basin. San Antonio Water Company OAvns 885 acres at the loAver end of the cone M^hich is adapted to spreading. The slope of the cone at th.is point varies from 2 to 5 per cent. Proposed spreading ivorks.* — It is pi'oposed to utilize the present AA^orks in a plan to cover the entire 885 acres OAvned by the San Antonio Water Company Avith structures to enable the floods to be spread. The ulti- mate capacity AA'Ould be 4000 second-feet. Only the principal levees and diversion features have been planned. It is believed that by these structures floods Avould be div.ided into streams AA'hich could be handled Avith safety, but it Avould be necessary to construct a large number of small Aveirs and dams between the * See Plate IV. 26 DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES PLATE IV K /^.i GATE PROPOSED SPREADING DIKES //^-^ 1 • ^-. ^\ » y Vi •. V^ t V •• EXISTING I *VV \'. WALL NO 2 • \ \. PROPOSED •• CROSS WALL \ \^ / V -.CI ' -II ^i !• *- T%^ %^ \ • \ S, P-m ^,'A b 1*N iG\ \ A R E_ A_^- i ■%... %o^ ^*^^r(Pv 1i =»»A'r, M ■Jff CUCAMONGA CREEK SPREADING WORKS SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN 27 planned levees in order to keep the water spread. Experiments on the absorptive capacity of this cone give rates as high as nine inches per hour in depth, which is very high. The spreading works would increase the time of travel of water across the cone and by reason of this, and also by reason of the absorption in transit, it is believed the peak of the capital flood could be materially reduced and that ordinary floods could be entirely absorbed. It is not believed that the entire spreading works should be constructed at one time, but rather that one of the three units should be constructed first and results observed. This would require reconstruction of the diversion weir and also construction of such parts of the gathering channel on the lower side as is necessary. The spreading works and channel may be likened to a detention reser- voir with a spillway. Debris from the floods would be deposited in the spreading works when the amount of water is not sufficient to carry it entirely through. This would tend to decrease the percolation factor and it is assumed it would be necessary to break this up mechanically at frequent intervals. The long diagonal wall mentioned above would be strengthened and raised an average of 2.5 feet as shown in Plate XIV. Three batteries of gates with capacity of 1000 second-feet each would be installed in the wall. Each battery would have .a clear opening of 48 feet in units four feet wide. Stoj) planks would he used to regulate the flow as indicated in Plate XII. On the upstream side of the wall, at right angles to it and just below each battery of gates, a small rubble wall would be built as shown in Plate XIV to protect the bottom from erosion. Surplus water not diverted through the gates would pass around the lower end of the wall and follow the east channel for 4000 feet where another wall would di^'ert it to the west. The maximum flood would thus be separated into four streams of 1000 second-feet each. These would be kept separated by low unlined levees with ten feet top width, two to one, and three to one side slopes and an average height of about eight feet, which would direct the water back and forth across the cone, reduce the grade to about one per cent and the velocity for 1000 second-feet to about seven feet per second. At the lower end of the spreading ground and on its west and south sides a ditch with capacity of 5000 second-feet would be constructed. A cross section is shown on Plate XI. This additional capacity would be provided to care for storm water originating on the vallej^ floor. This dit-ch would be broad and flat and the excavation would be depos- ited on the downstream side to intercept the surplus from the spreading grounds and return it to the east channel at the Base Line road crossing. The channel also would be improved below. Proposed channel improvements* — The channel flows on the east side of Red Hill and improvement is not necessary until the Pacific Electric Railroad crossing is reached. At this point a channel with a capacity of 5000 second-feet is proposed. It would follow the present wash to a point near Hellman avenue crossing and would then deflect to the east, passing near the intersection of Turner and Colton avenues, and crossing the Union Pacific Railroad about two miles west of Wineville where it would enter a swale running in a southerly direction to the * See Plate V. 28 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PLATE V CUCAMONGA AND DEER-DAY CREEK FLOOD CHANNELS SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN 29 1-iver. At the junction with the channel from Deer and Day creeks, which is approximately one mile below Ilellman avenue crossing, the capacity would be .increased to 6000 second-feet. Practically any capacity is ])ossible by widening the space between dikes which can be done witliout changing' the cost. Improvement is not necessary through the .swale. The dikes proposed for construction are .shown on Plate XI. A lateral 7500 feet long and with a capacity of 750 second-feet is proposed from the east boundary of Ontario along Eighth street to a connection with C'ucamonga flood channel to provide an outlet for the run-off from the streets of Upland, Upper Ontario and the territory to the east of Upland. With this relief it is believed the run-off from Ontario below Eighth street can be taken care of in the natural channels south of Ontario. A right of way 200 feet Avide should be obtained for the main channel to provide for disposal of debris entering the channel. The right of w^ay for the lateral to Ontario is assumed to be 75 feet in width. Standard plans of Division of Highways are proposed for culverts under major highways. Lateral highways would be dipped to cross the channel. The estimated co.st given in detail on pages 54, 56 and 58 totals $781,600, including $241,400 for spreading works and $540,200 for channel improvements. Deer and Day Creeks. Drainage Area Deer Creek 3.5 square miles Day Creek 4.9 square miles Miscellaneous 2.3 square miles Total 10.7 square miles Estimated peak discharg-e, 4000 cubic feet per second. Deer Creek, which lies to the west of Day Creek, has built a very high cone and at present its waters are flowing on the east side of the cone along the foot of the mountains. Daj' Creek also has built an extensive cone and its waters are flowjng on the west side. Between the two cones is a trough where the two streams join. Spreading u'o)'l!*/'' — Levees are ultimately to be built to insure the con- tinued flow of the creeks on the sides of the cones where they now are flowing. In each stream, before reaching the bottom of the trough be- tween the two cones, a leA^ee would be built to carry the water out onto the respective cones. In each a spillway of 2000 second-feet capacity would be placed at the jioint where the main stream comes against the levee, as shown in Plate XII. The water thus spilled would be diverted again at a lower point with a similar levee. After being diverted onto the cone, various levees woidd carry the streams diagonally back and forth across the east and west sides of the cones, respectively. Only the major works liave been planned and to increase the efficiency of the spreading grounds it would be necessary to place many small dams and levees. At a point just north of Highland avenue all the water would be collected by two levees, which would approach each other funnelwise and bring the water to a spillway of 4000 second-feet. This would serve as a catch basin. * See Plate VI. 30 DIVISION OP^ WATER RESOURCES PLATE VI r^ /<}/ fX : EXISTING WALL PROPOSED WALLS 'fr^o, 1^ PROPOSED ', ; DEER at DAY CREEKS j CHANNEL / DEER a DAY CREEKS SPREADING WORKS SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN 31. The area which may be used for spreading works is 1900 acres and it would seem possible to so construct the details of the spreading works that practically any flood could be absorbed without a channel to carry away the surplus. However, in view of the fact that the capacity for percolation ,in the spreading works is not known, a channel is proposed below the spillway. Levees would be of the cross-section shown on Plate XI and with a height of ten feet. Channel. — From the spillway above described the water would follow the present channel to Haven avenue crossing. The present channel would be made wider and deeper with unlined levees along both sides having a cross-section as shown on Plate XI. Above Haven avenue another catch basin for sand is proposed. Haven avenue would be paved and curbs constructed four feet high to form a conduit to Colton avenue where an earth channel of 4000 second-feet capacity would be constructed to carry the water 1000 feet to a connection with the Cucamonga flood channel previously described. This channel would have levees of the same section as above described and 200 feet right of way is recommended. The estimated cost of this project, set forth in detail on pages 55 and 57, is $568,200. Of this sum, $339,700 is for spreading works and $228,500 for channel improvements. 6—80998 32 DIVISION OF WATER KESOURCES CHAPTER IV LYTLE CREEK SYSTEM Drainage Area Lytle Creek 39 square miles Cajon Creek 42 square miles Total 81 square miles Estimated peak discharge, 25.000 cul)ic feet per second. Lytle Creek has somewhat more favorable reservoir sites than the creeks on the Avest end or Cliino Basin. 1 n vest ijiat ions have disclosed three sites : Turk Basin i-eservoir site. Meyers reservoir site in the canyon of Meyers Creek. Keenbrook reservoir site on Cajon Creek near its junction with Lone Pine Creek. The TurJi- Basin site is capable of improvement with a 155-foot dam, which would give a capacity of 5000 acre-feet and which can be constructed at an estimated cost of $3,970,000 for a gravity type concrete structure. Meyers Creek does not discharge sufficiently to justify a reservoir to store the flow of that stream but \Aater can be diverted to it from Turk Basin by tunnel. With this added supply, the site is capable of being developed to 5000 acre-foot capacity wuth a 157- foot gravity type concrete dam, which would cost $2,000,000. The Keenhrool' reservoir coidd be developed to 16,600 acre-foot capacity through construction of an 180-foot concrete dam at an estimated cost of $5,400,000. The escape from Lytle Creek into Santa Ana River is on the average small, and neithei* for flood control nor for conservation are these reservoirs justified. The average yield would be far less tlian the above capacities. Cajon Creek has a flashy flow, but also has a very broad expanse of sandy bed along which most of the stream sinks and is conserved, except in the capital flood. Lytle Creek itself is not so well favored and construction of spreading works is advisable. While parts of such works would aid in flood control, bank j^roteetion also would be required for that })nrpos(' along the west side and an improved channel would be required from the vicinity of Foothill boulevard to the junction with Santa Ana R,iver to protect life and i)roi)('rty in San Bernardino and Colton. The Lytle Creek Water Users Association has constructed a w^eir 1941 feet long across Lytle Creek wash a short distance below its debouchure from the mountains. At the east end water is diverted to a mesa containing about 1000 acres of excellent spreading grounds. Construction of the weir has caused the bottom of the channel to fill upstream from it and there is danger Ihat the stream Avill break out on the west side and go .into the highly cultivated area around Rialto. SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN 33 Works Planned. Lytle Creek flows on the east side of a broad flat cone at present. It is in a more unstable state of equilibrium than the other streams of the Santa Ana Basin. When it has built up its bed its next move Avill be to the west and revetment works are necessary to delay this natural movement. Diversion works already constructed increase the danger of th.is movement of the stream to the west. Proposed spreading ivorks* — Diversion to spreading works proposed, and on which cost estimates are based, would utilize 450 feet of the east end of the present dam as a spillway. This would be strengthened, and on the extreme east end a roller gate 50 feet long would be installed. The gate would be so arranged that it could be raised out of the way of floods and, when raised, allow the stream to scour in" front of the diversion weir. A diversion weir with manually operated gates would be built at right angles to the spillway to take 2000 second-feet to the spreading grounds on the east. The crest of the spillway under the roller gate would be five feet below the sill of the diversion weir in order to allow flushing of the sand. Beginning at the hills on the west side, a dike twelve feet high, with cross-section of three to one on stream side and two to one on land side and with a ten-foot top width, lined with gunite and rubble and with a flexible apron 20 feet wide, would run diagonally southeastward to the present weir on the west end of the part to be re.inforced. This would cause all water to flow toward the east end of the weir and diversion would be regulated by the spilhvay and the diversion works. From the diversion weir a channel of 2000 second-foot capacity would be constructed eastward to a natural channel flowing along the west side of the hills. In this four or more danLS would be constructed to divert the water out to the west for spreading. Here, as ,in the streams further to the west, only the major features have been outlined and the amount of water absorbed would be deter- mined by numerous small dams and levees. This proposed construction. however, places the water under control. It would be inadvisable to build the entire spreading works at once, but one unit should be tried out and results observed. It would be necessary, however, to construct the diagonal levee, reconstruct the weir on the east end and construct the diversion works for utilization in the first unit. The small dams in the natural channel should be of the overflow type constructed of rubble masonr3\ Each unit as planned would handle 400 second-feet. An alternate plan for diversion proposes a straight weir upstream at the lowest end of the canyon, where it would cause no hazard, and diversion by conduit to the spreading works. Revetment works* — About 8000 feet below the present weir on the west side is a po.int of extreme weakness and protection is necessary for a distance of 4000 feet up and down stream. It .is proposed to place deflecting walls of rock and wire there to cause the water to flow toward the center of the stream bed. Below this point the west bank is high and protection is not necessary. The deflecting wall would be approximately eight feet high, with a bottom width of eight feet and a top width of six feet. • See Plate VII. 34 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PLATE VII / xT- SPREADING^" A R E A y' SPREADING LEVEES WFLL N(- 10 .AND PUMP HO FONTANA WATER CO LYTLE CREEK SPREADING WORKS La SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN 35 Flood Channels* — Below Foothill boulevard, Lytle Creek enters a well built up district and tliere is danger to life and property with present conditions. The old channel runs diagonally southeastward through the southwest corner of San Bernardino to Warm Creek, but at the present time the floods follow a central channel which goes directly through Colton. The east channel can easily be cleaned to carry 25,000 second-feet, but at its lower end it ,is probable it would have to be recleaned after each flood because the burden of sand would be deposited when the grade diminishes as the flow enters Warm Creek, which in turn takes it to Santa Ana River. It might be neces- sary to place a dike on each side in this section, but this could be con- sidered an operating cost. A small amount of reconstruction of struc- tures would be suificient to carry 25,000 second-feet. Reconstruction of the channel through Colton was considered, but it appears practically impossible to carry it on the direct route it occupies now. To divert it to the east above the intensively developed section of Colton would involve many structures under ra.ilroads and highways and it also would pass through a well settled area. A channel to the west was also surveyed. This would be entirely artificial and would carry the water along the mesa west of Colton and west of the River- side Cement Works. Drops totaling 120 feet in height would be necessary and it would also be necessary to line the channel for its entire length in order to prevent cutting ,in the easily eroded sandy soils through which it would pass. The east channel is recommended. At the junction of east channel with the present central channel it is proposed to install a concrete structure which Avould allow as much water to be diverted down the Colton channel as it could safely absorb in order to preserve the rights of such pump.ing developments as are found in that vicinity. Reconstruc- tion of the bridge on Foothill boulevard would be necessary. The estimated cost of this plan, given in detail on pages 59 and 60 is $635,500. involving $358,300 for spreading works and $277,200 for channel work. This is considerably less than the cost of an alternate artificial channel on the west side, the estimated expense of that works being $1,367,800, details of which are set forth on page 62. The work on the present Colton channel alone under Alternate Plan No. 1 would involve an expenditure of approximately $583,300, as given in detail on page 61. * See Plate VIII. 36 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PLATK Vm y ^ I !i|SANTT3.E R ,NA R D IN 0_ ^ ^^ LYTLE CREEK FLOOD CHANNEL SCALE oessBi PLATE IX LANEOUS WORKS ON CREEKS fJORTH OF SAN BERNARDINO 36 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PLATE VI H LYTLE CREEK FLOOD CHANNEL MISCELLANEOUS WORKS ON CREEKS NORTH OF SAN BERNARDINO 80998— p. 36 SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN 37 CHAPTER V MISCELLANEOUS CREEKS AND WORKS Works Planned. Deril's Cannon.'' — This is a tributary to Warm Creek, but it is ])ro- ])0.sed to make it a tributary to Lytle Creek. The stream comino; from the mountains impinji-es against a range of hills and then flows south- eastward along their base. At the east end of the hills it is ])ossible to divert the water with a low dike which would carry it around the east end of the hjlls and westward to Lytle Creek. After passing around the end the water would flow in an unimproved area and the only protection work necessary under the plan would be a six-foot dike running in a general southwesterly direction to Cajon Creek. This would extend from a point 2200 feet east from Kendall drive to a point 1700 feet north of Highland avenue. The cross-section proposed would have a ten-foot top width, two to one side slopes and a height of ten feet. This would protect the city of San Bernardino from Devil's Canyon water and enable all detailed spreading work necessary above to be installed. The estimated cost of this plan, given in detail on page 64 is $40,200. Waferman and East Twin Creek.^ — The city of San Bernardino has installed spread.ing works to handle 40 second-feet of water from Waterman Canyon, but this gives little protection to the city from flood M-ater. It is proposed to make a cut through a small saddle between Water- man Canyon and East Twin Creek, using the excavated material to construct a dam across Waterman Canyon. This dam would have an outlet for water to the present spreading works. The channel Avould have a capacity of 2800 second-feet. A levee is proposed to run east and west along Willow Nook avenue to join a levee running south along the east side of Valencia avenue to a point about 400 feet south of Highland avenue, whence the water would follow a natural channel to Warm Creek. This project, given in detail on page 65, is estimated to cost $42,900. Soncl Creel' and Lifth Sand Creek.^ — The damage liable from these streams is deposition of sand on orchards. To construct channels would tend only to fill Warm Creek channel with sand. Therefore, it is proposed to construct concrete banners from bedrock to the present stream bed surface near the mouths of the canyons and to construct retarding dams of driven pipe, tied together, filled with brush, and backfilled with sand. This phase of the project is estimated to cost $45,800. Details are given on page 66. Citij Creek A — Tt is proposed to divert City Creek into the Santa Ana River at a point apj-jroximately 3500 feet west of Orange street. * See Plate IX. t See Plate X. 'SS DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES This would re(iuire 3400 feet of unlined levee six feet high and 1800 feet of levee twelve feet high with three to one slopes on both sides and top width of ten feet. Two gates for diversion for spreading would be .installed in the last 3000 feet of dike. Tlie work on City Creek is estimated to cost about $49,500. Detailh are to be found on page 67. Mill Creek.'"' — The present diver.siou dam to sjireadiiiii' works would 1; strengthened, and at the lower side of the spreading works a levee 14,500 feet long is proposed to protect cultivated lands. The levee would have an average height of six feet, top width of ten feet with twotwo to one and three to one slopes. The cost is estimated at $42,800 and details are given on page 69. Han Timoieo Creek* — This phase of the work would recpiire 23,200 feet of levee on each side after the creek enters the fiat lands. The levees v/ould be six feet high with a top Avidtli of ten feet and two to one and three to one slopes. Three drops in the vicinity of Redlands and above also would be required to stop cutting by the stream. Details of this plan, costing $140,800, are to be found on page 69. ♦ See Plate X. ii8 DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES This would require 3400 feet of unlined levee six feet high and 1800 feet of levee twelve feet high with three to one slopes on both sides and top widtli of ten feet. Two gates for diversion for spreading would be .installed in the last 3000 feet of dike. The work on City Creek is estimated to cost about $49,500. Detailts are to be found on page 67. Mill Creek * — The present diversion dam to spreading works would b strengthened, and at the lower side of the spreading works a levee 14,500 feet long is proposed to protect cultivated lands. The levee would have an average height of six feet, top width of ten feet with t wot wo to one and three to one slopes. Tlie cost is estimated at $42,800 and details are given on page 69. San. Titnoieo Creel:.'* — This phase of the work Avould recpiire 23,200 feet of levee on each side after the creek enters the flat lands. The levees v.'onld be six feet high with a top width of ten feet and two to one and three to one slopes. Three drops in the vicinity of Redlands and above also would be required to stop cutting by the stream. Details of this plan, costing $140,800, are to be found on page 69. * See Plate X. MISCELLANEOUS WORKS ON SANTA ANA RIVER a CREEKS EAST OF SAN BERNARDINO J SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN 39 CHAPTER VI UPPER SANTA ANA RIVER On Sauta Ana River the first percolating area in Upper Basin begins at the mouth of the canyon and extends to a point seven miles below the mountains where Bunker Hill Dike begins to make its pres- ence felt and forces water to the surface for a distance of six miles. Next comes another percolating area seven miles long in Jurupa Basin, in the Adcinity of Colton, and the third area on the Coastal Plain, just below the mouth of Lower Santa Ana Canyon, is about 17 miles long. The waste land in the debris cone, wh.ich comprises the uppermost percolating area, totals about 5000 acres. ^Yater has been diverted to the north side of the cone for spreading at the mouth of the canyon by the Water Conservation Association of the three counties since 1912. By agreement no water has been thus diverted unless the river was flow- ing at Chapman Avenue Bridge in Orange County. It is not known at what flows spreading has ceased under this agreement, nor are data in existence which show how much percolation will occur in the stream above Bunker Hill Dike and in the percolating areas below the ciike. independent of the spreading works. The efficiency of the spreading works has suffered because the diver- sion works, up to this year, have not been of permanent character and have been washed out in floods of consequence. After subsidence of the flood it always has been several days, and often much longer, before adequate diversions could again be made. Thus, in many years, a large proportion of tlie period in which spreading could go on, under the stipulation above noted, has been lost. In the summer of 1930 a permanent rubble masonry weir was constructed across the wash at the canyon mouth and a conduit of 1000 second-foot capacity con- structed to the spreading areas. This work, shown in Plate X, is being done by the Water Conservation Association and is to be com- pleted before the rainy season of 1930-31. The spreading works, as now constructed, cover approximately 400 acres out of a total of 5000 acres in the debris cone. Percolation is induced by ponding the water behind rubble masonry walls and earth dikes constructed transverse to the slope of the cone. On the ridges between channels water spills over the Avails and, after irrigating the ridges, flows back to the channels whence it is again diverted. Unit rates of percolation are not known, but the capacity of the works is estimated at 400 second-feet by the association. Water has been diverted only after it is partially cleared in order that the porous soil will not be sealed by fine sediment. The time required for the water to clear after a storm is variously stated to be from one to three days, and occasionally it may be longer. The time required is believed to vary with the magmtude of the flood and also w.ith the time of year. It also depends on whether the flood is the first flood of the year or a subsequent one. In very dry years there are no floods of consequence. In other years, both moderately dry and moderately wet, there may be only 40 DIVISION OK MATER KESOURCES one or two floods, and in wet years there may be several. In the first flood ninch debris and much loose and fine material is brought down, but succeeding rains compact the soil and, most of the loose material having been washed down in the first flood, the stream clarifies much sooner in succeeding floods. Sometimes Avith the well sustained flows of the wetter seasons following the first flood, water will be clear enough to divert at mueli higher discharges than is the case in the first flood. A reservoir in the canyon above is desirable under these conditions to improve the efficiency of the spreading works. This would hold back the water on the days when it is too muddy to spread and, being clarified in the reservoir, it could be released later and diverted without causing trouble. Tlie reservoir, irrespective of condition of the water, would also hold back the peaks when the flow is greater than capacity of diversion w^orks and thus increase the amount which could be spread. A reservoir of 70,100 acre-foot capacity exists at Bear Lake on Bear Creek, the principal tributary to Santa Ana River in the mountain watershed. This w^as built and is operated purely for long-time stor- age and not as an adjunct to spreading. The entire watershed has been surveyed, but only three reservoirs were found. These are : At Filirea Flats, on South Fork of Santa Ana River, 2J miles above junction with Bear Creek; surveyed to a capacity of 4000 acre-feet Avith height of dam 178 feet above estimated location of bedrock. The dam site was not drilled as the rock on side Avails is of good quality. Drainage area above is 87 square miles. At junction of Bear Creek and South Fork, called Forks site; (lam site immediately beloAV the junction surveyed to a capacity of 20,000 acre-feet Avith height of dam 315 feet above estimated loca- tion of bedrock. The dam site Avas drilled Avith a hole on both sides converging toAvard the center and the quality of rock appeared suitable. Drainage area above, exclusive of that above Bear Valley reservoir, is 138 square miles. Near Mentone, just above mouth of Sa)ita Ana Canyon; sur- veyed to a capacity of 2o,000 acre-feet Avith height of dam 310 feet above estimated location of bedrock. The dam site Avas not drilled. Di-ainage area aboA^e, exclusive of that above Bear Valley r(>servoir. is 161 square miles. Preliminary estimate of cost was $19,000,000 or $760 per acre-foot, but since this estimate Avas made standards of gravity dam construction have been revised by the state and dams made heaA'iei- and a ucav estimate of cost noAV would be higher. 1'he ]\Tentone site has not been further con- sidered in tins report. Stream Flows. Discluiryc RecorfJs. — Daily records of the riv(M- discharge at Mentone since July 1, 1896, are available, except for per.iods in 1910, 1916 and 1927 Avhen the gage Avas Avashed out and records of daily discharges for the major floods of those years are incomplete or entirely lacking. Daily records of canal discharge past the riA^er gaging station at IMentone, beginning Avith the year 1908. also are available. Prior to thai time only monthly records are published. Records of change of contents of and si)ill fi-om Bear Valley reser\'oir since 1890, likcAvise are available. SANTA ANA KIVER BASIN 41 Esiimair of fliscJidrnc nf Forks reservoir. — Only disclun-ucs larger than capacity of spreading diversions are important, or discharo-e during the first three days of tlood, whether larger than diversion ca])acity or not. Discharge of river only at Mentone has been used, the canal discharge being neglected and the discharge at Forks is assumed to be the same as that at ^Mentone. Corrections for reduction in flow, due to changes in capacity of Bear Valley reservoir, were made by sulitracting from the Mentone records for each day the add,itional storage which would have been impounded in Bear Valley reservoir had it been built, at the time of record, to present capacit}'. Estimate of discharge at Filir capacity of diversion to spreading works, in accordance with assumi)tions given below. SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN 43 Accomplishment of Forks Reservoir.* Assumption 1. Reservoir capacity 10,000 acre-feet. Spreading starts on second day of flood. Spreading diversion 1000 second-feet. The following estimated quantities can be spread and thus conserved, as against spreading starting on second day ^N^ithout reservoir: Period Average annual amount spread 190&-1916 6,030 acre-feet 1917-1930 2,920 acre-feet 1897-1930 3,700 acre-feet Assumption 2. Reservoir capacity 10,000 acre-feet. Spreading starts on fourth day of flood. Spreading diversion 1000 second-feet. The following estimated quantities can be spread and thus conserved, as against spreading starting on fourth day without reservoir: Period Average annual amount spread 1906-1916 9,280 acre-feet 1917-1930 4.080 acre-feet 1897-1930 5,410 acre-feet Assumption 3. Reservoir capacity 6000 acre-feet. Spreading starts on second day of flood. Spreading diversion 1000 second-feet. The following estimated quantities can be spread and thus conserved, as against spreading starting on second day w.ithout reservoir: Period Average annual amount spread 1906-1916 5,300 acre-feet 1917-1930 2,350 acre-feet 1897-19.30 3,110 acre-feet Assumption 4. Reservoir capacity 6000 acre-feet. Spreading starts on fourth day of flood. Spreading diversion 1000 second-feet. The following estimated quantities can be spread and thus conserved, as against spreading starting on fourth day without reservoir: Period Average annual amount spread 1906-1916 7,890 acre-feet 1917-1930 3.430 acre-feet 1897-1930 4,570 acre-feet- * Inasmuch as the discharge at Forks reservoir is assumed to be the same as at Mentone in making these calculations, the calculated performance of Forks reservoir is greater than actual. 44' DI\'I8I0N OF WATER RESOURCES Accomplishment of Filirea Reservoir. Assumption 5. Spreading starts on second day of flood. Vcr'tod .1 renif/c annuul amount spread 1!)17-19H0 1,640 acre-feet 1!>0J>-1}>30 2,120 acre-feet Asstimption 6. Spread ino- starts on fonrtli day of tlood. Period Averaf/e annual amount spread 1017-1030 2.060 aere-feet 1000-1030 2,760 acre-feet Comment. It is believed that neither tlie assunii)tion that, for each flood, spreading can start the second day or tliat it can not start until the fourth day is correct. The following tabulation sliow the mean of each pair of above assumptions and it is believed that this quantity Avill more nearly be the ti'uth than eitlier of the basic assumptions. Average Annual Quantities Conserved by Reservoirs in Santa Ana Canyon in Acre-feet Filirea- Flats retierroir Forks reserroir Period JfMOO acre-feet (i.OOO acre-feet 10.000 acre-feet 1006-lOlG 6..500 7.650 1017-19.30 1.850 2.800 3.500 1807-10.30 2,440* 3,840 4,580 Cost of Reservoirs. Estimated costs of the several reservoirs, based on grav.ity concrete overflow dams, details of which are given on pages 70, 71 and 73 and also on Plate XV, are set forth in the following table : ESTIMATED COSTS OF RESERVOIRS Acre-feet capacity Height above stream bed Estimated depth of stripping on bottom in feet Average annual yield in acre-feet Estimated cost Total Per acre-foot of yield Per acre-foot of additional yield Filirea Flats 4,000 6,000 10,000 178 196 243 15 90 90 2,440 3,840 4,560 $1,693,000 2,994.000 4.372,000 $070 776 956 Forks— $954 Forks 1,915 Forks site is below the rapidly disintegrating section of the stream bed and will fill with debr.is more quickly than the Filirea site. • For period 1909-1930, which gives results practically the same as long-time average in the case of Forks reservoir and is therefore assumed to do so for Filirea reservoir. SANTA ANA RIVER BA8IN 45 The community served by Santa Ana River is established and the type of agriculture practiced brings large average returns. It is believed that an auxiliary supply to this territory would justify much greater expenditure per acre-foot of water than is generally considered feasible. However, to justify such an expenditure there must be an actual shortage. As shown in Bulletin 19, the water plane under the cone at the mouth of Santa Ana Canyon rose an average of 23 feet between 1904 and 1928. This does not indicate overdraft. With pres- ent knowledge it is believed improbable that there will be overdraft, even ultimately, for certainly the spreading works now under con- structure will add to the supjily. If the reservoir site in Lower Santa Ana Canyon did not exist and if there Avere a shortage in sight, the cost of the upper one might be justified. If there is no shortage in the cone, salvage by Forks or Filirea reservoirs would be only for the Lower Basin and this can be accomplished more cheaply at the site in lower Santa Ana Canyon. Future i-equirements and develo])- ments may, however, make the Filirea or Forks site desirable. Development in Canyons. An alternative to a reservoir in the upper canyon might be develop- ment of the underground waters of the gravel areas in the stream beds of the mountains. The limitations of such development are not known now, but the matter apj^ears meritorious. Likewise, roekfill dams con- structed at narrow points in the canyon to raise the water not more than 50 feet and located where a spillway could be constructed in a solid rock ridge on the side of the stream, would add to the water supply. These also would serve as barriers behind which debr.is would lodge and make s])reading diversions easier because of removal of part of the debris. On both the Santa Ana River and Lytle Creek such dams would be desirable, but they are more advantageous on Lytle Creek than on the headwaters of the river because of the unstable condition of the stream across Lytle Creek cone. The problem of debris deposition ,in the valley is a peculiarly serious one on that cone and such dams would aid in its solution. On the Santa Ana River this problem is not acute. It is believed more can be accomplished in the way of conservation per dollar spent, by dams such as outlined and by utilization of existing gravel beds than by reservoir construction. This has also the advantage in that it lends itself to progressive development. Regardless of th.is, however, such dams would aid in spreading on Santa Ana cone. They would do this also on the Lytle Creek cone, but in this ease they would also aid in flood control by removing debris. Santa Ana Spreading Works.* The present works cover about 400 acres, but it is believed that there should be about 1200 acres ultimately covered to take care of 1000 second-feet. The estimated cost of the additional works is $350,- 400, and this is detailed on page 67. * See Plate X. 46 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Santa Ana River Revetments.* On the south bank, opposite the City Creek influx, there exists a weak spot and it is desirable to confine the river to protect property. On the north bank, from the new point of entrance of City Creek to the Pacific Electric crossing there also is a weak low bank and if the r.iver breaks over at this point the lower end of the city of San Bernardino will be flooded. The material here is very sandy. In view of all con- ditions it ,is believed flexible bank protection would be the best to use. The south bank requires protection for a distance of 25,000 feet and the north bank for 11,700 feet. One line of bank protection struc- ture on the south side and two lines on the north side are proposed at a total cost estimated at $219,300, detailed on page 68. • See Plate X. SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN 47 CHAPTER VII LOWER SANTA ANA RIVER* Since no further work was done at or below Lower Santa Ana Canyon during the present biennium, " the items herein included are taken from the report of the Chief Engineer of Orange County Flood Control District dated April, 1929, and from Bulletin 19. The items considered are a reservoir in Lower Santa Ana Canyon, channel improvements below and two reservoirs of 26,000 acre-feet total capac- ity on Santiago Creek. It also has been stated earlier in this report that the plan previously proposed by the district is being studied by a board of engineers retained by Orange County Flood Control District and a report, which may recommend revisions in the plan, is expected in due time. If the Orange County Flood Control District plans are consummated, the features set forth on page 11 flor Lower Santa Ana River, together with many other features on streams not tributary to the river, will be undertaken by that body. * See Plate II. 48 DIVISION OK WATER RESOURCES PLATE XI TYPICAL SECTION OF SPREADING WORK$ CHANNEL POUNOSURFACE 50" BOTTOM TYPICAL SECTION OF FLOOD CHANNEL STREAM SIDE TYPICAL SECTION OF UNLINED DIKE STREAM SIDE 2" CUN'TE FACING 16 nuBBtt -ROCn & WIRE MATTBESS-15' TYPICAL SECTION OF LINED DIKE STRUCTURAL DETAILS SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN 49 PLATE XI r -COPPER LINED ruOOR WITH 30" PAILS ON I'-O" CENTERS PARALLEL TO WALLS PLAN OF TYPICAL GATE STRUCTURE TYPICAL SPILLWAY SECTION OF DIVERSION WALL Bess- 15' WIDC TYPICAL SECTION OF CROSS WALL STRUCTURAL DETAILS 50 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PLATE XIII STREAM Slot NOTES- STBUCTUBE TO BE BRUSH AND ' FtMCt FABRIC OF UNIFORM Mt^H' ALL PIPES TO Bt 35'** D CALV- CASINO- BENTS TO BE e'-O'ON CENTEBS- E MATTRESS -15 LONG WHOLE LENCT TYPICAL SECTION OF PIPE AND WIRE DEBRIS DAM SCALE INCHES '^^^B^^^^^a^^^^^s^^^n^^^^^d^^^^^a fcet TYPICAL SECTION OF ROCK FILL DAM STREAM COMOtTl >. « T r.«-- r J? aco BOCK .1. STRUCTURAL DETAILS TYPICAL SECTION OF CONCRETE GRAVITY DEBRIS DAM SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN 51 PLATE XIV 1 L_ CO :s: _ a: 01 i-i 31*0 7^^;^ ECONSTRUCT ON WALL NO SPREADING "\ — NaiiaOY Q3SOdOad / 1 ■i ^ 3»o a3saioti// /'■ *// 1 =w^: ITVM iv«3avn ■7/ ;.■!/*: 1 f--i ys| ■31VO 0NliSiX3 - i//A 51V0 aasodoud ^ij / \l^: 5 ! / / ^/ -^ J / / ^*'' ^ 2 /// * 2 //A t / /^•' g i J^i( ^,. 1«3J..1 8 + jf = NOillC I "~~~~~~~~i'" * ~ " " ■""I^-"-- 31VO CINUS1X3 H Q3S0.OW / 7 .1 ...L 1 ^^"'^^^ =: FT 1 ^^ 1 ^r.' > ^^7^ __^^^j;j^ T3NKTM3 JO VIN,9 153,-« T 5 3 z 2 < < a ■? 0) r^ «) m « s ^ I » J g. 2 2 g. (nnivososn) i33j ni NoiivATia 31 •a 1 a 2 4 I is ; to '^ F V «n 1 ^ -^ "^ T \ ^ 3i *" 1 d 5 a a 52 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PLATE XV ^JEL EL- 3300 W/'AV^-VW/**'/*//*''' VW» J ELEVATION OF WATER SURTACE 3573' 3538 3491' HEIGHT OF DAM 373 338' 291" 1 CAPACITY OF RESERVOIR 14,000 AC- FT laOOO AC.-FT. 6.000 AC.- FT. ..*.*"■ DAM AT FORKS USED FOR ESTIMATE BOTTOM OF CHAKNEL EL- 4gl3' ■ / r ^i'miw/^ffiy/AV^frft^y'^'^ EL- OF CfiEST 4390 CAPACITY OF RESERVOIR 4,000 AC-FT. /.'tmwM/ii^/imwien'Jki'' DAM AT FILIREA USED FOR ESTIMATE SECTIONS OF CONCRETE GRAVITY DAMS .200 2M 300 SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN 53 CHAPTER VIII COST ESTIMATES PROPOSED SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT* Protection Levee Above Holt Avenue on East Bank. Length, 9000 feet. Top width, ten feet. Side slopes, two to one on land side and three to one on stream side. No excavation in channel. .\verajie height, eiglit feet above o-ronnd surface and twelve feet above tiottoni of channel. Channel Improvement from Holt Avenue Southerly. Leng'th, 42.000 feet. Ditch, minimum bottom width, 80 feet. Side slopes two to one. Berms, ten feet wide at ground surface. Levee, top tAvelve feet above bottom of channel, as shown in cro.ss-section on Plate XI. Capacity, 10,000 second-feet. AYhere natural channel is 180 feet or more in width, top of levees would be ten feet above grade, without berm. Road Crossings. For major roads, standard plans of Division of Highways for concrete culverts would be used. ]\Iinor roads would be crossed by placing a dip in road and paving road with twelve-inch paving. Toe wall tive feet deep and one foot thick Avould be placed on each side of paving. COST OF PROPOSED SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT Item Unit Quantity Unit cost Item cost Total cost Earth work- Cubic yard Cubic yard 210,800 504,500 1 10 780 iO 20 12 10,080 00 2,016 00 15 00 $42,160 60,540 Sand .- $102,700 Structures- New concrete road culvert of three openings 21 feet wide $10,080 20,160 11,700 .Additions to present road culverts: One con- Paved road crossings — Cubic yard 41,940 $144,640 25 per cent 36,160 2,700 134,000 $317,500 • See Plate III. 54 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PROPOSED CUCAMONGA CREEK SPREADING WORKS* Deflection Levee Above Diversion Wall No. 1.t Length, 650 feet. Average height, seven feet. Diversion Wall No. ^.t Present wall .strengthened and raised. Concrete gate structures in diversion wall as shown in Plate XII. Estimated in sets of four open- ings. Rubble masonry cross walls below gate structures and at right angles to diversion wall upstream side to prevent scour. Diversion Wall No. 2.§ Same tj^pe structure as Wall No. 1, with only one gate structure. Spreading Channels. Formed by low embankments on downhill side of wide shallow exca- vation. Capacity, 1000 second-feet each. Length, 46,425 feet. Depth, eight feet. Section shown in Plate XI. COST OF PROPOSED CUCAMONGA CREEK SPREADING WORKS Item Unit Quantity Unit cost Item cost Total cost Earth work- Coarse gravel . . .. Cubic yard Cubic yard Square feet Square feet 536,400 1,100 12,310 29,300 10 $0 30 8 00 16 20 1,000 00 $160,920 Structures — Diversion walls: Rubble masonry 8,800 1,970 5,860 10,000 $160,920 Gate units 26,630 $187,550 25 per cent 46,900 6,950 Grand total... . $241,400 ♦ See Plate IV. t See Plate XI. t See Plate XIV. § See Plate XII. SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN 55 PROPOSED DEER AND DAY CREEKS SPREADING WORKS* Main Diversion Channels. Formed by low embankments on downh,ill side of wide shallow excavation. Capacity, 3000 second-feet. Length, 4000 feet. Depth, twelve feet. For section see Plate XI. Spreading Channels. Formed by low embankments on downhill side of wide shallow excavation. Capacity, 1000 second-feet each. Length, 60,000 feet. Depth, eight feet. For section see Plate XI. Structures. Rubble masonry spillways in present creek channels. Concrete gate structures in embankment of main diversion channels to divert to spreading channels. Rubble masonry cross walls in main diversion channel below spillway and below gate structures to prevent scour. Sections of sp.illwavs, gate structures and cross walls shown in Plate XII. COST OF PROPOSED DEER AND DAY CREEKS SPREADING WORKS Item Unit Quantity Unit cost Item cost Total cost Earth work — Coarse gravel .. Cubic yards 566,700 2 $0 30 2,100 00 $170,010 $170,010 Structures- Spillways in diversion levees $4,200 15,880 5,000 3,000 580 Spillway from spreading grounds to flood channel _. Gate units with four 4 foot openings 5 .375 2,900 1,000 00 8 00 20 Diversion walls: Rubble masonry Cubic yards Square feet Rock and wire mattress 28,660 Base cost $198,670 Administration, engineering and contingencies .. 25 per cent 49,670 Interest during construction at 6 per cent 7,360 Right of way 84,000 Grand total $339,700 * See Plate VI. 56 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PROPOSED CUCAMONGA CREEK FLOOD CHANNEL* Channel Improvement from Pacific Electric Bridge Southeasterly. Channel, length. 55,000 feet. Bottom width above Deer and Day Creek junction, 50 feet. Bottom width below junction, 60 feet. Berm, 20 feet wide at ground surface. Levee, height, ten feet above bottom of channel. For section see Plate XT. Capacity, TjOOO second-feet above and 6000 second-feet below junction with Deer and Day channel. Road Crossings. For major roads, standard plans of Divis.ion of Highways for con- crete culverts would be used. Minor roads would be crossed by placing a dip in road and paving road with twelve-inch paving. Toe wall five feet deep and one foot thick would be placed on each side of paving. COST OF PROPOSED CUCAMONGA CREEK FLOOD CHANNEL Item Unit Quantity Unit cost Item cost Total cost Earth work — Sand and gravel Cubic yards 52,500 784,400 3 3 10 $0 20 12 6,720 00 4,590 00 395 00 $10,500 94,130 Sand $104,630 Structures — New concrete road culverts of two openings $20,160 13,770 39,500 New railroad bridges 45 feet clear span Paved road crossings . . - . 73,430 Base cost $178,060 25 per cent 44,515 6,725 261,000 $490,300 * See Plate V. SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN 57 PROPOSED DEER AND DAY CREEK FLOOD CHANNEL* Channel Improvement from Highland Avenue to Cucamonga Channel. Capacity, 4000 second-feet. Unlined ditch above Haven avenue and below Colton boulevard. Earth channel, length, 22,100 feet; sect.ion shown Plate XI. Haven avenue, paved 40 feet wide, curbs 4 feet high. Spillways out of spreading grounds and above Haven avenue as shown in Plate XII. Road Crossings. For major roads, standard plans of Division of Highways for con- crete culverts would be used. Minor roads would be crossed by placing a dip in road and paving road with twelve-inch paving. Toe wall five feet deep and one foot thick would be placed on each side of paving. COST OF PROPOSED DEER AND DAY CREEK FLOOD CHANNEL Item Unit Quantity Unit cost Item cost Total cost Eartli work — Sand and gravel. Sandy loam Structures — Spillway at Haven avenue rubble masonry... Paving Haven avenue, miscellaneous inlet and outlet structures and curbs New concrete road culverts of two openings 21 feet wide Railroad bridges 40 feet clear span through girder type 45 feet clear span through girder type 80 feet clear span wood pile trestle Protection works at junction with Cuca- monga channel Reinforced concrete gunite facing Cubic yards Cubic yards Cubic yards Lineal feet Paved road crossings — Two roads Rock and wire mattress. Lineal feet Cubic yards Square feet Cubic yards Square feet 113,850 10,250 1,030 11,000 2 2 1 100 24,500 290 1,050 $0 20 12 8 00 6 30 6.720 00 4,750 00 5,250 00 15 00 15 30 16 15 00 20 Base cost Administration, engineering and contingencies . Interest during construction at 6 per cent Right of way 25 per cent Grand total. $22,770 1,230 $8,240 69,300 13,440 9,500 5,250 1,200 1,530 3,920 $4,350 210 $24,000 112,380 4,560 $140,940 35,240 5,320 47,000 $228,500 • S'ee Plate V. 00 mVISION Ol' WATER RESOURCES PROPOSED ONTARIO FLOOD CHANNEL* Channel located along south side of Eighth street from East line city of Ontario to Cucamonga Channel. Length, 7400 feet. Bottom Avidth, 30 feet. Side slopes, tAvo to one. Capacity, 7500 second-feet. Depth, six feet. COST OF PROPOSED ONTARIO FLOOD CHANNEL Item Unit Quantity Unit cost Item cost Total cost Excavation — Gravel soil Cubic yards 17.500 SO 50 $8,750 18,750 Administration, engineering and contingencies 25 per cent 2.150 Interest during construction Right of way 39.000 Grand total $49 900 I * See Plate V. SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN 59 PROPOSED LYTLE CREEK SPREADING WORKS* Deflection Levee Above Present Dam. Length, 4000 feet. Complete section shown in Plate XL Diversion Works. Present dam would be used for spillway 450 feet long. Roller gates 50 feet long installed on east end of dam to scour sand from front of diversion headworks. Gate structures proposed are shown by section in Plate XII. Diversion channel shown by section in Plate XI, which also shows spreading channels. Diversion dams and cross- walls are similarly shown in Plate XII. COST OF PROPOSED LYTLE CREEK SPREADING WORKS Item Unit Quantity Unit cost Item cost Total cost Earth work — Cubic yards Cubic yards Cubic yards Cubic yards 175,700 240 3,660 9,870 $0 30 8 00 8 00 8 00 $52,700 $52,700 Structures- Diversion dams: $1,920 29,280 78,960 7,000 12,440 Check Hams nf nibble Tnasnnry Gates: Manually operated gates . . Roller gates Square feet 91,500 20 129,600 18,300 Rock and wire mattress — Four inches thick by fifteen feet wide $18,300 Base cost . . .. $200,600 25 per cent 50,150 Interest during construction at 6 per cent 7,550 Right of way 100,000 Grand total $358,300 * See Plate VII. 60 DWISION OF WATER RESOURCES PROPOSED LYTLE CREEK FLOOD CHANNEL* Channel Improvements from Santa Fe Main Line Southerly. The channel woukl follow the old course, called the East Branch. Length, 25,700 feet. M.ininmni bottom Avidth, 140 feet. Side slopes, two to one. Depth, twelve feet. Top width of levees in low spots, ten feet. Capacity, 20,000 second-feet above and 25,000 second-feet below junction witli "Warm Creek. Colton channel improved to cany 5000 second-feet. Ileadworks just below Santa Fe Railroad. COST OF PROPOSED LYTLE CREEK FLOOD CHANNEL Item Unit Quantity Unit cost Item cost Total cost Earth work- Sand and gravel.. - . Cubic yards 780,000 $0 20 $156,000 $156,000 Structures^ Diversion works. $ 4,000 6,700 28,600 Addition to present road culvert, two openings 21 feet wide . . Channel protection 39,300 20,000 West branch improvements — $20,000 Base cost... $215,300 25 per cent 53,825 Interest during construction at 6 per cent 8,075 Grand total $277,200 * See Plate VIII. SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN 61 ALTERNATE PLAN No. 1 LYTLE CREEK FLOOD CHANNEL* (Channel Through Colton) Channel Improvements from Santa Fe Main Line Southerly. Channel, length, 20,700 feet. Colton Channel improved for first 7600 feet, then easterly in new channel for 7600 feet to Warm Creek. Warm Creek channel improved for 5500 feet. Minimum bottom width 80 feet. (Section shown in Plate XI.) Capacity. 10,000 second-feet to Warm Creek, then 30.000 second-feet to Santa Ana R.iver. East Branch Channel unimproved to cany 15,000 second-feet. COST OF ALTERNATE PLAN No. 1 LYTLE CREEK FLOOD CHANNEL (Channel through Colton) Item Unit Quantity Unit cost Item cost Total cost Earth work — Sand and gravel.. . .. . .. Cubic yards Cubic yards 102,800 486,800 $0 20 15 $20,560 73,020 Sandy loam $93,580 Structures- Diversion works .. $13,600 10,600 6,050 20,160 6,720 50,700 104,500 New concrete highway bridges, two 40 foot spans, 30 foot roadway 2 1 1 1 5,300 00 6,050 00 One 80 foot span, 20 foot roadway New concrete road culvert of four openings 21 feet wide Addition to present road culvert, two openings 21 feet wide New railroad and highway bridge 100 feet Channel prntentinn Cubic yards 640 15 00 212,330 Paved road crossings — Two roads $9,600 9,600 Base cost $315,510 25 per cent 78,880 11,910 Right of way. 177,000 $583,300 • See Plate VIII. 62 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES ALTERNATE PLAN No. 2 LYTLE CREEK FLOOD CHANNEL* (Artificial Channel West of Colton) Channel Improvements from Santa Fe Main Line Southerly. Channel, length, 23,700 feet. Capacity, 19,000 second-feet. Bottom width, 90 feet. Side slopes, two to one. Depth, twelve feet. Bank width ten feet. Lined throughout with gunite two inches thick. Drops totaling 120 feet are necessary. Headworks contain two steel gates 50 feet long and eight feet high. Spillway weir to old channel of 6000 second-feet capacity. I COST OF ALTERNATE PLAN No. 2 LYTLE CREEK FLOOD CHANNEL (Artificial channel west of Colton) Item Unit Quantity Unit cost Item cost Total cost Earth work — Soil Cubic yards 807,700 $0 15 $121,166 $121,156 Structures — Diversion works: Concrete $6,790 26,140 68,800 35,500 25,200 16,800 6,720 Steel flood gates 2 13,070 Concrete drops ._. Railroad bridges, two 100 foot spans, girder type New road culverts each with five 21 foot openings, 22 foot roadway 3 1 1 3,680 2,816,600 8,400 00 16,800 00 6,720 00 15 00 16 44 foot roadway. Additions to present road culverts Cubic yards Square feet 185,960 Paved road crossings — Eight roads $55,200 55,200 Channel lining — 2 inch gunite $450,655 450,655 Base cost . $812,960 25 per cent 203,240 Interest during construction at 6 per cent. 45.600 Right of wav 306,000 Grand total $1,367,800 ♦ See Plate VIII. SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN 63 PROPOSED LYTLE CREEK DEBRIS DAM* This dam would be located 1000 feet above the Southern California Edison Company Power house. The features of the dam would be as follows : Elevation stream bed, approximately 2,250 feet Elevation crest, ap- proximately 2,310 feet Elevation flow line, ap- proximately 2,300 feet Depth of storage 50 feet Total height 60 feet Width of top 15 feet Width of bottom 162 feet I-,ength of crest 830 feet Type of dam rock fill Upstream slope 1.3 :1 Downstream slope 1.4 :1 Rock — cubic yards 133,058 Type of spillway through cut around west end of dam Length of spillway 300 feet Capacity of spillway 19.000 second-feet Depth of water in spill- way 6 feet COST OF PROPOSED LYTLE CREEK DEBRIS DAM Item Unit Quantity Unit cost Item cost Total cost Dam- Cubic yards Cubic yards Miles 114,630 18,430 1.5 $1 75 3 50 25,000 00 $200,600 64,500 Derrick placed rock on upstream face $265,100 Road- Reconstruction of road- - . 37,500 37,500 $302,600 25 per cent 75,650 17,050 $395,300 Note. — This dam is proposed at lowest favorable point in canyon to check debris in connection with spreading and flood control. When filled with debris it may be found possible to raise it. If not, another dam could be placed at a favorable point upstream. • See Plate XIIL 64 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PROPOSED DEVIL'S CANYON FLOOD CHANNEL* Channel excavated to foi-m bank on east and south sides. Side slopes excavation and embankment, two to one. Levee top width, ten feet, t Berm at ground surface, ten feet. Concrete culvert under Santa Fe.' Opening. 20 feet wide, ten feet deep, length, 32 feet. Concrete culvert under highway. Opening 20 feet wide, ten feet deep, length 44 feet. COST OF PROPOSED DEVIL'S CANYON FLOOD CHANNEL Item Unit Quantity Unit coft Item cost Total cost Earth work- Soil Cubic yards 89,900 $0 15 S13,485 $13,485 Structures- Concrete: $3,360 9,015 12,375 $25,860 25 per cent 6,460 7,880 $40,200 * S'ee Plate IX. SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN 65 PROPOSED WATERMAN AND EAST TWIN CREEKS PROTECTION WORKS* Waterman Creek. Earth dam, 27 feet high, 2.5:1 downstream and 3:1 upstream slopes. Top w.idth, 15 feet. Built of material excavated to form 20-foot bottom width, channel leading" to east. This diverts Waterman Creek into East Twin Creek. Thirty-inch corrugated pipe tlirough dam to take water to spreading grounds. Capacity of channel, 2800 second-feet. East Twin Creek. Levee, six feet high, five feet top width, side slopes, two to one. Length, 10,800 feet to channel iuto Warm Creek. COST OF PROPOSED WATERMAN AND EAST TWIN CREEKS PROTECTION WORKS Item Unit Quantity Unit cost Item cost Total cost Earth work — Sand and gravel.. Cubic yards Cubic yards 37,800 14,740 $0 20 1 00 $7,560 $7,560 Structures — Diversion dam: Earth fill (unclassified) $14,740 675 Sluiceway 15,415 Base cost $22,975 25 per cent 5,725 14,200 $42,900 • See Plate IX. 66 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PROPOSED LITTLE SAND CREEK DEBRIS DAM* Dam Construction. Concrete gravity overflow dam on bedrock rising to bottom of present I'hannel. Estimated height, 20 feet. Length, 145 feet. Pipe and Wire Debris Barriers. Twenty-foot pipe 3.25 inches in diameter driven ten feet into sand. COST OF PROPOSED LITTLE SAND CREEK DEBRIS DAM Item Unit Quantity Unit cost Item cost Total cost Structures— Pipe anH wire Hams . Dam 2 $1,030 00 $2,060 14,100 Concrete dam $16,160 Base cost . $16 160 Administration, engineering and contingencies .. 25 per cent 4,040 Interest during construction Grand totaL. - $20,200 PROPOSED SAND CREEK DEBRIS DAM* Dam Construction. Concrete gravity overflow dam on bedrock rising to bottom of present channel. Estimated height, 20 feet. Length, 160 feet. Pipe and Wire Debris Barriers. Twenty-foot pipe 3.25 inches in diameter driven ten feet into sand. COST OF PROPOSED SAND CREEK DEBRIS DAM Item Unit Quantity Unit cost Item cost Total cost Structures- Pipe and wire darriR Dam 4 $1,465 00 $5,860 14,640 Concrete dam $20 500 Base cost $20,500 Administration, engineering and contingencies . . 25 per cent 5,100 Interest during construction . Grand total $25,600 ♦ See Plate XIII. SANTA ANA UINER I'.ASIN 67 PROPOSED CITY CREEK PROTECTION WORKS* Protection Levee. Length, 15,300 feet. Top ^vidth, ten feel. Side slo})es, two to one and three to one. Heiffht. six feet above gronnd surface. Diversion Levee. Diverts creek south to river. Top width, ten feet. Side slopes two to one and three to one. Height, twelve feet above ground surface. Length, 3300 feet. Gate structures for spreadiuQ-. Plans shown in Plate Xn. COST OF PROPOSED CITY CREEK PROTECTION WORKS Item Unit Quantity Unit cost Item cost Total cost Earth work — SoiL.. Cubic yards 143,700 2 80 20 1,000 00 J28,740 $28,740 Structures- Gates *2,000 2,000 $30,740 25 per cent 7,685 11,075 $49,500 PROPOSED SANTA ANA RIVER SPREADING WORKS* Area of spreading grounds', 1230 acres. Type of spreading, ponding and channels. Cost of works estimated on acreage basis from cost rec- ords of existing Avorks. COST OF PROPOSED SANTA ANA RIVER SPREADING WORKS Item Unit Quantity Unit cost Item cost Total cost Acre 1,230 $215 00 $264,450 $264,450 Base cost.. . $264,450 25 per cent 66,115 19,835 $350,400 * See Plate X. 68 DIVISION Ol' WATEIt RESOURCES PROPOSED SANTA ANA RIVER DEBRIS DAM* This dam would be located 900 feet above the Mentone gaging station near the ]\fentone i)ower houso. Principal features are as follows : Downstream slope 1.4:1 Rock — cubic yards 99,221 Type of spillway through cut around north end of dam l^ength of spillway 500 feet Capacity of spillway 40,000second feet Dei)th of water in spill- way 7 feet Klt'vation, stream bed_- 2,015 feet Elevation, crest-. 2,075 feet Elevation, flow line 2,065 feet Depth of storage. 50 feet Total height 60 feet Width of top 15 feet Length of crest_. 635 feet Type of dam rock fill Upstream slope — 1.3:1 COST OF PROPOSED SANTA ANA RIVER DEBRIS DAM Item Unit Quantity Unit cost Item cost Total ccet Dam — Cubic yards Cubic yards 84,900 14,330 $1 75 3 50 $148,575 50,155 Derrick placed rock . ... $198,730 Base cost. $198,730 25 per cent 49.680 7,390 $255,800 Note. — This dam is proposed at lowest favorable point to check debris in connection with spreading and flood con- trol. When filled with debris it may be found possible to raise it. If not, another dam could be placed at a favorable point upstream. PROPOSED SANTA ANA RIVER BANK PROTECTION 1 Channel Improvement. Length, 36,700 feet flexible revetment. South bank protected from city limits of Redlands 25,000 feet westward. North bank protected from Pacific Electric bridge 11.700 feet eastward. COST OF PROPOSED SANTA ANA RIVER BANK PROTECTION Item Unit Quantity Unit cost Item cost Total coat Revetment in place- South bank, one row . . _ Lineal feet 25,000 11,700 $88,000 82.370 North bank, two rows $170,370 Base cost $170,370 25 per cent 42,590 6,340 Grand total $219,300 • See Plates X and XIII. t See Plate X. SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN ' 69 PROPOSED EXTENSION OF MILL CREEK SPREADING WORKS* Diversion dam to be repa,irecl. Protection levee to be built below spreading o-ronnds. Tjeiiath. 14.520 f'pot. Tleig-ht, six feet. Shown in Plate XI. COST OF PROPOSED EXTENSION OF MILL CREEK SPREADING WORKS Item Unit Quantity Unit cost Item cost Total cost Earth work- Coarse gravel ,. . Cubic yards 80,700 $0 30 $24,200 $24,200 Structures- Diversion dam JIO.OOO 10,000 Base'cost $34,200 Administration, engineering and contingencies . 25 per cent 8,600 Interest during construction Grand total -.. $42,800 PROPOSED SAN TIMOTEO CREEK CHANNEL PROTECTION* Channel Improvements. Double levees 23,200 feet long. Side slopes, two to one on land side and three to one on stream side. Height, six feet above average ground. Debris Checks. Three are proposed in vicinity of Redlands to stop debris movement. COST OF PROPOSED SAN TIMOTEO CREEK CHANNEL PROTECTION Item Unit Quantity Unit cost Item cost Total cost Earth work — Cubic yards 255,500 3 $0 15 10,000 00 $38,325 $38,325 Debris dams — Concrete . . $30,000 30,000 Base cost $68,325 68,325 25 per cent 17,080 Interest during construction at 6 per cent . 2,595 Right of way 52,800 Grand total $140,800 • See Plate X. 70 DIVISION OK \VATi;i{ UIOSOUKCES FORKS RESERVOIR ON SANTA ANA RIVER* Klevation, stream bed__ Klevation, crest ]Slevation, flow line Maximum depth of ex- cavation Total height Type of dam-- Thicl-fiiL'ss of crest Type of spillway Capacity, spillway Capacity outlets Cai)acity 6,000 Acre-fot Principal Features 3,300 feet Area of reservoir 78 acres 3,496 feet < "ost i)er acre-foot, stor- 3,491 feet age $497 Up.stream slope vertical 95 feet Downstream slope 3.4:1 291 feet l)ei)th of water in spill- concrete gravity way 8 feet 30 feet Length of spillway 327 feet over dam Spillway equipment 6 54-ft. drum gates 24,600 second-feet Length of crest 540 feet 2,000 second-feet COST OF FORKS RESERVOIR ON THE SANTA ANA RIVER (Capacity 6,000 acre-feet) Item Item cost Total cost ExploratioD Diversion during construction Clearing reservoir Dam and spillway — Excavation... Concrete Spillway Drilling and grouting holes, drainage holes. Sluice gates $323,200 1,617,400 91,700 12,400 17,000 Lands and improvements flooded. Miscellaneous Base cost... • Administration, engineering and contingencies, 25 per cent. Interest during construction Grand total. $20,000 20,000 7,000 2,061,700 10,000 91,700 $2,210,400 552,600 231,000 $2,994,000 • See Plates II and XV. SANTA ANA EIVER BASIN FORKS RESERVOIR ON SANTA ANA RIVER* .71 Elevation, stream bed- Elevation, crest Elevation, flow line Maximum depth of ex- cavation Total height Type of dam Thickness of crest Type of spillway Capacity, spillway Capacity 10,000 Acre-feet Principal Features 3,300 feet Capacity, outlets 2,000 second-feet 3,543 feet Area of reservoir 112 acres 3,538 feet Cost per acre-foot $436 Upstream slope vertical 95 feet Downstream slope 3.4 :1 338 feet Depth of water in spill- concrete gravity way 8 feet 30 feet Length of spillway 327 feet over dam Spillway equipment 6 54-ft. drum gates 2 4, 600 second-feet Length of crest 680 feet COST OF FORKS RESERVOIR ON THE SANTA ANA RIVER (Capacity 10,000 acre-feet) Item Item cost Total cost Exploration Diversion during construction Clearing reservoir Dam and spillway — Excavation Concrete Spillway , Drilling and grouting holes, drainage holes. Sluice gates , $395,000 2,559.700 91,700 15,700 17,000 Lands and improvements flooded. Miscellaneous.. $20,000 20,000 7,000 3,079,100 10,000 91,600 Base cost Administration, engineering and contingencies, 25 per cent. Interest during construction $3,227,700 806,900 337,400 Grand total. $4,372,000 • See Plates II and XV. 72 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES FORKS RESERVOIR ON SANTA ANA RIVER* Capacity H,000 Acre-feet Principal Features Elevation, stream bed_ 3,300 feet Elevation, crest 3,578 feet Elevation, flow line 3,573 feet Maximum depth of ex- cavation 95 feet Total height 373 feet Type of dam concrete gravity Type of spillway over dam Spillway equipment 6-54-ft. drum gates Capacity, spillway 24,600 second-feet Capacity, outlets 2,000 second-feet Area of reservoir 137 acres Cost per acre-foot, stor- age $421 Upstream slope vertical Downstream slope 3.4:1 Depth of water in spill- way 8 feet Length of spillway 327 feet Length of crest 870 feet COST OF FORKS RESERVOIR ON THE SANTA ANA RIVER (Capacity of 14,000 acre-feet) Item Item cost Total cost Exploration Diversion during construction , Clearing reservoir Dam and spillway — Excavation Concrete Spillway Drilling and grouting holes, drainage holes. Sluice-gates - , $475,000 3,607,200 91,700 20,000 17,000 Lands and improvements flooded. Miscellaneous Base cost Administration, engineering and contingencies, 25 per cent- Interest during construction $20,000 20,000 9,000 4,210,900 10,000 91,600 $4,361,500 1,090,400 456,300 Grand total. $5,908,200 ♦ See Plates II and XV. SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN FILIREA RESERVOIR ON SANTA ANA RIVERA 73 Capacity 4,000 Acre-feet Principal Features Elevation, stream bed- 4,212 feet Elevation, crest 4,390 feet Elevation, flow line 4,385 feet Depth of water 173 feet Depth of excavation 15 feet Total height 193 feet Type of dam concrete gravity Width of crest 20 feet Type of spillway separate channel Oapacitj% spillway 10,800 second-feet Capacity, outlets 2,000 second-feet Area of reservoir 77.5 acres Cost per acre-foot $423 Upstream slope vertical Dowiistream slope 3.4:1 Depth of water in spill- way 3 feet Auxiliary dam height 6 feet Length of spillway 630 feet Length of dam crest 4(i0 feet COST OF FILIREA RESERVOIR ON SANTA ANA RIVER (Capacity 4,000 acre-feet) Item Item cost Total cost Exploration Diversion during construction Clearing reservoir . Dam and spillway and auxiliary dam — Excavation Concrete Spillway and auxiliary dam Drilling and grouting holes, drainage holes- Sluice ways $266,400 819,100 87,400 10,600 17,000 Lands and improvements flooded. Miscellaneous $10,000 3,000 3,000 1,200,500 1,000 60,000 Base cost Administration, engineering and contingencies, 25 per cent. Interestduringconstructionat6percent Jl,277,500 319,400 96,100 Grand total. 11,693,000 * See Plates II and XV. PUBLICATIONS OF THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOUBCES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STATE OF CALIFORNIA Whao the Department of Public Worki wai created in July, 1931, the State Water Commlsilon wu iuece«d*d by the Dlrlilon of Water Rights, and the Department of Engineering wai lucceeded by the Dlrlilon of Engineering and Irrigation In all dutlei except those pertaining to State Architect. Both the DMalon of Water Blghti and the Dlrlilon of Engineering and Irrigation functioned until Auguat, 19S9, when tbay war* eonioUdatad to form the DlTlalon of Water Besourcea. STATE WATER COMMISSION First Report, State Water Commission, March 24 to November 1, 1912. Second Report, State Water Commission, November 1, 1912, to April 1, 1914. •Biennial Report, State Water Commission, March 1, 1915, to December 1, 1916. Biennial Report, State Water Commission, December 1, 1916, to September 1, 1918. Biennial Report, State Water Commission, September 1, 1918, to September 1, 1920. DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS •Bulletin No. 1 — Hydrographic Investigation of San Joaquin River, 1920-1928. •Bulletin No. 2 — Kings River Investigation, Water Master's Reports, 1918-1923. •Bulletin No. 3 — Proceedings First Sacramento-San Joaquin River Problems Con- ference, 1924. •Bulletin No. 4 — Proceedings Second Sacramento-San Joaquin River Problems Con- ference, and Water Supervisor's Report, 1924. Bulletin No. 6 — San Gabriel Investigation — Basic Data, 1923-1926. Bulletin No. 6 — San Gabriel Investigation — Basic Data, 1926-1928. Bulletin No. 7 — San Gabriel Investigation — Analysis and Conclusions, 1929. •Biennial Report, Division of Water Rights, 1920-1922. •Biennial Report, Division of Water Rights, 1922-1924. Biennial Report, Division of Water Rights, 1924-1926. Biennial Report, Division of Water Rights, 1926-1928. DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING •Bulletin No. 1— Cooperative Irrigation Investigations in California, 1912-1914. •Bulletin No. 2 — Irrigation Districts in California, 1887-1915. Bulletin No. 3 — Investigations of Economic Duty of Water for Alfalfa in Sacra- mento Valley, California, 1915. •Bulletin No. 4 — Preliminary Report on Conservation and Control of Flood Waters in Coachella Valley, California, 1917. •Bulletin No. 5 — Report on the Utilization of Mojave River for Irrigation In Victor Valley, California, 1918. •Bulletin No. 6 — California Irrigation District Laws, 1919 (now obsolete). Bulletin No. 7 — Use of water from Kings River, California, 1918. •Bulletin No. 8 — Flood Problems of the Calaveras River, 1919. Bulletin No. 9 — Water Resources of Kern River and Adjacent Streams and Their Utilization, 1920. •Biennial Report, Department of Engineering, 1907-1908. •Biennial Report, Department of Engineering, 1908-1910. •Biennial Report, Department of Engineering, 1910-1912. •Biennial Report, Department of Engineering, 1912-1914. •Biennial Report, Department of Engineering, 1914-1916. •Biennial Report, Department of Engineering, 1916-1918. •Biennial Report, Department of Engineering, 1918-1920. * Beporta and BuUetlni out of print. These may be borrowed by your local library from the California State Library at Sacramento, California. DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Including Reports of the Former Division of Engineering and Irrigation •Bulletin No. 1 — California Irrigation District Laws, 1921 (now obsolete). •Bulletin No. 2 — Formation of Irrigation Districts, Issuance of Bonds, etc., 1922. Bulletin No. 3 — Water Resources of Tulare County and Their Utilization, 1922. Bulletin No. 4 — ^Water Resources of California, 1923. Bulletin No. 5 — Flow in California Streams, 1923. Bulletin No. 6 — Irrigation Requirements of California Lands, 1923. •Bulletin No. 7 — California Irrigation District Laws, 1923 (now obsolete). •Bulletin No. 8 — Cost of Water to Irrigators in California, 1925. Bulletin No. 9 — Supplemental Report on Water Resources of California, 1925. •Bulletin No. 10 — California Irrigation District Laws, 1925 (now obsolete). Bulletin No. 11 — Ground T\''ater Resources of Southern San Joaquin Valley, 1927. Bulletin No. 12 — Summary Report on the Water Resources of California and a Coordinated Plan for Their Development, 1927. Bulletin No. 13 — The Development of the Upper Sacramento River, containing U. S. R. S. Cooperative Report on Iron Canyon Project, 1927. Bulletin No. 14 — The Control of Floods by Reservoirs, 1928. •Bulletin No. 18 — California Irrigation District Laws, 1927 (now obsolete). Bulletin No. 18 — California Irrigation District Laws, 1929 Revision. Bulletin No. 19 — Santa Ana Investigation, Flood Control and Conservation (with packet of maps), 192S. Bulletin No. 20 — Kennett Reservoir Development, an Analysis of Methods and Extent of Financing by Electric Power Revenue, 1929. •Bulletin No. 21 — Irrigation Districts in California, 1929. Bulletin No. 21-A — Report on Irrigation Districts in California for the Tear 1929, 1930. Bulletin No. 22 — Report on Salt Water Barrier (two volumes), 1929. Bulletin No. 23 — Report of Sacramento-San Joaquin Water Supervisor, 1924-1928. Bulletin No. 24 — A Proposed Major Development on American River, 1929. Bulletin No. 28-A — Industrial Survey of Upper San Francisco Bay Area, 1930. Bulletin Xo. 31 — Santa Ana River Basin, 1930. Bulletin No. 32 — South Coastal Basin, a Cooperative Symposium, 1930. Biennial Report, Division of Engineering and Irrigation, 1920-1922. Biennial Report, Division of Engineering and Irrigation, 1922-1924. Biennial Report, Division of Engineering and Irrigation, 1924-1926. COOPERATIVE AND MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS •Report of the Conservation Commission of California, 1912. •Irrigation Resources of California and Their Utilization (Bui. 254, Office of Exp. U. S. D. A.) 1913. •Report, State Water Problems Conference, November 25, 1916. •Report on Pit River Basin, April, 1915. •Report on Lower Pit River Project, July, 1915. •Report on Iron Canyon Project. 1914. •Report on Iron Canyon Project, California, May, 1920. •Sacramento Flood Control Project (Revised Plans), 1925. Report of Commission Appointed to Investigate Causes Leading to the Failure of St. Francis Dam, 1928. Report of the Joint Committee of the Senate and Assembly Dealing With the Water Problems of the State, 1929. PAMPHLETS Rules and Regulations Governing the Supervision of Dams in California, 1929. Water Commission Act with Latest Amendments Thereto, 1929. Rules and Regulations Governing the Appropriation of Water in California, 1929. Rules and Regulations Governing the Determination of Rights to Use of Water in Accordance with the Water Commission Act, 1925. Tables of Discharge for Parshall Measuring Flumes, 1928. General Plans, Specifications and Bills of Material for Six and Nine Inch Parshall Measuring Flumes, 1930. * B«porU and BuUetiui out of pilot. Theie mij be borrowed by your locil library froia th* Callforala State Library at Sacramento. California. O 80998 12-30 2M THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY WILL INCREASE TO 50 CENTS ON THE FOURTH DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY OVERDUE. . ,.64 ,r; J MM I 1965 i^^^ 16 136S DUE JUN a ^^'^ FEB 2 B 1990 f'^B 2 6 19SQ RECEIVED PHY SCI UBPARV NOV 12 NOV 8l9PU.-*u' SCI ubrArv! ^EIPT PHYS SCI USnARY Book Slip-25m-7,'53(A899884)458 .t* Calif. T)ivi,?tiQn._aC_ water resouifces. L.al f PHYSiGAL SCIENCES LIBRARY TC82h J12 A2 rc82 :? I EIBRAKT UNIVERSITY OF CAUTOBSttA DAVIS 111598 3 1175 00477 7036