Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564972
label
[Energy] - Hydroelectric Energy Potential in California, March 1974
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564972
contentType
document
title
[Energy] - Hydroelectric Energy Potential in California, March 1974
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Reports
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564972
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
622e7bca60749e5c
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: [Energy] - Hydroelectric Energy Potential
in California, March 1974
Box: P35
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE RESOURCES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
BULLETIN No. 194
MARCH 1974
HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY
POTENTIAL IN CALIFORNIA
NORMAN B. LIVERMORE, JR.
RONALD REAGAN
JOHN R. TEERINK
Secretary For Resources
Governor
Director
The Resources Agency
State of California
Department of Water Resources
Basin
Page
BASINS INDEX MAP
1 SMITH-TRINITY-KLAMATH
RIVERS
12
2 MAD RIVER-REDWOOD
CREEK
14
3 EEL RIVER
16
1
4 MATTOLE RIVER
*
7
5 MENDOCINO COAST
*
2
6 RUSSIAN RIVER
18
8
22
7 UPPER SACRAMENTO-
4
McCLOUD-PIT RIVERS
20
11
8 REDDING STREAM GROUP
22
3
12
9 STONY-THOMES CREEKS
24
9
10 PUTAH-CACHE CREEKS
26
13
23
11 EAST SIDE STREAM GROUP
28
5
12 UPPER FEATHER RIVER
30
10
14
13 YUBA-BEAR RIVERS
32
6
14 AMERICAN RIVER
34
15
24
15 COSUMNES-MOKELUMNE-
16
CALAVERAS RIVERS
36
17
16 STANISLAUS RIVER
38
29
18
25
28
19
20
26
21
Basin
Page
30
27
17 TUOLUMNE RIVER
40
18 MERCED RIVER
42
19 UPPER SAN JOAQUIN
RIVER
44
20 KINGS RIVER
46
21 KAWEAH-TULE-KERN
RIVERS
48
31
32
22 NORTH LAHONTAN
*
23 TRUCKEE RIVER
50
24 CARSON-WALKER RIVERS
52
25 MONO LAKE-UPPER
OWENS RIVER
54
26 LOWER OWENS RIVER
56
27 SOUTH LAHONTAN
*
28 CENTRAL VALLEY
*
*Basin has no significant or identified potential
29 SAN FRANCISCO BAY
*
30 CENTRAL COAST
*
31 SOUTH COASTAL
COVER PHOTO- Old Folsom Powerhouse, the first hydroelectric plant to
58
begin operation in Central California. Now a state historic landmark, the
32 COLORADO DESERT
60
powerhouse was operated from 1895 until 1952 and was donated to the
CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT
62
State by Pacific Gas & Electric Company.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE RESOURCES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
BULLETIN No. 194
HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY
POTENTIAL
IN
CALIFORNIA
MARCH 1974
NORMAN B. LIVERMORE, JR.
RONALD REAGAN
JOHN R. TEERINK
Secretary For Resources
Governor
Director
The Resources Agency
State of California
Department of Water Resources
Spillway at Oroville Dam
DWR photo 3685-2
FOREWORD
Events during the past year have focused public attention on energy uses,
energy resources, and the prospects of meeting present and future demands for
energy of all kinds. Although most attention has been directed to the recent shortages
of petroleum, there is the prospect of serious shortages of electrical energy in Califor-
nia within the next ten years. Delays in placing new electrical generating plants "on
line" are occurring, due principally to increased emphasis on safety factors and
effects on the environment. At the same time, increasing attention is being given to
energy conservation measures. Even with such measures, however, energy shortages
can be expected unless expanded energy production programs are launched.
Existing hydroelectric generating plants produce 30 percent of California's
present supply of electrical energy. The physical potential does exist in California for
increasing the present production of hydroelectric energy. Consequently, a prelimi-
nary appraisal of this potential is timely in light of the overall energy situation today.
This report presents a physical inventory of proposals for hydroelectric de-
velopment which have been studied before, at varying levels of intensity, by federal,
state or local government agencies, or by private and public utilities. While the
hydroelectric projects identified are not proposals for immediate development, they
do appear to have potential and may warrant reevaluation in light of the changed
energy situation. Some of the projects identified in this report are already being
reevaluated by other governmental bodies or utilities.
The term "hydroelectric potential", as used in this report, implies only the
physical possibility for development as concluded from previous studies. It is fully
recognized that hydroelectric energy has both advantages and disadvantages. On the
one hand, hydroelectric generation is smog-free, does not consume fuel, and does
not diminish the quantity or degrade the quality of the water resource used. On the
other hand, the generation of hydroelectric energy does involve streamflow diversion
and reservoir fluctuation and, in some cases, may conflict with other resources
values, especially the preservation of fish and wildlife. These factors, along with
other factors such as cost and financing, have not been fully evaluated in this report.
All of these matters would require detailed studies in any specific proposal for
development.
This report is designed to inform the public, the Legislature, and government
officials of the role hydroelectric energy could have in meeting the State's energy
needs and to provide a basis for programming additional studies to define the future
role of hydroelectric energy in California.
John R. Teerink John R. Teerink
Director
Department of Water Resources
III
CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD
iii
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
vi
CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION
vii
CHAPTER I - SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONS
1
Summary
Conclusions
2
CHAPTER II - INTRODUCTION
2
The Growing Need for Electrical Energy
2
Scope of Investigation
2
CHAPTER III - CHARACTERISTICS OF HYDROELECTRIC POWER
5
Energy Generation and System Capacity
5
Plant Capacity Factor and Energy Generation
6
Types of Hydraulic Turbines
6
Types of Hydroelectric Power Development
6
CHAPTER IV - HYDROELECTRIC POWER IN CALIFORNIA
7
Role of Hydroelectric Power in the Overall System
7
Methods of Increasing System Output
7
Environmental Aspects of Hydroelectric Development
8
Protected Areas
8
Wild and Scenic Rivers Legislation
8
CHAPTER V - POTENTIAL HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
9
Basic Assumptions
9
Evaluation Methods
9
Basin Inventories
9
Smith-Trinity-Klamath Rivers
12
Mad River-Redwood Creek
14
Eel River
16
Russian River
18
Upper Sacramento-McCloud-Pit Rivers
20
Redding Stream Group
22
Stony-Thomes Creeks
24
Putah-Cache Creeks
26
East Side Stream Group
28
Upper Feather River
30
Yuba-Bear Rivers
32
American River
34
Cosumnes-Mokelumne-Calaveras Rivers
36
Stanislaus River
38
Tuolumne River
40
Merced River
42
Upper San Joaquin River
44
Kings River
46
Kaweah-Tule-Kern Rivers
48
Truckee River
50
Carson-Walker Rivers
52
Mono Lake-Upper Owens River
54
Lower Owens River
56
South Coastal Basin
58
Colorado Desert
60
California Aqueduct of the State Water Project
62
TABLES
1. Near Future Potential Additions to California's Hydroelectric System
1
2. Hydroelectric Energy Production in California
10
FIGURES
1. Electrical Energy Generation 1950-1972
3
2. Electricity Production and Energy Sources
4
3. Typical Weekly Load Curve for Large Metropolitan Area
5
State of California
The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
RONALD REAGAN, Governor
NORMAN B. LIVERMORE JR, Secretary for Resources
JOHN R. TEERINK, Director, Department of Water Resources
ROBERT G. EILAND, Deputy Director
ROBERT B. JANSEN, Deputy Director,
DONALD A. SANDISON, Deputy Director
DIVISION OF RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Herbert W. Greydanus
Division Engineer
POWER OFFICE
Edward J. Terhaar
Chief
This bulletin was prepared by a TASK FORCE
under the direction of:
Donald E. Owen
Interstate Planning Branch
Division of Resources Development
by:
Robert G. Potter
Chief, Project Investigation Section
Northern District
Warren J. Cole
Chief, Project Planning Section
Central District
Harold G. Davis
Chief, Power Contracts Management Branch
Power Office
Eric B. Ericson
Research Writer, Plant Operations Office
Division of Operations & Maintenance
Assisted by:
Kay Shibata
Division of Operations & Maintenance
Betty Quan
Division of Operations & Maintenance
Paul Pedone
Division of Design & Construction
Kenneth L. Thompson
Division of Design & Construction
B. }. Wiles
Division of Design & Construction
James Albaugh
Division of Design & Construction
Earl G. Bingham
Division of Resources Development
Assistance was provided by the District Offices of the
Department of Water Resources
under the direction of
Albert J. Dolcini
District Engineer, Northern District
Robin R. Reynolds
District Engineer, Central District
Carl L. Stetson
District Engineer, San Joaquin District
Jack J. Coe
District Engineer, Southern District
VI
State of California
Department of Water Resources
CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION
IRA J. CHRISMAN, Chairman, Visalia
CLAIR A. HILL, Vice Chairman, Redding
Mal Coombs
Garberville
Ray W. Ferguson
Ontario
William H. Jennings
San Diego
Clare W. Jones
Firebaugh
William P. Moses
San Pablo
Samuel B. Nelson
Northridge
Ernest R. Nichols
Ventura
Orville L. Abbott
Executive Officer and Chief Engineer
Tom Y. Fujimoto
Assistant Executive Officer
Copies of this bulletin are available without charge from:
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
P.O. Box 388
Sacramento, California 95802
VII
CHAPTER I. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Water has been widely used to generate electrical
the potential projects presented in this report have been
energy in California since Old Mill Creek No. 1, the first
studied in the past by federal, state, and local and private
three-phase hydroelectric plant, was completed in 1893
agencies. The level of knowledge of these projects cov-
near Redlands. For several decades thereafter, most of
ers a wide range from detailed feasibility level, where
the electricity used in California was generated in hy-
design and construction could begin almost immediately
droelectric plants. Even with the increased development
if funds were available, to very cursory information that
of natural-gas and oil-fired steam plants in the past 20
would require much further study before any recom-
years, and the decreasing availability of suitable sites,
mendation for action could result.
hydroelectric plants still produce about 30 percent of the
There are several potential hydroelectric develop-
electrical energy used in California. The early hydroelec-
ments that fall within the boundaries of restricted areas
tric plants were single-purpose energy generating pro-
such as parks, wilderness areas, primitive areas, and
jects; but most of the recent additions to the hydroelec-
wild and scenic river systems. The hydroelectric energy
tric system operate as multiple-purpose developments,
potential for such projects was determined, but projecti
storing water for many other purposes, such as irrigation,
features are not shown on the basin maps in Chapter V.
recreation, municipal and industrial use, and flood con-
Studies for this report have shown that it would be
trol.
physically possible to double the present average yearly
In 1972, Californians used approximately 155 billion
hydroelectric energy output in California. However,
kilowatthours of electrical energy. In recent years, hyd-
more than half of the remaining potential which appears
roelectric energy generation within the State has aver-
physically possible is at locations covered by state and
aged 32 billion kilowatthours annually. Additional
federal laws establishing wild and scenic rivers and na-
energy generated in hydroelectric plants outside of the
tional parks. In addition, some of the other physical op-
State is imported each year over transmission intercon-
portunities could probably not be implemented for many
nections with the Pacific Northwest and from plants on
years due to their complexity. The remainder, those de-
the Lower Colorado River. It would be necessary to burn
velopments that could be accomplished in the relatively
the equivalent of approximately 53 million barrels of oil
near future if, found feasible and environmentally ac-
annually in steam plants to generate the 32 billion
ceptable, represents about a 30 percent expansion of the
kilowatthours of electric energy produced by hydro
existing system.
plants in California. This is equivalent to more than 15
Table 1 summarizes the energy generation and ap-
percent of the total annual oil production in California in
proximate installed capacity of projects with near-future
1970, or the electrical energy need of about 5,000,000
potential for addition to California's hydroelectric sys-
people in one year. Since the cost of oil is rising rapidly,
tem.
and because oil is the main fuel being used in thermal
A 30 percent expansion of the present hydroelectric
generating plants in California, the construction of hyd-
system output would yield more than 9 billion kilowatt-
roelectric projects may become more competitive as a
hours of energy per year, which is equivalent to the
future source of energy. The Department of Water Re-
energy provided by burning 15 million barrels of oil per
sources therefore has assembled this report as an as-
year in steam plants. This is a significant amount of
sessment of the statewide potential for additional hyd-
energy and when coupled with the valuable peaking
roelectric energy generation.
capability of hydropower, it defines an important future
The assessment does not include any analysis of fi-
role for hydroelectric development.
nancial feasibility or in-depth evaluation of fisheries,
While cost estimates or plans for implementation have
wildlife, or environmental factors. It is intended to pro-
not been prepared for this report, a 30 percent expansion
vide an overview of the hydroelectric potential remain-
of the present hydroelectric system output would require
ing in California, and to identify those developments
a very large investment of capital from both private and
where additional analyses may be warranted. Most of
public sources.
Table /. Near-Future Potential Additions to California's Hydroelectric System
Energy Potential In
Approximate Installed
Hydrographic
Billions of Kilowatthours
Capacity In Thousand
Region
Per Year
Kilowatts
North Coast
0.2
81
Sacramento River Basin
2.7
1736
San Joaquin-Tulare Basins
6.4
3476
Lahontan Basins
0.3
48
South Coast-Colorado Desert
0.1
15
CALIFORNIA TOTAL
9.7
5356
1
There are opportunities for construction of hydroelec-
Conclusions
tric plants at water projects owned and operated by
local, state, and federal agencies. In some cases these
1. Prompt action in studies, financing, and construc-
opportunities involve the expansion of existing power
tion could probably increase the hydroelectric energy
plants and in some cases they involve the addition of
output of California about 30 percent by 1990.
hydroelectric energy generation where it is presently not
2. An additional significant amount of hydroelectric
included as a project purpose. Several opportunities for
energy potential exists but its development may never be
providing significant amounts of electrical energy are
realized. This includes streams in the Wild and Scenic
associated with the State Water Project.
River Systems, projects with major adverse effects on the
There is an opportunity to increase the output of pres-
fishery and those with major engineering problems.
ently constructed or future hydroelectric systems by
3. Additional study of the near term hydroelectric po-
weather modification to increase basin runoff by, re-
tential of California should be undertaken by local, state,
finement of reservoir flood control operation criteria to
and federal water development agencies and by public
reduce spills, by modifying practices of multiple-
and private utilities. This would include: (a) more de-
purpose project operation to increase energy produc-
tailed review of the most likely potential undertakings;
tion, long range weather forecasting to improve seasonal
(b) discussions, and possibly agreements, among state,
operation, watershed management and reservoir evap-
federal, or local agencies; (c) feasibility studies, includ-
oration suppression to increase runoff.
ing site mapping and exploration, cost estimates, fish
Under special circumstances, some additional energy
and wildlife aspects, general environmental effects, op-
can be produced at power plants situated below flood
erational factors, and alternative financing proposals;
control reservoirs without significantly decreasing flood
and (d) reports to the Legislature and Congress for au-
protection, by temporarily modifying flood control res-
thorizations where appropriate.
ervations if detailed and reliable runoff forecasts indicate
4. While there are many significant opportunities for
stable or improving conditions. This has been dem-
development of additional hydroelectric generation in
onstrated in recent cooperative efforts among the De-
California, most of the anticipated growth in electrical
partment of Water Resources, the Corps of Engineers,
energy requirements will have to be met by other
and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
sources, such as nuclear and fossil fueled steam plants.
CHAPTER II. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to present an assessment
No new methods of electrical generation are expected to
of California's hydroelectric energy potential and to
be in commercial operation before 1985; however, im-
identify opportunities which warrant further study or ac-
provements in nuclear power plants are expected. The
tion. An additional objective is to create public aware-
growing demand and rising costs of fossil fuels make it
ness of the role of hydroelectric generation in satisfying a
imperative that the other methods of generating electri-
portion of California's energy needs.
cal energy be thoroughly evaluated. Several other recent
developments indicate that the forecasts shown won't
The Growing Need for Electrical Energy
occur as indicated. Nuclear power construction has fall-
In California's recent past, both the population and
en behind schedule and it now appears that natural gas
overall standard of living have risen dramatically. The
will not be available in the quantities anticipated. Energy
State's use of electrical energy has doubled approxi-
conservation measures have slowed the growth in de-
mately every ten years. Total requirements in 1972 were
mand. Nevertheless, present data indicates there will be
155 billion kilowatthours. Figure 1 shows historic elec-
significant increases in the demand for electrical energy
in California.
trical energy generated for use in California from 1950 to
1972. The figure also shows the amount of generation
Scope of Investigation
provided by hydroelectric plants in California. These
plants have provided about 30 percent of the energy
This is a physical inventory of potential hydroelectric
produced in California in recent years.
projects with only limited consideration given to
Recent forecasts by the Resources Agency indicate
economic, environmental or institutional constraints.
that electrical energy requirements in California could
This study placed emphasis on hydroelectric energy
increase to 355 billion kilowatthours annually by 1985.
generation rather than peaking capacity. The ability of a
Actual and estimated sources of electrical energy gener-
plant to produce a firm supply of power on a definite
ation for the 1960-1985 period are shown in Figure 2.
schedule was not a requirement for inclusion in the in-
The forecast shown in Figure 2 assumes a continued
ventory. In the case of pumped-storage, only those pro-
reliance on additional nuclear and oil-fired plants.
jects which would also utilize stream flow in addition
2
FIGURE 1
ELECTRICAL ENERGY GENERATION 1950 - 1972
160
140
120
ELECTRICITY GENERATED - BILLIONS OF KILOWATT HOURS PER YEAR
TOTAL CALIFORNIA ENERGY
GENERATION AND IMPORTS
100
80
60
40
20
CALIFORNIA HYDROELECTRIC
ENERGY GENERATION
0
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
CALENDAR YEAR
3
360
600
Figure 2 ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION AND
ENERGY SOURCES
320
GEOTHERMAL
500
280
ELECTRICITY GENERATED
BILLIONS OF KILOWATT HOURS PER YEAR
240
400
200
NUCLEAR
300
COAL
EQUIVALENT BARRELS OF OIL
MILLIONS OF BARRELS
160
HYDRO + IMPORTS
120
200
80
OIL
100
40
GAS
O
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
YEAR
Source: "Energy Dilemma." California Resources Agency, June 1973
to pump back operation were considered.
been given to alternatives which have not previously
been studied but which now appear as possibilities
The potential for further hydroelectric energy de-
under today's conditions.
velopment in all the river basins of the State was re-
Theoretically, hydroelectric energy can be generated
viewed. The term "hydroelectric potential", as used in
wherever a controlled water supply can be dropped to a
this report, implies only the physical possibility for de-
lower elevation. However, it is not practical to consider
velopment as concluded from previous studies. Consi-
sites where only small amounts of water and low power
dered in this investigation were all projects known to
drops are possible. For purposes of this report, only hy-
have been studied in the past but not built because of
droelectric sites with an energy potential of at least 25
economic or other reasons, as well as existing projects
million kilowatthours a year or larger are included in this
where there is significant additional hydroelectric poten-
report. Such potential is roughly equivalent to the energy
tial. Most of the information has been taken from previ-
obtainable from burning 43,000 barrels of oil a year in a
ous studies and reports. Very preliminary evaluation has
modern thermal-electric plant.
4
CHAPTER III. CHARACTERISTICS OF HYDROELECTRIC POWER
This chapter presents discussions on several aspects of
ity is the rate at which power is produced and is ex-
hydroelectric energy generation to aid in understanding
pressed in kilowatts. Now, if the chandelier is illumi-
of the subject.
nated for 1 hour, 1 kilowatthour of energy is consumed;
if it's illuminated for 2 hours, 2 kilowatthours of energy
are consumed. Energy then is the amount of power used
and is measured in kilowatthours. Note that the capacity
Energy Generation and System Capacity
stays the same but the energy changes depending on the
Since electricity cannot be stored in the large quan-
time the lights are on. Remember that capacity
tities required by electric utility systems, it must be gen-
(kilowatts) is the rate at which power is produced or
erated as the loads on the system require, at rates that
consumed and energy (kilowatthours) is the total amount
vary from hour to hour and even from minute to minute.
of power produced or consumed.
This report discusses hydroelectricity from two as-
To meet an increase in load, power systems must have
pects: the total quantity of energy produced, and the
a generating capacity large enough to supply peak re-
rate at which a plant can produce it, or the capacity of
quirements and flexible enough to respond almost in-
the plant. A clear distinction between energy and capac-
stantaneously to load changes. It is in meeting this con-
ity will facilitate understanding of the following discus-
stantly changing load that hydroelectric generation is
sion.
particularly well suited because of the ability to start,
For example, a chandelier with ten 100-watt bulbs
stop, and make changes in power output much more
would be a 1000-watt, or a 1-kilowatt, light fixture. To
quickly and efficiently than steam plants.
illuminate all 10 bulbs at the same time, a power source
Figure 3 shows how the load varies for a typical power
with a capacity to produce 1 kilowatt is required. Capac-
system.
100
90
80
70
PERCENT OF WEEKLY PEAK
60
50
40
30
20
IO
AUGUST
O
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
MONDAY
TUESDAY
WEDNESDAY
THURSDAY
FRIDAY
SATURDAY
SUNDAY
Figure 3. Load Variations for a Typical Power System
5
Plant Capacity Factor and Energy Generation
Francis type, employed for heads usually ranging from
about 40 to 1,000 feet or more.
The energy generated by a hydroelectric power plant
is a function of the quantity of water available to drive
Impulse type, employed for heads usually ranging
the turbine, the head (or amount of fall) under which it
upward from about 850 feet.
operates, and the hours (duration) of operation. Plant
The first two types are "reaction" turbines, equipped
capacity factor is the ratio of actual hours operated to the
with draft tubes, and developing power based on the
total hours available. For example, if a plant could be
difference in the levels of headwater (in the reservoir)
operated at full capacity all year, it would be generating
and tailwater (at the power plant outlet). The impulse
at 100 percent annual capacity factor.
type makes use of a high velocity jet impinging on a
If the same plant was operated at full capacity only
series of buckets set around the outside of the wheel.
half the time each year, it would be generating at a 50
Efficiencies of the three types of water wheels do not
percent annual capacity factor. To utilize the same
differ greatly from each other under the best operating
amount of water and generate the same amount of
conditions for each type.
energy, the installed capacity would have to be doubled.
Likewise, if it were to operate at 25 percent annual
capacity factor, then the installed capacity would be four
times as great. Plants designed for lower annual capacity
factors would require larger water supply conduits to
Types of Hydroelectric Power Development
accommodate the increased flow, as well as storage for
In this report, power plants not operated as pumped-
the water when the plant is not operating. The average
storage projects are described as conventional plants.
annual energy generation would nevertheless be the
Many of the early conventional hydroelectric power
same in all cases.
plants in California were single purpose development.
Plants operating at low capacity factors are called
However, because streamflow in the State is largest in
peaking plants, and are operated only during the peak
the winter and spring followed by long periods of greatly
demand periods of the power load. These peaking plants
reduced flow, it was necessary to construct storage re-
are generally shut down during off-peak periods unless
servoirs in order to assure a dependable supply of water.
water in excess of the firm supply is available for the
Most recent California hydro plants use some form of
generation of energy.
water storage for flow regulation.
When a plant has unused capacity, there is an oppor-
The majority of hydroelectric installations in the State
tunity to take advantage of excess water during times
are associated with reservoirs used for many purposes in
when the reservoir would otherwise spill. Therefore, for
addition to providing water for power generation. Pro-
a given water supply, a plant designed to operate at a
viding municipal, industrial, and irrigation water sup-
lower capacity factor generally can produce more
plies is a major purpose of most reservoirs. Flood con-
trol, stream flow enhancement, and fish and wildlife are
energy.
also important uses of California's water. There is also a
Over the years, hydropower development in Califor-
growing need for water related recreation and water
nia has shifted from plants designed for base load opera-
quality improvement. In such combinations, develop-
tion to higher and higher peaking operation, i.e., lower
ment of hydroelectric power completes the utilization of
capacity factor. Because of this shift, historic production
the water resource.
of electrical energy is not directly proportional to in-
stalled capacity. Installed capacity figures have been in-
The comparatively new pumped-storage type of de-
cluded in this report for reference purposes and as a
velopment is already in use in California, notably at San
measure of the physical plant that might be required.
Luis Reservoir, at Oroville-Thermalito, and at Castaic
Reservoir of the State Water Project. Pumped-storage
plants utilize a power plant situated with access to an
upper and a lower reservoir. The plant incorporates a
pump-turbine to generate electricity as water is released
from the upper reservoir to the lower reservoir. The tur-
Types of Hydraulic Turbines
bine is then reversed for pumping water back to the
Hydroelectric plants convert the energy of falling
upper reservoir to be used again.
water into mechanical energy by the turbine, and then
All pumped-storage facilities consume more energy in
into electrical energy by the generator.
the pumping mode than they produce during the genera-
tion mode. This type of operation is financially feasible
There are three types of water wheels or turbines now
because pumping is done at times or seasons when elec-
in general use. The selection of a particular type depends
trical energy is cheapest and the release and generation
largely on the hydraulic head at the plant.
is done at times when energy is most valuable.
Propeller type, either fixed or adjustable blade, em-
Pumped-storage plants are ideally suited to meeting ex-
ployed for heads usually ranging from about 10 feet to
treme peaks in the power load which lasts for only a few
100 feet.
hours at a time.
6
CHAPTER IV. HYDROELECTRIC POWER IN CALIFORNIA
The generation and use of electrical power in Califor-
however, gradually forced a trend toward public de-
nia began in the latter part of the 19th century. In 1879,
velopment of water supplies often including power gen-
the California Electric Light Company was doing busi-
eration. This trend continues in California today.
ness from a plant at Fourth and Market Streets in San
Competing water demands complicated the produc-
Francisco. True, the company's two coal fueled
tion of hydroelectric power. Drought conditions drasti-
generators served only 16 arc lamps, earning $10 a week
cally limited the amount of Water available for genera-
per lamp, but it was the start of the power business in
tion while increasing the need for electric power to run
California. Thomas Edison's plant was not opened in
irrigation pumps. In the late 1920's, particularly in
New York City until 1882, three years later. Nearly all of
Southern California, steam generating capacity in-
the earliest power developments were steam operated.
creased rapidly, partly as the result of a series of dry
This made it convenient to locate the plants close to the
years, but more because of the low cost of fuel.
large areas of population. In California, however, coal
In the years after World War II, increasing demands
had to be imported at considerable expense. The moun-
for electrical power were met primarily by progressively
tainous geography of the State and the snowmelt runoff
larger and larger steam-powered generating plants. This
made hydroelectric power development an obvious next
trend resulted from the rapid advances in design and
step. But the mountains were far from the largest popula-
capability of steam plants and the very favorable oil and
tion sites, and as with water at a later time, California
natural gas fuel prices. However, another factor decisive
had a problem of transportation and distribution of elec-
in this trend was plant lead time - the amount of time
trical energy.
from design until the plant was producing power. Since
The increased use of hydroelectric power in California
hydroelectric installations constructed as part of large
resulted from, and in turn stimulated, advances in power
multiple-purpose water development projects involve
transmission. In 1893, the old Mill Creek No. 1 plant, the
permits, licenses, and governmental policy decisions re-
pioneer polyphase hydroelectric development in the
garding water use, and often the legal problems of water
State, now operated by Southern California Edison Com-
rights, lead time was usually much longer for hydro
pany, began operation supplying electricity to Redlands,
plants. Also, since the most feasible hydroelectric sites
7½ miles away. In 1895, the Sacramento Electric Power
were developed first, only the less attractive sites re-
and Light Company began operation of a plant at Fol-
mained.
som, to supply the City of Sacramento (shown on cover).
Thus circumstances have resulted in emphasis on
Between 1895 and 1899 many hydroelectric plants were
conveniently located thermal generating plants fired by
built, both in Northern and Southern California. Col-
natural gas, fuel oil, or a combination of the two, and
eman hydroelectric plant went into operation in 1899 on
nuclear fuel. Hydroelectric installations are now de-
the Yuba River to supply power to Oakland 142 miles
signed primarily for peaking operation, and even this
away. This development included an outstanding
type of facility faces increasing competition from recent
achievement in power transmission for the time. Installa-
developments in large quick-starting gas turbine units.
tion of the 40,000-volt line involved an unprecedented
The long lead time now common for approval of nu-
engineering feat when it was suspended across Car-
clear plants, and the increasing cost of fossil fuel
quinez Strait, a distance of 6,292 feet between anchor-
prompts reconsideration of hydropower as a means of
ages. Today there are more than 170 hydroelectric
meeting a portion of the future energy needs of the State.
power plant in operation throughout the State.
Today, hydroelectric power is still relied upon for
about 30 percent of the total electric energy require-
ments of California. By 1980 this figure is estimated to
drop to approximately 18 percent. Presently, steam
Role of Hydroelectric Energy
generating plants tend to be operated as base-load
in the Overall System
power facilities, with limited peaking capacity. As sys-
tem demands increase, and steam plants are expanded
Falling water was the primary source of electrical
to meet base-load demand, hydroelectric peaking
power in California in the last years of the 19th Century
capacity will become even more useful.
and during the first decades of the 20th Century. Steam
plants were used to supply peak loads and to supple-
ment hydropower, especially under adverse water sup-
ply conditions. The early hydroelectric developments
were usually single-purpose plants, built almost exclu-
Methods for Increasing System Output
sively by the electric utilities to meet the increasing de-
In addition to constructing new hydroelectric generat-
mands for power. Even though there was some firming
ing facilities or enlarging existing installations, certain
up of late summer flows which benefited irrigation and
possibilities offer a potential for increasing output of
other uses, there was little storage for this purpose. In-
hydroelectric systems. These possibilities include
creases in demand for urban and agricultural water,
weather modification to increase basin runoff; modify-
7
ing priorities of multiple-purpose project operation to
Protected Areas
increase energy production, including modification of
reservoir flood control operation criteria to reduce spills;
There are many areas of the State where further hy-
long range weather forecasting to improve seasonal op-
droelectric power development is precluded under exist-
eration; and watershed management and reservoir
ing laws. These include national parks, state parks, wil-
evaporation suppression to increase runoff.
derness and primitive areas, and, most recently, streams
Weather modification has been carried on in Califor-
within the Federal and State Wild and Scenic River Sys-
nia to a limited extent by electric utility companies and
tem. In most cases in the basin plans presented in Chap-
others for several years. The Department of Water Re-
ter V, hydroelectric projects have not been included
sources has a pilot project in the Feather River Basin to
when they are located in national parks or wilderness
determine the feasibility of weather modification to
areas. No attempt was made to evaluate the potential in
augment the water supply and power production of the
these areas. The potential of streams in the Wild and
State Water Project. The pilot project will estimate the
Scenic River Systems is discussed in the presentation on
amount of additional water that will result from weather
the individual basins. A brief discussion of the Federal
modification and test those estimates under actual field
and State Wild and Scenic River Acts follows.
conditions.
Increased energy production through modification of
flood control operating criteria was demonstrated in re-
cent cooperative efforts between the Department of
Wild and Scenic Rivers Legislation
Water Resources, the Corps of Engineers, and the Pacific
The relatively recent enactment by the Congress and
Gas and Electric Company at Oroville Dam. The tech-
the California Legislature of Wild and Scenic River Legis-
niques used could be applied to other flood control re-
lation has resulted in several rivers of the State being
servoirs located above power plants. However, unless
withheld from any development which would alter their
priorities are substantially altered, the increase in energy
free-flowing condition.
is limited, since the technique depends on the occur-
In 1968, the Congress enacted Public Law 90-542, the
rence of favorable weather outlook and other special
Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, which declares that
circumstances.
certain selected rivers of the nation shall be preserved in
free-flowing condition, and that they and their im-
mediate environments shall be protected for the benefit
and enjoyment of present and future generations. The
Environmental Aspects of
entire Middle Fork Feather River above Lake Oroville
was included in the initial National Wild and Scenic
Hydroelectric Developments
River System created by the Act.
Hydroelectric developments have the potential for
In 1972, passage of SB 107 added Chapter 1.4 to Sec-
causing significant environmental changes; these en-
tion 1, Division 5 of the Public Resources Code, known
vironmental effects can be both good and bad. Positive
as the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. It provides
effects can include such things as the creation of new
that
certain rivers which possess extraordinarily
lakes, water quality control, control of floods, stream
scenic, recreational, fishery or wildlife values, shall be
flow enhancement, increased firm water supplies, recre-
preserved in their free-flowing state, together with their
ation opportunities, reservoir fisheries, and of course ad-
immediate environment, for the benefit and enjoyment
ditional power to meet society's needs. On the other
of the people of the State." This Act created the Califor-
hand, negative effects may include such things as inun-
nia Wild and Scenic Rivers System, which includes the
dation of valuable land, displacement of people, reduc-
Smith and parts of the Klamath, Trinity, Eel, and North
tion of wildlife habitat, damage to stream fisheries, and
Fork American Rivers.
elimination of free-flowing streams. Careful planning
The Act also says
"
It is the intent of the Legislature
and development should try to optimize opportunities
with respect to the Eel River and its tributaries
that
for environmental enhancement and reduce environ-
after an initial period of 12 years following the effective
mental losses to the degree practicable. While past
date of this chapter the Department of Water Resources
studies of some of the projects identified in this report
shall report to the Legislature as to the need for water
have included fish and wildlife studies and a general
supply and flood control projects on the Eel River and its
environmental assessment, no additional environmental
tributaries, and the Legislature shall hold public hearings
assessments have been conducted for this report. Future
to determine whether legislation should be enacted to
studies of any of the projects presented here would in-
delete all or any segment of the river from the system."
clude environmental studies as called for in state and
Reaches of the rivers included in the Federal and State
federal laws in order to assess all environmental effects.
Systems are depicted on the basin maps.
8
CHAPTER V. POTENTIAL HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
Until the late 1950s, hydroelectric power played a
taken from various prior reports. Much of these data are
major role in most water project proposals. By that time
also summarized in reports of the Federal Power Com-
many of the better hydropower sites had been de-
mission. For most projects, the annual plant capacity
veloped. Competition from increasingly large and effi-
factor used in determining installed capacity was not
cient steam power plants using inexpensive fossil fuel
available, and no attempt was made to adjust the in-
further reduced the relative economic value of hy-
stalled capacity or energy generation of all projects to a
droelectric power, and it became more difficult to justify
common basis typical for today's conditions. Federal
hydroelectric power generating facilities. Now the situa-
Power Commission capacity and energy figures from its
tion has substantially changed with the increasing cost
1972 summary report were used for most cases. In in-
and scarcity of fuel, and a possible statewide electrical
stances where no prior project studies were available, it
energy shortage calls for a reassessment of hydroelectric
was necessary to calculate installed capacity and aver-
potentials. Many of the possibilities presented in this
age annual energy generation.
chapter are based on projects that were studied once but
rejected because of lack of economic justification under
the then-prevailing power benefit values. Some propos-
Basin Inventories
als are multiple-purpose water development projects
which did not include power generation as a project
This section presents physical inventories of oppor-
purpose when first considered. Enlargements of existing
tunities for development of hydroelectric energy for each
facilities to increase storage and generating capacity
major stream basin. Information is also presented on ex-
have also been included at sites that may have been
isting hydroelectric development. Only those potential
underdeveloped initially.
projects which could produce about 25 million
kilowatthours or more per year were included. Projects
designed solely for pumped-storage are not included be-
cause they do not contribute energy to the system. All
Basic Assumptions
potential projects have been placed in one of three
In combining this old and new information into a
categories in the basin tables. These categories are de-
statewide inventory, it has been necessary to adopt a set
fined as follows:
of working rules, assumptions, and hypotheses. The ob-
Category 1 - Potential projects in areas where
jective of this inventory is to assess the overall long-term
development is restricted by exist-
potential for hydroelectric power development in
ing statutes providing protection to
California. Consequently, the criteria used in this report
state and federal wild and scenic
were designed to permit inclusion of any reasonable de-
rivers and national parks. These
velopment. Costs, economic feasibility, and environ-
projects are not listed in the basin
mental factors were not evaluated for this report. Ap-
table but are discussed in the ac-
propriate qualifications are included for those projects
companying text. Their energy po-
with serious restrictions. So that this report can aid
tential is also included in table 2 of
policymakers in guiding future developments, the stan-
Chapter V.
dards used allow inclusion of most serious planning pos-
Category 2 - Potential projects that would in-
sibilities but exclude those with no real hope for future
volve complex or lengthy (15 or
implementation.
more years) implementation.
Category 3 - Projects that appear to have poten-
tial for near future construction.
Evaluation Methods
Table 2 presents a summary by basin of existing and
potential electrical energy production in California. The
For this report, most of the figures given for installed
individual basin writeups follow. The legend on page 11
capacity and average annual energy generation were
is common to all basin maps.
9
Table 2. Hydroelectric Energy Production in California
Potential Future Additions
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Existing
Total
Portion
Portion
Approx.
Stream Basin
Development
Identified
Outside
with
Installed
Potential
Restricted
Near Future
Capacity for
Areas a/
Potential b/
Col. (4)
Billions of Kilowatthours Per Year
Thousands
of Kilowatts
NORTH COAST
Smith River
0
1.0
0
0
0
Klamath River
0.4
11.6
0
0
0
Trinity River
1.5
1.4
0
0
0
Eel River
0.1
2.1
0
0
0
Others (including Mad and Russian Rivers)
0
0.4
0.4
0.2
81
SUBTOTAL
2.0
16.5
0.4
0.2
81
SACRAMENTO RIVER BASIN
Upper Sacramento-McCloud Pit Rivers
5.6
0.9
0.9
0.1
14
Redding Stream Group
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.1
35
Stony-Thomes Creeks
0
0.2
0.2
0.2
125
Putah-Cache Creeks
0
0.4
0.4
0.1
30
East Side Stream Groups
0.2
0.8
0.8
0.4
211
Feather River
5.9
1.6
0.6
0.3
812
Yuba-Bear Rivers
1.4
0.9
0.9
0.5
225
American River
4.4c/
1.4
1.0
1.0
284
SUBTOTAL
18.2
6.4
5.0
2.7
1736
SAN JOAQUIN-TULARE BASINS
Cosumnes-Mokelumne-Calaveras Rivers
1.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
58
Stanislaus River
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
613
Tuolumne River
2.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
503
Merced River
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
75
San Joaquin River
3.7
1.2
1.2
1.2
510
Kings River
1.3
2.5
1.5
1.5
1600
Kaweah-Tule-Kern Rivers
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.6
117
SUBTOTAL
10.6
7.6
6.6
6.4
3476
LAHONTAN BASINS
Mono Lake-Upper Owens River
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.2
37
Others (Truckee, Carson,
Walker, Lower Owens)
0.1
0.2
0.2
d/
11
SUBTOTAL
0.9
0.4
0.4
0.3
48
SOUTH COAST-COLORADO DESERT
South Coast
0.6
d/
d/
d/
10
Colorado Desert
0.9
d/
d/
d/
5
SUBTOTAL
1.5
d/
0
0.1
15
CALIFORNIA TOTAL
33.2
31.0
12.5
9.7
5356
a/
This column shows the total identified potential reduced by the amount of those developments that are restricted by existing statutes providing
protection to state and federal wild and scenic rivers and national parks.
b/
This column is made up of those developments that are not precluded by state or federal statute and that appear to have potential for near
future construction. Developments that would involve complex and lengthy (15 or more years) implementation have not been included.
c/
This includes the Auburn Project which is presently under construction.
d/
Less than 50 million kilowatthours.
10
LEGEND
FEATURES
EXISTING
POTENTIAL
RESERVOIRS
CONDUITS
POWERPLANTS
PUMPING PLANTS
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
Legend is common to all basin maps
11
1
SMITH - TRINITY
P.H.
Copco Re
Iron Gate Reservoir
P.H.
PACIFIC
P.H.
Smith
P.H.
River
River
Lake Earl
Crescent City
Klamath
Yreka
Montague
Fork
SCORE
River Shasta
N OCEAN
MARBLE
Dwinnell Reservoir
Klamath
MOUNTAIN
WILDERNESS
River
Weed
AREA
Orick
River
4
River
SALMON
TRINITY
PRIMITIVE AREA
CLAIR ENGLE LAKE
Trinity
Weaverville
P.H.
Lewiston Reservoir
River
P.H.
EXPORTS TO SACRAMENTO RIVER BASIN
Hayfork
Lewiston
Whiskeytown Lake
Judge Francis Carr P.H.
Spring Creek P.H.
Hayfork
Creek
MILES
10
0
10
20
30
40
See legend page 11.
12
KLAMATH RIVERS BASIN
KEY MAP
SMITH-TRINITY-KLAMATH RIVERS BASIN
EXISTING
POTENTIAL ADDITIONS
Installed
Average Annual
Installed
Average Annual
PLANT NAME
STREAM
Capacity
Energy Genera-
Capacity
Energy Genera-
CATEGORY
OR SITE
Thousands
tion Millions
Thousands
tion Millions
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
watts
Hours
watts
Hours
Iron Gate
Klamath River
20
150
Copco No. 1
Klamath River
20
120
Copco No. 2
Klamath River
27
140
Fall Creek
Fall Creek
2
13
Trinity
Trinity River
106
412
Lewiston
Trinity River
0.3
3
Francis Carr
Clear Creek
141
546
Spring Creek
Sacramento River
150
577
TOTALS
466
1961
0
The Smith and Klamath Rivers and their tributaries, including the Trinity River, drain an area of 14,000 square
miles in northwestern California and southwestern Oregon. In California these drainage basins cover all or parts of Del
Norte, Trinity, Humboldt, Siskiyou, and Modoc Counties. The combined runoff of these rivers averages about 15
million acre-feet per year, or slightly more than 20 percent of the State's average annual water supply. The Smith River
empties into the Pacific Ocean less than 10 miles south of the Oregon border near Crescent City and the Klamath River
reaches the coast about 30 miles farther south.
Existing Development
Potential Development
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation diverts about 1
million acre-feet per year from the headwaters of the
The California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act pre-
Trinity River into the Sacramento River near Redding.
cludes development of any additional hydroelectric
The Bureau's Trinity River Division of the Central Valley
energy projects on these rivers. Projects presented in
Project includes four powerhouses that produce an av-
past planning studies of the Department, the Bureau of
erage of about 1.6 billion kilowatthours per year.
Reclamation, and the Corps of Engineers, if operated as
The Pacific Power and Light Company operates
single-purpose power developments could produce
four powerhouses along the Klamath River within
about 14 billion kilowatthours per year, the equivalent
California. These plants produce about 0.4 billion
of burning 23 million barrels of oil annually in a modern
kilowatthours per year.
thermal-electric plant. This total potential is divided as
There are no existing hydroelectric power de-
follows: Smith River, 1.0 billion kwh; Klamath River,
velopments on the Smith River.
11.6 billion kwh; and Trinity River, 1.4 billion kwh.
13
2
MAD RIVER - REDWOOD CREEK BASIN
Orick
PACIFIC OCEAN
Trinidad
Creek Redwood
McKinleyville
P.H.
Arcata
LUPTON RESERVOIR
New
P.H.
Eureka
BUTLER VALLEY
RESERVOIR
River
P.H.
ANDERSON FORD
RESERVOIR
N
Ruth Reservoir
MILES
5
0
5
10
15
20
See legend page 11.
14
KEY MAP
MAD RIVER - REDWOOD CREEK BASIN
EXISTING
POTENTIAL ADDITIONS
Installed
Average Annual
Installed
Average Annual
PLANT NAME
STREAM
Capacity
Energy Genera-
Capacity
Energy Genera-
CATEGORY
OR SITE
Thousands
tion Millions
Thousands
tion Millions
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
watts
Hours
watts
Hours
Anderson Ford
Mad River
56
125
2
Butler Valley
Mad River
65
158
3
Lupton
Redwood Creek
27
62
2
TOTALS
0
0
148
345
The Mad River and Redwood Creek drain about 900 square miles in Humboldt and Trinity Counties. The 2.1
million acre-feet of runoff from these two stream systems empties into the Pacific in northern Humboldt County.
Existing Development
major new reservoirs and three new powerhouses. But-
There are no existing hydroelectric power de-
ler Valley Dam has been intensively studied by the
velopments on these streams.
Corps of Engineers, while the other two dams have re-
ceived limited study by the Department. Butler Valley
Potential Development
Dam was recently rejected as a source of additional
The development plan shown here controls an-
water supply by the voters of Humboldt County. Genera-
nual flows of about 940,000 acre-feet and if operated for
tion of energy as suggested in this report would involve a
power only would produce an average of about 345
different mode of operation and downstream release pat-
million kilowatthours per year. This plan includes three
tern than that required for water supply.
Sweasy Dam on Mad River - Diversion by City of Eureka
DWR photo 1401-44
15
3
EEL RIVER BASIN
Arcata
KEY MAP
PACIPIC
Eureka
Eel
#
Van Duzen River
P.H.
DINSMORE RESERVOIR
LARABEE
VALLEY
RESERVOIR
P.H.
South
North
YELLOWJACKET
Fork
RESERV OIR
MIDDLE EEL - YOLLA BOLL
Fork
MINA RESERVOIR WILDERNESS ARE
P.H.
Eel
Eel River
Covelo
River
Fork
O
Middle
P.H.
DOS RIOS RESERVOIR
MILES
River
5
0
5
10
15
20
Outlet
P.H.
ENGLISH RIDGE
RESERVOIR
Willits
Lake
Pillsbury
Potter Valley
P.H. (Enlarged)
EXPORTS TO RUSSIAN RIVER BASIN
See legend page 11.
16
EEL RIVER BASIN
EXISTING
POTENTIAL ADDITIONS
Installed
Average Annual
Installed
Average Annual
PLANT NAME
STREAM
Capacity
Energy Genera-
Capacity
Energy Genera-
CATEGORY
OR SITE
Thousands
tion Millions
Thousands
tion Millions
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
watts
Hours
watts
Hours
Potter Valley
Russian River
9
61
42
28
3
English Ridge
Eel River
73
165
3
Dos Rios
Middle Fork Eel River
159
360
3
Yellowjacket
Eel River
610
1200
2
Mina
North Fork Eel River
80
170
2
Dinsmore-Eaton
Van Duzen River
109
218
2
TOTALS
9
61
1073
2141
The Eel River drains an area of 3,200 square miles in Humboldt, Mendocino, and Lake Counties. Its mean
annual runoff of 5.2 million acre-feet empties into the Pacific Ocean on the north coast near Eureka.
Existing Development
here uses a high dam with protection facilities to prevent
Only one small power development exists on the
the flooding of Round Valley. All of the major dams
presented here have been studied in the past by the
Eel River. The Pacific Gas and Electric Company diverts
Department, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, or the U.S.
about 175,000 acre-feet per year from the headwaters of
Army Corps of Engineers.
the basin and drops it into the Russian River through
Potter Valley Powerhouse.
Flood control and water conservation, which are
not included as project purposes here, should play major
roles in any development plan adopted for this basin.
Potential Development
Downstream releases from the power generation project
The development plan shown here controls about
shown here could be reregulated to provide for fisheries
3.4 million acre-feet (65%) of the basin's mean annual
and recreation enhancement. The California Wild and
runoff and if operated for power only would develop an
Scenic Rivers Act imposes a moratorium on dam prop-
average of about 2.1 billion kilowatthours per year. This
osals on the Eel River until 1984 when the Legislature
plan includes six major new reservoirs, five new pow-
will consider a report it has requested from the Depart-
erhouses, three new tunnels, one enlarged powerhouse,
ment of Water Resources regarding the future role of the
and one enlarged tunnel. The Dos Rios Reservoir shown
Eel River.
Summertime flows in the Eel River near Whitlow
DWR photo 4005-32
17
6
RUSSIAN RIVER BASIN
IMPORTS FROM EEL RIVER BASIN
River
Potter Valley P.H.
(Enlarged)
Russian
N
East Fork
Lake
Mendocino
-
UkiahO
Russian
MILES
5
0
5
10
15
20
Cloverdale O
P.H.
Dry
River
WARM
SPRINGS
RESERVOIR
Creek
Healdsburg
Guerneville
O
River
West
Creek
Mark
Russian
Santa Rosa
Santa
Rosa Creek
Sebastapol
Rs
0
CotatiO
See legend page 11.
18
KEY MAP
Russian River near Jenner
DWR photo 4001
RUSSIAN RIVER BASIN
EXISTING
POTENTIAL ADDITIONS
Installed
Average Annual
Installed
Average Annual
PLANT NAME
STREAM
Capacity
Energy Genera-
Capacity
Energy Genera-
CATEGORY
OR SITE
Thousands
tion Millions
Thousands
tion Millions
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
watts
Hours
watts
Hours
Potter Valley
Russian River
(shown with
Eel River)
Warm Springs
Russian River
16
33
3
TOTALS
16
33
The Russian River drains an area of 1,700 square miles in Sonoma, Mendocino, and Marin Counties. Its mean
annual runoff of 1.7 million acre-feet empties into the Pacific Ocean on the north coast about 60 miles north of the
Golden Gate.
Existing Development
power. The plan shown here suggests the addition of a
The only existing power development in this area
powerhouse at the base of Warm Springs Dam. The
is the Potter Valley Powerhouse. This development is
Warm Springs project is an authorized federal project
described earlier in the section on the Eel River Basin
which is currently under construction by the U.S. Army
since it operates on water diverted from the Eel River.
Corps of Engineers. The analysis used here assumes a
single-purpose power operation that would produce an
Potential Development
average of 33 million kilowatthours of energy per year.
The low elevation and gentle slope of the Russian
Flood control and water supply should play major roles
River make it very difficult to develop hydroelectric
in any development plan adopted for this basin.
19
7
UPPER SACRAMENTO - McCLOUD - PIT
KEY MAP
N
McCloud
River
Dunsmuir O
Ash Creek
McCloud Diversion Reservoir
Sarramento River
River
Pit River
Iron Canyon
(in
McArthur
Reservoir
Lake Britton
Fall
James B. Black P.H.
P.H. No. 3
P.H. No. 4
P.H. No. 1
---
P.H. No. 5
P.H. No.
P.H. No. 2
Shasta
D.P.H. No. 6
MP.H. No. 1
Lake
Horse
Creek
P.H. No. 7
Burney Creek
Hat Creek,
P.H.
P.H.
ENLARGED SHASTA LAKE
MILES
5
0
5
10
15
20
See legend page 11.
20
RIVERS BASIN
UPPER SACRAMENTO-McCLOUD-PIT RIVERS BASIN
EXISTING
POTENTIAL ADDITIONS
Installed
Average Annual
Installed
Average Annual
PLANT NAME
STREAM
Capacity
Energy Genera-
Capacity
Energy Genera-
CATEGORY
OR SITE
Thousands
tion Millions
Thousands
tion Millions
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
watts
Hours
watts
Hours
Pit No. 1
Pit River
56
283
Pit No. 3
Pit River
80
417
Pit No. 4
Pit River
90
534
Pit No. 5
Pit River
141
949
Pit No. 6
Pit River
79
376
Pit No. 7
Pit River
104
531
James B. Black
McCloud-Pit Rivers
155
703
Hat No. 1 & 2
Hat Creek
20
93
Pit No. 2
Pit River
14
95
3
Shasta
Sacramento River
422
1718
-422
-1718
2
Enlarged Shasta
Sacramento River
1500 *
2500 *
TOTALS
1147
5604
1092
877
*
Loss of Pit No. 7 capacity and energy deducted from these figures.
These river basins comprise the drainage area above Shasta Dam. These rivers drain 6,000 square miles in
Shasta, Siskiyou, Modoc, and Lassen Counties. The mean annual runoff of these basins is 5.9 million acre-feet.
Existing Development
The Pacific Gas and Electric Company owns and
Potential Development
operates an extensive hydroelectric system on the
The development plan shown here envisions
McCloud and Pit Rivers. This system, which consists of
construction of Pit No. 2 powerhouse in the PG&E sys-
nine reservoirs, many miles of conduit, and nine pow-
tem and the enlargement of Shasta Reservoir by con-
erhouses, generates an average of 3.9 billion kilowatt-
structing a new dam and powerhouse. These additions
hours of energy per year.
could produce about 0.9 billion kilowatthours of energy
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation operates the
per year. Most of this new production would come from
powerhouse at the base of Shasta Dam. This large pow-
enlarged Shasta, a development that would take many
erhouse produces 1.7 billion kilowatthours of energy per
years to complete. Water conservation and flood con-
year. Thus the total energy production in this basin is
trol, which are not included here, would play major
about 5.6 billion kilowatthours per year.
roles in any enlargement of Shasta Reservoir.
Pit Powerhouse No. 6 on Pit River
PG&E Co. photo
21
8
REDDING STREAM GROUP BASIN
KEY MAP
Clear Creek
IMPORTS FROM TRINITY RIVER BASIN
Whiskeytown
Reservoir
Keswick Reservoir
(ENL.)
Carr P.H.
Keswick P.H.
P.H.
P.H.
Redding
Sacramento
Cow Creek
Creek
Kilarc P.H.
South
Cow
Cow Creek P.H.
Creek
Creek
Bear
Battle
Volta P.H.
DUTCH GULCH
Anderson O
Coleman P.H.
South P.H.
RESERVOIR
Inskip P.H.
South
P.H.
Cottonwood
0
Fork,
Cottonwood
Battle Creek
Creek
TEHAMA
RESERVOIR
P.H.
Red Bluff
Fork Cottonwood Creek
South
MILES
5
0
5
10
15
20
N
See legend page 11.
22
REDDING STREAM GROUP BASIN
EXISTING
POTENTIAL ADDITIONS
Installed
Average Annual
Installed
Average Annual
PLANT NAME
STREAM
Capacity
Energy Genera-
Capacity
Energy Genera-
CATEGORY
OR SITE
Thousands
tion Millions
Thousands
tion Millions
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
watts
Hours
watts
Hours
Keswick
Sacramento River
75
478
Volta*
Battle Creek
6
43
South*
Battle Creek
4
35
Inskip*
Battle Creek
6
40
Coleman*
Battle Creek
14
61
Cow Creek
Cow Creek
1
9
Kilarc
Cow Creek
3
17
New Keswick
Sacramento River
11 net
131 net
2
Dutch Gulch
Cottonwood Creek
20
50
3
Tehama
Cottonwood Creek
15
25
3
TOTALS
109
683
46
206
*PG&E reports a potential category 3 increase in average annual output of four
plants totaling 47 million kilowatthours, but the increase for each individual plant
is less than the 25 million kilowatthour criteria for inclusion.
This basin is made up of the drainages of Clear, Cottonwood, Cow, Battle, and Paynes Creeks plus numerous
other small tributaries that enter the Sacramento River between Redding and Red Bluff. This 3,300 square-mile
drainage area is located in Shasta and Tehama Counties and produces an average annual runoff of about 2.0 million
acre-feet.
Existing Development
The Pacific Gas and Electric Company owns and
operates an extensive hydroelectric system on Battle
Creek and a small development on Cow Creek. These
two systems include six powerhouses that produce a
total average of 205 million kilowatthours per year.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation operates Kes-
wick Powerhouse on the Sacramento River. This pow-
erhouse produces 478 million kilowatthours per year.
There are no existing developments on Cotton-
wood Creek or on Paynes Creek. The developments on
Clear Creek were described and included in the Upper
Sacramento-McCloud-Pit and Smith-Trinity-Klamath Ba-
sins.
Potential Development
The development shown here includes two new
dams and powerhouses on Cottonwood Creek. Dutch
Gulch and Tehama Reservoirs are authorized federal
projects planned to provide flood peak reductions along
the Sacramento River and new water supplies in the
Delta. A large hydroelectric energy potential exists on
the Sacramento River at Iron Canyon. However, a dam
at this site is not considered a sound project because it
would eliminate the anadromous fishery above Red Bluff
and cause major disruptions in the reservoir area. Water
Code Paragraph 12649 expresses the desire of the
Summertime Flows in Sacramento River below Redding
California Legislature that some alternative be de-
DWR photo 4364-1
veloped to a dam at this site. In 1965, the Department of
Water Resources concluded that a dam at this site is not
justified. Enlarged Keswick Reservoir is intended to
reregulate releases from the enlarged Shasta Project de-
scribed in the Upper Sacramento-McCloud-Pit Rivers
Basin.
23
9
STONY - THOMES CREEKS BASIN
Thomes
Creek
Paskenta
Diversion
P.H.
Cirrotone
Black Butte Reservoir
NEWVILLE
P.H.
ENLARGED
RESERVOIR
Creek
Stony Creek
RANCHERIA
RESERVOIR
Stony Gorge
Reservoir
Creek
N
Stony
East Park
Reservoir
MILES
5
0
5
10
15
20
See legend page 11.
24
KEY MAP
Newville Damsite on Stony Creek
DWR photo 3386-3
STONY-THOMES CREEKS BASIN
EXISTING
POTENTIAL ADDITIONS
Installed
Average Annual
Installed
Average Annual
PLANT NAME
STREAM
Capacity
Energy Genera-
Capacity
Energy Genera-
CATEGORY
OR SITE
Thousands
tion Millions
Thousands
tion Millions
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
watts
Hours
watts
Hours
Newville
Stony (Thomes)
85
160
3
Rancheria
Stony Creek
Black Butte
Stony Creek
40
70
3
TOTALS
0
0
125
230
Stony and Thomes Creeks are tributary to the Sacramento River on the west side of the valley. They drain an area
of 1,100 square miles in Tehama, Glenn, and Colusa Counties, and produce a total mean annual runoff of 650,000
acre-feet.
Existing Development
Reservoir and two new powerhouses. The two new
dams and the enlargement of Black Butte Dam have
There are no existing hydroelectric developments
been studied extensively by the Department, the Army
on these streams.
Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of Reclamation.
Water conservation, which is not included as a project
Potential Development
purpose here, should play a major role in any develop-
The development plan shown here controls es-
ment plan adopted for this basin. While not included
sentially the entire runoff of these two stream systems
here, past studies have shown that there is the potential
and if operated for power only could produce about 230
for a large hydroelectric pumped-storage development
million kilowatthours per year. This plan includes two
between Newville Reservoir and Enlarged Black Butte
major new reservoirs, the enlargement of Black Butte
Reservoir.
25
10 PUTAH - CACHE CREEKS BASIN
KEY MAP
Lucerne
Clear Lake
KENNEDY FLAT
RESERVOIR
Lakeport
Clearlake
Highlands
Cache
LANGS PEAK
REGULATORY
RESERVOIR
RUMSEY AFTERBAY
P.H.
Putah
P.H.
Creek
Creek
Middletown
0
N
MIDDLETOWN
P.H.
RESERVOIR
SNELL RESERVOIR
P.H.
Berry
P.H.
MILES
P.H.
5
0
5
10
15
20
MONTICELLO
AFTERBAY
See legend page 11.
26
PUTAH-CACHE CREEKS BASIN
EXISTING
POTENTIAL ADDITIONS
Installed
Average Annual
Installed
Average Annual
PLANT NAME
STREAM
Capacity
Energy Genera-
Capacity
Energy Genera-
CATEGORY
OR SITE
Thousands
tion Millions
Thousands
tion Millions
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
watts
Hours
watts
Hours
Kennedy Flat (2)
Cache Creek
145
302
2
Middleton
Putah Creek
17
33
2
Snell
Putah Creek
22
44
2
Monticello (2)
Putah Creek
30
67
3
TOTALS
0
0
214
446
Putah and Cache Creeks are tributary to the Sacramento River in the southwestern portion of the Sacramento
Valley. These two streams drain an area of about 1,500 square miles in Lake, Colusa, Yolo, and Napa Counties and
produce a combined mean annual runoff of about 500,000 acre-feet.
Existing Development
There is some question as to the suitability of the geology
There are no existing hydroelectric developments
of Kennedy Flat damsite on Cache Creek. Only very
on these streams.
cursory studies have been conducted at the two damsites
on Putah Creek. The addition of a powerhouse below
Potential Development
the existing Monticello Dam could tend to interfere with
The development shown here controls about 90
the water supply function of the project, however, the
percent of the runoff in these basins. This scheme in-
market for power is great during the summer irrigation
cludes three new reservoirs and four new powerhouses.
season so these uses may be compatible.
Monticello Dam on Putah Creek
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation photo
27
11 EAST SIDE STREAM GROUP BASIN
KEY MAP
MORGAN SPRINGS DIVERSION
Chester O
DEER CREEK
MEADOWS
RESERVOIR
Antelope
Creek
SAVERCOOL RESERVOIR
Red Bluff
Creek
SUGARLOAF RESERVOIR
P.H.
JONESVILLE
RESERVOIR
Mill
P.H.
Creek
Deer
P.H.
Creek
Creek
of
0
P.H.
Creak
Chico
De Sabla P.H.
Chico
Centerville P.H.
Paradise
BIB
Chico
O
Little
Butte
MILES
5
0
5
10
15
20
See legend page 11.
28
EAST SIDE STREAM GROUP
EXISTING
POTENTIAL ADDITIONS
Installed
Average Annual
Installed
Average Annual
PLANT NAME
STREAM
Capacity
Energy Genera-
Capacity
Energy Genera-
CATEGORY
OR SITE
Thousands
tion Millions
Thousands
tion Millions
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
watts
Hours
watts
Hours
De Sabla
Butte Creek
18
120
14
2
Centerville
Butte Creek
6
44
5
2
Deer Creek Meadows
Deer Creek
81
155
3
Sugarloaf
Deer Creek
130
281
3
Ishi Caves
Deer Creek
108
244
2
Crown
Deer Creek
3
25
2
Jonesville
Butte Creek
10
90
2
TOTALS
24
164
332
814
This basin is located in Tehama and Butte Counties and includes all of the streams that enter the Sacramento
Valley from the east between Battle Creek and the Feather River. Major streams in the basin are: Antelope, Mill, Deer,
Big Chico, and Butte Creeks. These streams drain an area of 900 square miles and produce 900,000 acre-feet of runoff
per year.
Existing Development
Jonesville Project on Butte Creek has been considered as
The only existing hydroelectric developments in
a possible source of domestic water for the Paradise Ir-
this area are located on Butte Creek. The Pacific Gas and
rigation District and other nearby areas. The inclusion of
Electric Company diverts water from the West Branch
power would not be completely compatible with the
Feather River and from Butte Creek and drops it through
water supply function of this project.
two powerhouses on Butte Creek.
The development on Mill and Deer Creeks in-
cludes many features that have been considered in the
Potential Development
past for inclusion in a multiple-purpose water develop-
The development shown here would control
ment project that would include water supply, fishery
about 350,000 acre-feet of runoff. This would require
enhancement, and recreation as project purposes. These
four new reservoirs, three diversion dams, five pow-
purposes would probably play a major role in any plan
erhouses, and an extensive conveyance system. The
adopted for these basins.
DeSabla Powerhouse on Butte Creek
PG&E Co. photo
29
12 UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN
KEY MAP
NFORK
Fork
Feather
River
Mountain Meadows
N
Reservoir
LAKE
Hamilton
Branch P.H.
Creek
ALMANOR
Antelope
Bult Valley
Lights
take
P.H.
Butt Valley
Round
Reservoir
Humbug Valley Reservoir
Valley
Res
Indian Creek
Soda
No. 2
Caribou P.H.
Indian Falls Diversion
River
River
No. 1
Squaw Queen Reservoir
Indian Falls
Yellow
P.H.
Genesee
Squaw
Philbrook
Creek P.H.
East
Branch
Reservoir
Queen P.M.
Reservoir
Belden P.H.
Feather
Feather
Rock Creek
P.H.
Buck's Lake
Lake Davis
Quincy
P.H.
Frenchman Lake
Buck's Creek P.H.
Creat
Branch
Cresta P.H.
Grizzly
River
West
North Fork
Feather
Little Grass
Poe P.H.
Fork
Valley Reservoir
River
Lime Saddle P.H.
Middle
River
Frailierk
Fall
Feather
.
Cold Lake
LAKE OROVILLE
Coal Canvon P.H.
Fork
Sly Creek Reservoir
Forbestown
5.
P.H.
P.H.
Lost Creek Reservoir
Woodleaf P.H.
Thermalito P.H.
Hyatt
P.H.-
P.H.
Thermalito
Oroville
MILES
Afterbay
Miner's Ranch Reservoir
Kelly Ridge P.H.
5
0
5
10
15
20
P.H.
Feather River
See legend page 11.
30
UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN
EXISTING
POTENTIAL ADDITIONS
Installed
Average Annual
Installed
Average Annual
PLANT NAME
STREAM
Capacity
Energy Genera-
Capacity
Energy Genera-
CATEGORY
OR SITE
Thousands
tion Millions
Thousands
tion Millions
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
watts
Hours
watts
Hours
Hyatt
Feather
679
2,590*
679
156*
3
Thermalito
Feather
120
120
Diversion Dam
Feather
4
26
3
River Outlet
Feather
9
76
3
Kelly Ridge
Feather
10
48
Forbestown
S. Fk. Feather
29
110
Woodleaf
S. Fk. Feather
52
176
Poe
N. Fk. Feather
124
601
Cresta
N. Fk. Feather
68
384
Rock Creek
N. Fk. Feather
113
594
Bucks Creek
N. Fk. Feather
55
240
Belden
N. Fk. Feather
118
395
Caribou N. 1 & 2
N. Fk. Feather
185
578
Butt Valley
Butt Creek
36
127
Hamilton Br.
Lake Almanor
5
16
Grizzly Creek
Grizzly Creek
13
50
2
Yellow Creek
N. Fk. Feather
26
101
2
Squaw Queen
Last Chance Creek
12
50
2
Indian Falls
Indian Creek
25
126
2
TOTALS
1594
5858
888
585
*Hyatt and Thermalito combined, exclusive of pumped-storage operation
The Feather River above Oroville Dam drains an area of 3,600 square miles in Butte, Plumas, Sierra, Shasta, and
Lassen Counties. The mean annual unimpaired runoff at the dam is about 4.6 million acre-feet.
Existing Development
The power potential of the Feather River has been
extensively developed by PG&E on the North Fork,
Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District on the South Fork,
and the Department of Water Resources on the main
stem at Oroville Dam and offstream at the Thermalito
facilities.
Potential Additional Development
There is a potential for further development of the
Upper Feather River by construction of the Squaw
Queen, Humbug Valley, Bucks Creek, Indian Falls, and
Middle Fork projects. Construction of second power
plants at Oroville and Thermalito would produce a
modest amount of energy exclusive of pumped-storage
operation.
The Middle Fork Project was eliminated from
consideration because the entire Middle Fork Feather
River above Lake Oroville is designated a wild and
scenic river under the Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act, PL 90-542. The project has a potential of slightly
more than 1 billion kilowatthours of energy generation
annually, the equivalent of burning 1,600,000 barrels of
Belden Powerhouse on Upper Feather River
oil in a modern thermal-electric plant.
PG&E Co. photo
31
13 YUBA - BEAR RIVERS BASIN
Creek
Creek
River
State
$
Creek
Salmon Creek Reservoir
Chapman Creek Reservoir
Downie
Pauley
Canyon
Sierra City P.H.
River
Downieville
Downieville P.H.
Sierra City Reservoir
Yuba
Goodvears Bar P.H.
Wambo P.H
GOODYEARS BAR RESERVOIR
North
River
Milton Diversion
INDIAN VALLEY RESERVOIR
Creek
Creek
Jackson Meadows Reservoir
Oregon
Yuba
Bowman Reservoir
NEW BULLARDS BAR RESERVOIR
Middle
Creek
French Lake
Dry
Confirm
Meadow Lake
WASHINGTON RESERVOIR
MERLE COLLINS RESERVOIR
Yuba
Fordyce Lake
New Colgate P.H.
No. 3
South
Lake
Spaulding P.H. No. 2
Lake Van Norden
Devils Slide PH
Spaulding
No.
Jones Bar P.H.
French
Dear Creek P.H.
Diversion
Forebay
Scotts Flat Reservoir
Lake Valley Reservoir
ENGLEBRIGHT RESERVOIR
Lake Valley P.H.
MARYSVILLE
Nevada City
Drum P.H. No: I
RESERVOIR
Grass Valley Dutch Flat P.H. No. 2
Dutch Flat P.H. No. 1
Drum P.M. No. 2
Narrows P.H. No. I
Narrows P.N. No. 2
Afterbay
Alta P.H.
Marysville P.H.
Chicago Park P.H.
Rollins Reservoir
Rollins P.H.
MILES
5
0
5
10
15
20
Camp Far West P.M.
CAMP FAR WEST RESERVOIR
wb
Bear
River
Lake Combie
KEY MAP
See legend page 11.
32
YUBA-BEAR RIVERS BASIN
EXISTING
POTENTIAL ADDITIONS
Installed
Average Annual
Installed
Average Annual
PLANT NAME
STREAM
Capacity
Energy Genera-
Capacity
Energy Genera-
CATEGORY
OR SITE
Thousands
tion Millions
Thousands
tion Millions
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
watts
Hours
watts
Hours
New Colgate
N. Yuba
284
500
Narrows
Yuba
9
72
New Narrows
Yuba
47
180
Spaulding No. 2
S. Yuba Canal
4
20
Spaulding No. 1
Drum Canal
7
38
Spaulding No. 3
Lake Spaulding
6
25
Drum No. 1
Bear
49
245
Drum No. 2
Bear
41
35
Dutch Flat No. 1
Bear
22
125
Dutch Flat No. 2
Bear
23
24
Alta
Boardman Canal
2
6
Chicago Park
Bear
37
123
Deer Creek
Deer Creek
6
31
Camp Far West
Bear
6
24
3
Rollins
Bear
11
50
3
Marysville
Yuba
150
230
3
Jones Bar
S. Yuba
24
78
3
Devil Slide
Yuba
34
100
3
Wambo
N. Yuba
72
145
2
Goodyear Bar
N. Yuba
25
75
2
Downieville
N. Yuba
-40
-110
2
Sierra City
N. Yuba
25
70
2
Lake Valley
Lake Spaulding
25
67
2
TOTALS
537
1424
417
949
The Yuba River above Marysville damsite drains an area of about 1,300 square miles of Sierra, Yuba, and
Nevada Counties. Its mean annual unimpaired runoff is about 2.4 million acre-feet.
The Bear River above Camp Far West Dam drains an area of about 300 square miles in Nevada, Yuba, and
Placer Counties. Its mean annual unimpaired runoff is about 300,000 acre-feet.
Existing Development
ditional power generation on the North Yuba above
The Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the
New Bullards Bar Reservoir and on the South Yuba
Nevada Irrigation District have a combined project
above Englebright Reservoir. On the main stem of the
which utilizes the flows of the upper Middle and South
Yuba River, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' au-
Yuba Rivers and the Bear River for generation at ten
thorized Marysville Dam Project includes provision for a
power plants. The Yuba County Water Agency's New
power plant at the base of the dam. The North Yuba
Bullards Bar Project develops the waters of the North
above New Bullards Bar Reservoir is recognized for its
Yuba River at the New Colgate and New Narrows power
important fishing and recreation values. Any final de-
plants. Flows are augmented with diversions from the
velopment plan adopted for the North Yuba should rec-
Middle Yuba River and Oregon Creek. The old Narrows
ognize these values.
power plant continues in operation.
On the Bear River, there is a potential for energy
generation at Rollins and Camp Far West Dams. The
energy potential below other existing dams is less than
Potential Development
the minimum amount for new plants considered in this
In the Yuba River Basin, a potential exists for ad-
study.
33
14 AMERICAN RIVER BASIN
KEY MAP
take Valley Reservoir
#
American
River
45
North Dark
River
French Meadows Reserveir
Hill Moto Reservoive
Fors
Middle Fork
P.H.
Crepk
-
Middle
Loon take
Oxbow P.H.
Ralston P.H.
Canyon
Roc abound Lake
Cerlo
P.I.F.
Code: and
Halsey P.H.
Raiston Afterbay
Long
River
Reservoir
Rubicon ersion
Pilor
Robicon
Auburn
Creams
Adram
Ravine
P.H.
AUBURN RESERVOIR
Union Valley Reservoir
Wise P.H.
lunction
C.
Reservair
Echo Lake
Auhurn P.M.
Bush
Comino
P.H.
Res
fee House Res.
P.H.
Coloma
Brush Reservoir
a
tayhird
Silver
Afterbay
Camino P.H.
P.H.
P.H.
P.H.
Stab Creek Reserveir
El Dorado Diversion
South
American
Salmon Falls
El Dorado
Fork
River
Reservoir
Coloma
Reservair
Reservoir
P.H; (Enl)
/
Whiterock
P.H.
P.H.
Chili Bar Reservoir
P.H.
FOLSOM LAKE
fenkinson take
Placerville
Park Creek
Reservoir
P.M.
Alder Creek
Sherman
Caples take
Reservoir
Canyon Reservoir
take Natoria
Silver Lake
Nimbus P.H.
MILES
5
0
5
10
15
20
See legend page 11.
34
AMERICAN RIVER BASIN
EXISTING
POTENTIAL ADDITIONS
Installed
Average Annual
Installed
Average Annual
PLANT NAME
STREAM
Capacity
Energy Genera-
Capacity
Energy Genera-
CATEGORY
OR SITE
Thousands
tion Millions
Thousands
tion Millions
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
watts
Hours
watts
Hours
Nimbus
American
14
71
Folsom
American
186
703
7*
3
Chili Bar
S. Fk. American
7
37
6*
3
White Rock
S. Fk. American
190
618
21*
3
Camino
S. Fk. American
142
533
El Dorado
S. Fk. American
20
98
Jaybird
Silver Creek
133
428
Union Valley
Silver Creek
33
118
Robbs Peak
Tells Creek
24
58
Loon Lake
Gerle Creek
74
97
Oxbow
M. Fk. American
6
33
Ralston
Rubicon River
79
306
French Meadows
Rubicon River
15
56
L. J. Stephenson (M.Fk.)
M. Fk. American
110
606
Wise
Auburn Ravine
12
70
Halsey
Dry Creek
12
61
Auburn
N. Fk. American
750#
522
Silver Fork
Silver Fork
63
273
3
El Dorado (Enl)
S. Fk. American
79
328
3
Coloma
S. Fk. American
40
111
3
Coloma Afterbay
S. Fk. American
7
23
3
Salmon Falls
S. Fk. American
85
221
3
Salmon Falls Afterbay
S. Fk. American
10
27
3
TOTALS
1807
4415
284
1017
* Additional energy generated as a result of regulation provided by potential South Fork Project.
# Capacity of 300,000 kilowatts currently authorized. The initial plant is credited with energy shown.
The American River above Nimbus Dam drains an area of about 1,900 square miles in Placer, El Dorado,
Sacramento, and Alpine Counties. Its mean annual unimpaired runoff is about 2.7 million acre-feet.
Existing and Under Construction
The power potential of the American River has
been extensively developed by the Placer County Water
Agency on the Middle Fork and Rubicon; on the South
Fork and its tributaries by Sacramento Municipal Utility
District and Pacific Gas and Electric Company; and on
the main stem by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. In
addition, the Bureau has Auburn Dam under construc-
tion on the lower North Fork.
Potential Development
Possibilities exist for further developing the po-
tential of the South Fork above Folsom Reservoir. The
scheme shown is one of various possible alternatives
that have been considered. The gold discovery site of
Coloma would not be affected.
A potential exists for hydroelectric energy genera-
tion on the North Fork above Auburn Reservoir. How-
ever, this reach has been designated a component of the
California Wild and Scenic Rivers System and conse-
quently no projects are shown. The Giant Gap project
has a potential of about 0.4 billion kilowatthours of
Silver Fork - American River
energy generation annually.
DWR photo 3369-10
35
15 COSUMNES - MOKELUMNE - CALAVERAS
RIVERS BASIN
Jenkinson Lake
in
Camp Creek
Cosumnes
Noth Fork
RIVE
Blue Lakes
Middle
River
Fork
Bear River
NASHVILLE RESERVOIR
Cosumnes
Creek
4
Reservoir
South
Lower Bear River Reservoir
Cale
Fork
Nashville P.H.
frier
Cosumnes
River
Salt Springs P.H
Bear
River
Salt Springs Reservoir
Mokelumne
Tiger Creek P.H.
Creek
Noth
Fork
Tiger Creek Reservoir
on
Middle
Fork
Mokelumne
River
South
Fork
River
Jackson
Electra P.H.
River
/
Middle Bar
Calaveras
Lake Amador 2
Reservoir
hns
Fork
Middle Bar P.H.
Pardee P.H.
PARDEE RESERVOIR
&
of
Camanche P.H.
CAMANCHE
North
RESERVOIR
Antonio
San Andreas
Calaveritas
San
NEW HOGAN RESERVOIR
MILES
5
0
5
10
15
20
See legend page 11.
36
KEY MAP
COSUMNES-MOKELUMNE-CALAVERAS RIVERS BASIN
EXISTING
POTENTIAL ADDITIONS
Installed
Average Annual
Installed
Average Annual
PLANT NAME
STREAM
Capacity
Energy Genera-
Capacity
Energy Genera-
CATEGORY
OR SITE
Thousands
tion Millions
Thousands
tion Millions
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
watts
Hours
watts
Hours
Pardee
Mokelumne
15
105
19
26
3
Electra
Mokelumne
89
347
West Point
N. Fk. Mokelumne
14
101
Tiger Creek
N. Fk. Mokelumne
51
329
Salt Springs No. 1 and 2
N. Fk. Mokelumne
39
217
Nashville
Cosumnes
15
62
3
Camanche
Mokelumne
6
30
3
Middle Bar
Mokelumne
18
90
3
TOTALS
208
1099
58
208
The drainage areas above Nashville damsite and Camanche and New Hogan dams aggregate about 1,400
square miles in El Dorado, Alpine, Amador, San Joaquin, and Calaveras Counties. The mean annual unimpaired runoff
of these streams totals about 1.3 million acre-feet.
Existing Development
The power potential of the Mokelumne River is
extensively developed at five power plants owned by the
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and a power plant at
Pardee Dam owned by the East Bay Municipal Utility
District. There are no power developments on the
Cosumnes and Calaveras Rivers.
Potential Development
There is a potential for further development of the
Mokelumne River by installation of a power plant at
Camanche Dam and construction of the Middle Bar
project at the head of Pardee Reservoir, and adding an
additional unit at Pardee power plant.
On the Cosumnes River, development of the
power drop below the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's
proposed Nashville Reservoir would produce a modest
amount of energy. The energy potential below New
Hogan is less than the minimum amount for new plants
Calaveras River - Department of Parks and Recreation photo
considered in this study.
by John Kaestner
37
16 STANISLAUS RIVER BASIN
KEY MAP
Lake Alpine
North Fork Diversion
Utica Reservoir
Gashings Reservoir
Reservoir Union Highland Creek
Fork
Sand
Flat P.H.
Clark
Spicer Meadow Res (Enl.)
Dardanelles P.H.
Boards Crossing P.H.
Donnells Reservoir
Middle
Fork
Cr
Big Trees Reservoir
Beaver
Upper Beaver Diversion
Big Trees P.H.
Relief
River
Squaw Hollow Reservoir
Reservoir
Lower Beaver Diversion
Beardsley Reservoir
Donnells P.H.
Sand Bar P.H.
Beardsley
P.H.
Pinecrest Lake
Spring
Murphys P.H.
Gap P.H.
River
Colliersville
Stanislaus P.H.
P.H.
Lyons Reservoir
(Ent.)
Angels P.H.
Fork
South
Stanislaus
Angels Camp
Columbia
N
(NEW) MELONES RESERVOIR
Melones P.H. (New)
Tulloch P.H.
TULLOCH RESERVOIR
MILES
5
0
5
10
15
20
See legend page 11.
38
STANISLAUS RIVER BASIN
EXISTING
POTENTIAL ADDITIONS
Installed
Average Annual
Installed
Average Annual
PLANT NAME
STREAM
Capacity
Energy Genera-
Capacity
Energy Genera-
CATEGORY
OR SITE
Thousands
tion Millions
Thousands
tion Millions
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
watts
Hours
watts
Hours
Tulloch
Stanislaus
17
70
Beardsley
M. Fk. Stanislaus
10
52
Donnells
M. Fk. Stanislaus
54
279
Angels
Angels Creek
1
7
Murphys
Angels Creek
4
24
Stanislaus
M. Fk. Stanislaus
82
404
Spring Gap
M. Fk. Stanislaus
6
42
Melones
Stanislaus
24
117
-24
-117
New Melones
Stanislaus
300
430
3
Colliersville
Stanislaus
161
448
3
Big Trees
N. Fk. Stanislaus
50
138
3
Boards Crossing
N. Fk. Stanislaus
85
221
3
Sand Flat
Highland Creek
25
70
3
Dardanelles
M. Fk. Stanislaus
6
42
3
Sand Bar
M. Fk. Stanislaus
10
78
3
TOTALS
198
995
613
1310
The Stanislaus River above Tulloch Dam drains an area of about 1,000 square miles in Tuolumne, Calaveras
and Alpine Counties. Its mean annual unimpaired runoff is about 1.2 million acre-feet.
Existing Development
The power potential of the South and Middle
Forks of the Stanislaus River has been extensively de-
veloped by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. On
the North Fork, the Company's Utica System utilizes a
portion of the available flow for generation of power and
for consumptive uses in Calaveras County. On the main
stem, power plants below South San Joaquin and Oak-
dale Irrigation Districts' Melones and Tulloch Dams de-
velop the potential at those sites.
Potential Development
Several schemes have been proposed by local
agencies for further development of the waters of the
North and Middle Forks Stanislaus River. The develop-
ment features shown would utilize the water primarily
for power generation whereas other proposals give
greater consideration to consumptive uses.
On the main stem, the New Melones Project,
now under construction by the Corps of Engineers, will
make possible development of the power potential at
that site. State Water Resources Control Board Decision
D-1422 limits filling of the reservoir until there is a dem-
onstrated need in the four adjacent counties for the new
water yield developed by the project. As the Decision
now stands, until such time as there is a buildup in local
demand for the water yield, some potential energy pro-
duction will be foregone.
Since the full energy production cannot be im-
mediately realized, the project is shown under potential
Murphys Powerhouse on Angels Creek
development.
PG&E Co. photo
39
17 TUOLUMNE RIVER BASIN
KEY MAP
River
Creek
Lyons Reservoir
Enlarged
Cherry
South Fork Stanistaus
River
Tuolumne
River
West Fork
Creek
Creek
Phoenix P.H.
Enlarged
Fork
Lake Lloyd
Eleanor
Falls
OSEMITE NATIONAL PARK
Lake Eleanor
North
Enlarged
HETCH HETCHY RESERVOIR
Wards Ferry Reservoir
Hunter Point
Datey
Reservoir
Cherry
TUOLUMNE
RIVER
Wards Ferry P.H.
Kirkwood P.H.
Lost Claim.P.H
Fork
South
River
/
Tuolumne
Moccasin P.H.
Harden Flat Reservoir
New Don Pedro P.H.
NEW DON PEDRO RESERVOIR
La Grange Reservoir
La Grange P.H.
MILES
5
0
5
10
15
20
See legend page 11.
40
TUOLUMNE RIVER BASIN
EXISTING
POTENTIAL ADDITIONS
Installed
Average Annual
Installed
Average Annual
PLANT NAME
STREAM
Capacity
Energy Genera-
Capacity
Energy Genera-
CATEGORY
OR SITE
Thousands
tion Millions
Thousands
tion Millions
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
watts
Hours
watts
Hours
La Grange
Tuolumne River
4
18
New Don Pedro
Tuolumne River
136
598
Phoenix
Sullivan Creek
2
13
13
52
3
Moccasin
Hetch-Hetchy Aqueduct
90
520
R. Kirkwood
Tuolumne
68
623
Clavey
Tuolumne
300
Wards Ferry
Tuolumne
100
1150
3
Holm (enl.)
Cherry Creek
135
772
68
Lost Claim
S. Fk. Tuolumne
22
91
3
TOTALS
435
2544
503
1293
The Tuolumne River above La Grange Dam drains an area of about 1,500 square miles in Tuolumne and
Stanislaus Counties. Its mean annual unimpaired runoff is about 1.9 million acre-feet.
Existing Development
The City and County of San Francisco's Hetch-
gated expansion of its Hetch-Hetchy system. Possible
Hetchy Project and Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Dis-
development would include the Clavey and Wards Ferry
tricts New Don Pedro project develop substantial
projects and enlargement of Lake Eleanor and Holm
amounts of hydroelectric energy in conjunction with
power plant. However, it is questionable that enlarge-
water supply development. The Pacific Gas and Electric
ment of Lake Eleanor in Yosemite National Park would
Company's Phoenix plant generates a small amount of
be possible under present circumstances.
power with diversions from the South Fork Stanislaus
The energy potential of the Middle and South
River.
Forks Tuolumne River could be developed by the Har-
den Project. Additional energy could be developed at an
Potential Development
enlarged Phoenix power plant with increased diversion
The City and County of San Francisco has investi-
from an enlarged Lyons Reservoir.
41
18 MERCED RIVER BASIN
KEY MAP
YOSEMITE
Yosemite Village
Yosemite P.H.
Lake McClure
NATIONAL
River
Bagby P.H.
Merced
South
Fork
PARK
New Exchequer P.H.
BAGBY RESERVOIR
Merced Falls P.H.
Merced
River
SNELLING RESERVOIR
McSwain P.H.
Snelling P.H.
MILES
5
0
5
10
15
20
See legend page 11.
42
MERCED RIVER BASIN
EXISTING
POTENTIAL ADDITIONS
Installed
Average Annual
Installed
Average Annual
PLANT NAME
STREAM
Capacity
Energy Genera-
Capacity
Energy Genera-
CATEGORY
OR SITE
Thousands
tion Millions
Thousands
tion Millions
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
watts
Hours
watts
Hours
Merced Falls
Merced
3
16
McSwain
Merced
9
45
New Exchequer
Merced
80
363
Yosemite
Merced
2
13
Snelling
Merced
25
73
3
Bagby
Merced
50
204
3
TOTALS
94
437
75
277
The Merced River above Snelling damsite drains an area of about 1,100 square miles in Mariposa, Merced, and
Madera Counties. Its mean annual unimpaired runoff is about 1 million acre-feet.
Existing Development
The Merced Irrigation District produces electric
energy at power plants below its New Exchequer and
McSwain Dams. Small additional amounts of energy are
produced in the basin by PG&E at its Merced Falls plant
and by the National Park Service at its Yosemite plant.
Potential Development
A potential exists to develop additional power on
the Merced River outside of Yosemite National Park.
Two additional reservoirs and power plants have been
considered for the final-stage development by Merced
Irrigation District. These are the Bagby and Snelling
Projects.
Development upstream of the proposed Bagby
Reservoir does not appear likely because of lack of suit-
able reservoir sites.
The Snelling Project is immediately upstream of
salmon spawning enhancement works constructed with
funds granted under the Davis-Grunsky Act to the
Merced Irrigation District as part of its Merced River
Development Project. Appropriate measures would
have to be incorporated in this development to insure
New, Exchequer Dam and Reservoir on Merced River
the continued successful operation of these facilities.
DWR photo
43
19 UPPER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN
KEY MAP
North
*
Fork
&
Granite
Granite
unbrof was
Fork San loaquin River
Granite Creek Reservoir
R
Middle
Best
Fish
Miller Bridge Reservoir
Chiquito
G
Creek
Granite
Miller Bridge P.H.
Creek
Creek
P.H.
South
Chiquito Reservoir
Fork
/
Jackass
Forks P.H.
Creek
Lake Thomas A. Edison
Chiquito P.H.
Creek
San loaquin
Bass Lake
Mammoth Pool Reservoir
/
Crane Valley P.H.
River
Willow
Portal P.H.
Florence Lake
San Joaquin P.H. No. 3
Huntington Lake
MANZANITA LAKE
Mammoth Pool P.H.
Big Creek P.H.
Big Creek
No. 2
San Joaquin P.H. No. 2
Big Creek P.H. No. 8
No. 2A
Big Creek P.H. No. 1
San Joaquin P.H. No. 1A
Redinger Lake
KINGS CANYON
Wishon P.H.
Kerckhoff Lake
NATIONAL
Big Creek P.H.
No. 4
Big Creek
Big Creek P.H. No. 1A
PARK
P.H. No. 3
SHAVER LAKE
Kerckhoff P.H.
MILLERTON LAKE
N
MILES
5
0
5
10
15
20
See legend page 11.
44
UPPER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN
EXISTING
POTENTIAL ADDITIONS
Installed
Average Annual
Installed
Average Annual
PLANT NAME
STREAM
Capacity
Energy Genera-
Capacity
Energy Genera-
CATEGORY
OR SITE
Thousands
tion Millions
Thousands
tion Millions
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
watts
Hours
watts
Hours
Kerckhoff
San Joaquin
34
272
Wishon, AG
San Joaquin
13
81
San Joaquin No. 1A
Corrine Lake
0.3
2
San Joaquin No. 2
Ditch No. 1
3
14
San Joaquin No. 3
Manzanita Lake
4
16
Crane Valley
Ditch No. 3
1
5
Big Creek No. 4
San Joaquin
84
428
Big Creek No. 3
San Joaquin
106
779
Big Creek No. 8
San Joaquin
58
309
Big Creek No. 2A
Big Creek
80
238
Big Creek No. 2
Big Creek
58
451
Big Creek No. 1
Big Creek
67
521
Portal
Rancheria Creek
10
51
Mammoth Pool
San Joaquin
129
546
Big Creek No. 1A
Stevenson Creek
100
174
3
Chiquito
Chiquito Creek
36
103
3
Forks
San Joaquin
84
259
3
Granite Creek
Granite Creek
240
399
3
Miller Bridge
San Joaquin
50
222
3
TOTALS
647.3
3713
510
1157
The San Joaquin River above Friant Dam drains an area of about 1,700 square miles in Madera and Fresno
Counties. Its mean annual unimpaired runoff is about 1.8 million acre-feet.
Existing Development
six power plants producing an average of 390 million
The Upper San Joaquin River Basin has been ex-
kwh annually.
tensively developed by Southern California Edison
Company and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The
Potential Development
SCE development on the main stem, South Fork, and Big
Several projects have been identified for further
Creek Basin includes eight power plants producing an
developing the potential of the San Joaquin River above
average of 3,323 million kwh annually. The PG&E de-
Mammoth Pool Reservoir. The scheme shown has been
velopment on Willow Creek and the main stem includes
investigated by Southern California Edison Company.
45
20 KINGS RIVER BASIN
KEY MAP
Helpis Creek
Courtright
Reservoir
Creek
North Fork
Peart
Helms P.H.
Reservoir
Kings River
Dinkey
Wishon
Peart P.H.
Reservoir
Kings River
PINE FLAT
Junction
P.H
Haas P.H.
Middle Fork
RESERVOIR Kings River
KINGS CANYON
P.H.
P.H.
Balch P.H. Kings River
NATIONAL
PARK
P.H
Five P.H.
Junction Res
P.H.
Piedra
RODGERS CROSSING
River
K
Afterbay
RESERVOIR
South Fork Kings
Roaring
Bubbs Creek
River
KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARK
MILES
N
5
0
5
10
15
20
See legend page 11.
46
KINGS RIVER BASIN
EXISTING
POTENTIAL ADDITIONS
Installed
Average Annual
Installed
Average Annual
PLANT NAME
STREAM
Capacity
Energy Genera-
Capacity
Energy Genera-
CATEGORY
OR SITE
Thousands
tion Millions
Thousands
tion Millions
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
watts
Hours
watts
Hours
Kings River
N. Fk. Kings
44
193
Balch No. 1 & No. 2
N. Fk, Kings
128
577
Haas
N. Fk. Kings
135
491
Pine Flat
Kings
165
367
3
Piedra Afterbay
Kings
24
52
3
Helms
N. Fk. Kings
1050
64'
3
Junction
Dinkey Creek
48
238
3
Peart
Dinkey Creek
51
241
3
Five
Kings
32
158
3
Rodgers Crossing
Kings
230
360
3
TOTALS
307
1261
1600
1480
3
*Additional generation from natural flow exclusive of pumped storage operation.
The Kings River above Pine Flat Dam drains an area of about 1,700 square miles in Fresno and Tulare Counties.
Its mean annual unimpaired runoff is about 1.6 million acre-feet.
Existing Development
Development of the energy potential of the Kings
The head available below the confluence of the
River is confined to the North Fork where the PG&E
Middle and South Forks could be developed by a power
Company operates four power plants.
plant discharging into a Rodgers Crossing Reservoir.
Potential Development
These developments would involve seven new
powerhouses with a combined potential energy output
There is a potential for a considerable amount of
of 1.6 billion kilowatthours per year.
additional energy development in the Kings River Basin.
On the North Fork, the PG&E Company is planning a
In addition to these seven powerhouses, there are
large pumped storage project between its Courtright and
four potential power projects that have been studied in
Wishon Reservoirs which will produce additional
the past, but are not shown here because they lie within
energy from natural runoff. The Kings River Conserva-
Kings Canyon National Park where development is pro-
tion District has investigated the Rogers Crossing and
hibited. These are the Simpson Meadow and Tehipite
Piedra Afterbay projects. Development of the head av-
Valley projects on the Middle Fork and Paradise Valley
ailable at Pine Flat Dam would produce a substantial
and Cedar Grove projects on the South Fork. The park
amount of energy.
boundary was changed in 1965 as a result of Public Law
A substantial energy potential exists on Dinkey
89-111 to include Tehipite Valley and Cedar Grove Re-
Creek. The scheme shown would develop about 4,400
servoir sites, previously located just outside the Park.
feet of gross head in two power drops above the conflu-
These four projects have a potential of about 1 billion
ence of Dinkey Creek and the North Fork.
kilowatthours of average annual energy generation.
Burnt Corral Area, Kings River Basin
DWR photo 111531
47
21 KAWEAH - TULE - KERN RIVERS BASIN
KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARK
River
Kaweah
Fork
Fork
Marble
SEQUOIA
North
P.H.T.
P.H.
Kawepn River
P.H.
/
VEast
Fork
Mineral King
Creek
Terminous
P.H.
Lake
NATIONAL
PARK
Trout
Kaweah
South
Fork
River
Golden
Kaweah
tittle
HOLE IN THE GROUND
RESERVOIR
Fork Tule River
Rem
P.H.
MONACHE
Middle
RESERVOIR
Tule River
EL
P.H.
Lower Tule
JUNCTION RESERVOIR
P.H.
the
TULE
River
Success Reservoir
N
South Fork
Tule
River
River
Kern
0
Monache P.H.
Junction
P.H.
1
DOMELAND
Kern
WILDERNESS
AREA
Fork
MILES
Kern River
P.H. No. 3
5
0
5
10
15
20
South
LAKE ISABELLA
Democ at Springs
Diversion
P.H.
P.H.
P.H.
P.H.O.
P.H.
ANTHILL RESERVOIR
See legend page 11.
48
KEY MAP
KAWEAH-TULE-KERN RIVERS BASIN
EXISTING
POTENTIAL ADDITIONS
Installed
Average Annual
Installed
Average Annual
PLANT NAME
STREAM
Capacity
Energy Genera-
Capacity
Energy Genera-
CATEGORY
OR SITE
Thousands
tion Millions
Thousands
tion Millions
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
watts
Hours
watts
Hours
Kaweah No. 2
Kaweah
2
13
Kaweah No. 1
Kaweah
2
16
Kaweah No. 3
Kaweah
3
25
Terminus
Kaweah
10
40
3
Lower Tule
M. Fk. Tule
2
19
Tule River
N. Fk. of M. Fk.
5
23
Kern Canyon
Kern
8
58
Kern R. No. 1
Kern
16
173
5
68
3
Borel
Kern
9
64
7
34
3
Kern R. No. 3
Kern
32
198
Ant Hill
Kern
15
30
3
Democrat Springs
Kern
20
80
3
Junction
Kern
55
350
3
Hole-in-the-Ground
Kern
5
20
3
Rockhouse
S. Fk. Kern
30
95
2
Monache
S. Fk. Kern
10
52
2
TOTALS
79
589
127
769
The drainage areas above Terminus and Success Dams and Ant Hill damsite aggregate about 3,400 square miles
in Tulare and Kern Counties. The total mean annual unimpaired runoff of these streams is about 1.2 million acre-feet
further development of the energy potential by installa-
Existing Development
tion of a power plant below Terminus Dam. On the Tule
The existing power plants on the Kaweah and
River no additional development possibilities were iden-
Tule Rivers develop a substantial portion of the potential
tified.
available on these rivers. On the Kaweah River, the
In the Kern River Basin, there is considerable po-
Southern California Edison Company operates three
tential for further development. On the Kern River above
small power plants. On the Tule River, Southern Califor-
Lake Isabella, the head available below Sequoia Na-
nia Edison Company and Pacific Gas and Electric Com-
tional Park could be developed by the Hole-in-the-
pany each operate small run-of-the-river plants.
Ground and Junction projects. On the South Fork, nearly
On the Kern River, the head available below Lake
5,000 feet of gross head would be developed by the
Isabella is developed in two power plants owned by
Monache and Rockhouse projects. The Rockhouse proj-
Southern California Edison and one owned by PG&E.
ect is not shown here because it lies within the recently
Above Lake Isabella, a portion of the available energy
designated Domeland Wilderness area. This project has
potential is developed in a small run-of-the-river plant
a potential of about 95 million kilowatthours of average
owned by SCE.
annual energy generation.
Below Lake Isabella, additional energy could be
developed by the Democrat Springs and Ant Hill proj-
Potential Development
ects, and through enlargement of the existing Borel and
On the Kaweah River there is a potential for
Kern River No. 1 Powerplants.
49
23 TRUCKEE RIVER BASIN
KEY MAP
Webber
Lake
Trucke
Stampede Reservoir
Little
River
Calvada P.H.
Independence Lake
Boca Reservoir
Farad P.H.
Prosser
USA
Creek
Prosser Reservoir
Truckee
Donner Lake
River
A
Truckee
Kings Beach
O
V
Tahoe City
E
MILES
5
0
5
10
15
20
LAKE TAHOE
N
Fallen Leaf
Lake
N
Echo Lake
River
Truckee
Upper
See legend page 11.
50
TRUCKEE RIVER BASIN
EXISTING
POTENTIAL
Installed
Average Annual
Installed
Average Annual
PLANT NAME
STREAM
Capacity
Energy Genera-
Capacity
Energy Genera-
CATEGORY
OR SITE
Thousands
tion Millions
Thousands
tion Millions
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
watts
Hours
watts
Hours
Farad
Truckee
3
14
Calvada
Little Truckee
20
60
2
TOTALS
3
14
20
60
The Truckee River Basin in California contains anarea of 1,000 square miles in Sierra, Nevada, Placer, and El
Dorado Counties. Its mean annual unimpaired runoff at the state line is about 0.6 million acre-feet.
Existing Development
of energy by developing the head available between
A small amount of energy is generated at the
Stampede Dam and the Truckee River near Farad. The
Farad plant operated by Sierra Pacific Power Company.
energy potential below other existing dams is less than
the minimum amount for new plants considered in this
Potential Development
study. Further development in the basin is precluded
A potential exists for generating a modest amount
until water right issues on the river are resolved.
Tahoe Dam on Truckee River
DWR photo 139-50
51
24 CARSON - WALKER RIVERS BASIN
KEY MAP
Woodfords
Carson
West
Fork
HOPE
VALLEY
RESERVOIR
Markleeville
East
Topaz Lake
Fork
Carson
West Walker
Antelope P.H.
River
River
PICKEL MEADOWS
RESERVOIR
Little Walker Diversion
LEAVITT
Leavitt
MEADOWS
P.H.
RESERVOIR
Walker River
BRIDGEPORT RESERVOIR
West
Little
Walker
Robinson
Creek East Walker
Bridgeport
Bodie
River
Twin Lakes
MILES
5
0
5
10
15
20
See legend page 11.
52
CARSON-WALKER RIVERS BASIN
EXISTING
POTENTIAL ADDITIONS
Installed
Average Annual
Installed
Average Annual
PLANT NAME
STREAM
Capacity
Energy Genera-
Capacity
Energy Genera-
CATEGORY
OR SITE
Thousands
tion Millions
Thousands
tion Millions
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
watts
Hours
watts
Hours
Woodfords
W. Fk. Carson
13
53
2
Antelope
West Walker
22
72
2
Leavitt
West Walker
11
26
2
TOTALS
0
0
46
151
The Carson and Walker Rivers Basin in California aggregate about 1,400 square miles in Alpine and Mono
Counties. The mean annual unimpaired runoff from these basins is about 0.8 million acre-feet.
Existing Development
power drop below Woodfords Powerplant is less than
There are no existing hydroelectric power plants
the minimum amount for new plants considered in this
in the basin.
study.
The Department in its Bulletin 64, "West Walker
Potential Development
River Investigation", evaluated the power development
scheme shown on that river.
On the West Fork Carson River, a potential exists
for generating a modest amount of energy with the Hope
Further development in the basins is precluded
Valley Reservoir project. The output of an additional
until water rights issues are resolved.
53
25 MONO LAKE - UPPER OWENS RIVER BASIN
1
KEY MAP
Mill
Lundy P.H.
MONO LAKE
of
Lee Vining
LOB
Vining
CI
A
a
Poole P.H.
Rush
Grant Lake
June Lake
Rush Creek
P.H.
Overs
River
Mammoth Creek
7
Lake Crowley
Convict Lake
Rock Creek P.H. No.
1
Upper Gorge P.H.
I
Rock Creek
T
Middle Gorge P.H.
No. 2
Z
Pine Creek
Control Gorge P.H.
P.H.
Pine Creek
Pleasant Valley
P.H.
O Bishop
No. 6
Creek
N
No.5
MCCRE
No. 4
Z
No. 3
Bishop Creek
0
P.H. No. 2
Owens
7
Lake Sabrina
Big Pine
O
Big Pine P.H.
No. 2
River
No. 3
Big
Pine Creek
Tinemaha Reservoir
MILES
5
0
5
10
15
20
See legend page 11.
54
MONO LAKE - UPPER OWENS RIVER BASIN
EXISTING
POTENTIAL
Installed
Average Annual
Installed
Average Annual
PLANT NAME
STREAM
Capacity
Energy Genera-
Capacity
Energy Genera-
CATEGORY
OR SITE
Thousands
tion Millions
Thousands
tion Millions
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
watts
Hours
watts
Hours
Rush Creek
Rush Creek
8
53
Poole
Lee Vining Creek
10
26
Lundy (Mill Cr.)
Mill Creek
3
6
Big Pine
Big Pine Creek
3
16
Bishop Cr. No. 6
Bishop Creek
2
12
Bishop Cr. No. 5
Bishop Creek
4
18
Bishop Cr. No. 4
Bishop Creek
7
42
Bishop Cr. No. 3
Bishop Creek
7
34
Bishop Cr. No. 2
Bishop Creek
7
39
Pleasant Valley
Owens
3
16
Control Gorge
Owens
38
181
Middle Gorge
Owens
38
185
Upper Gorge
Owens
38
170
Big Pine No. 2
Big Pine Creek
10
44
3
Pine Creek
Pine Creek
9
50
3
Rock Creek No. 1
Rock Creek
6
41
3
Rock Creek No. 2
Rock Creek
12
78
3
TOTALS
168
798
37
213
The Mono Lake Basin is a closed basin with a drainage area in California of about 200 square miles, all in Mono
County. The lake level is fairly stable, sustained primarily by the flows of Lee Vining, Mill, and Rush Creeks with a
mean annual unimpaired runoff exceeding 0.1 million acre-feet.
The Owens River above Tinemaha Dam drains an area of about 1,900 square miles in Mono and Inyo Counties.
Its mean annual unimpaired runoff is about 0.4 million acre-feet.
Existing Development
The power potential of the Mono Lake - Upper
Owens River Basin has been extensively developed by
the Southern California Edison Company and the Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power. The LADWP
operates five plants in conjunction with its Los Angeles
Aqueduct development. SCE operates eight plants which
utilize the high heads available on the tributary streams
draining the east slope of the High Sierra.
Potential Development
A modest amount of energy could be produced
by developing the remaining head available on Big Pine
Creek, and the head available on Pine and Rock Creeks.
Other development possibilities exist but would produce
less energy than the minimum amount for new plants
considered in this study.
The streams of the basin have a high value for
trout fishing and recreation. Any future developments on
Bishop Creek near Bishop
these streams will have to take these values into account.
DWR photo 2953-1
55
26 LOWER OWENS RIVER BASIN
KEY MAP
P.H.
Division creek
Independence
Owens
MILES
5
0
5
10
15
20
50]
-
Angeles
River
panpanby
Lone Pine
A
Creek
P.H.
Owens
No. 3
Lake
Cottonwood
P.H. No. 2
(Dry)
N
Haiwee
Reservoir
Haiwee P.H.
See legend page 11.
56
LOWER OWENS RIVER BASIN
EXISTING
POTENTIAL ADDITIONS
Installed
Average Annual
Installed
Average Annual
PLANT NAME
STREAM
Capacity
Energy Genera-
Capacity
Energey Genera-
CATEGORY
OR SITE
Thousands
tion Millions
Thousands
tion Millions
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
watts
Hours
watts
Hours
Haiwee
L.A. Aqueduct
6
35
Division Creek
Division Creek
1
5
Cottonwood No. 3
Cottonwood Creek
2
6
Cottonwood No. 2
Cottonwood Creek
11
40
3
TOTALS
9
46
11
40
The Lower Owens River Basin contains an areas of about 1,300 square miles in Inyo County. The mean annual
unimpaired runoff is about 0.1 million acre-feet.
Existing Development
Potential Development
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
The Cottonwood No. 2 Powerplant is the only
operates three small plants in the basin.
potential development of any significance in the basin.
Other development possibilities exist but would produce
less energy than the minimum amount for new plants
considered in this study.
57
31 SOUTH COASTAL BASIN
KEY MAP
Los Angeles Aqueduct
Pyramid Lake
Castaic
San Francisquito No. 1
Lake
San Francisquito No. 2
Lake Piru
River
Clara
Ventura
Santa
San Fernando P.H.
Ontario
Santa Ana
No. 1
Big Bear Lake
Lytle Cr. No. 1
Riv
Sierra P.H.
P.H.
No. 2
Azusa
Ontario Fontana
O
No. 3
Mill Creek No. 1
Franklin Canyon P.H.
Gabriel
P.H.
No. 2
P.H.
No. 2 No. 3
San
Bernardino
Los Angeles
o
Riverside
San
Ana
Prado Flood
Lake Perris
Control Basin
Santa
Santa Ana
[PA]
PACIFIC
San Luis Rey
River
Lake
Rincon
Henshaw
P.H.
Lake Wohlford
In B
Escondido Escondido AT
Bear Valley P.H.
MILES
San Diego
10
0
10
20
30
40
See legend page 11.
58
SOUTH COASTAL BASIN
EXISTING
POTENTIAL ADDITIONS
Installed
Average Annual
Installed
Average Annual
PLANT NAME
CONDUIT
Capacity
Energy Genera-
Capacity
Energy Genera-
CATEGORY
OR SITE
OR
Thousands
tion Millions
Thousands
tion Millions
STREAM
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
watts
Hours
watts
Hours
Franklin Canyon
Franklin Canyon
2.0
16.3
San Fernando
Los Angeles Aqueduct
6.4
50.0
San Francisquito 1
Los Angeles Aqueduct
58.1
312.7
San Francisquito 2
Los Angeles Aqueduct
42.0
135.8
Azusa
San Gabriel
3.0
10.0
Ontario No. 1
San Antonio Cr.
0.6
4.4
Ontario No. 2
San Antonio Cr.
0.3
2.0
Sierra
San Antonio Cr.
0.5
3.4
Fontana
Lytle Cr.
1.9
8.1
Lytle Creek
Lytle Cr.
0.4
4.0
Mill Cr. No. 1
Mill Cr.
0.8
4.4
Mill Cr. No. 2
Mill Cr.
0.2
1.5
Mill Cr. No. 3
Mill Cr.
1.8
14.0
Santa Ana No. 1
Santa Ana
3.2
18.0
Santa Ana No. 2
Santa Ana
0.8
8.0
Santa Ana No. 3
Santa Ana
1.2
7.0
Rincon Power
Escondido Cr. Div.
0.2
0.3
Bear Valley
Escondido Cr.
0.5
4.8
Foothill
2nd Los Angeles Aqueduct
10.0
47.8
TOTALS
123.9
604.7
10.0
47.8
The South Coastal Basin contains an area of about 11,000 square miles in Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernar-
dino, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego counties. The mean annual unimpaired runoff of all streams in the basin
aggregate about 1.2 million acre-feet.
The largest stream in the basin is the San Gabriel River with a mean annual unimpaired runoff of about 120,000
acre-feet per year.
Existing Development
The Southern California Edison Company oper-
Potential Development
ates a total of 11 power plants which utilize the flows of
Potential projects on other streams in the basin
San Antonio, Lytle, and Mill Creeks and the Santa Ana
would produce less energy than the minimum amount
and San Gorgonio Rivers. The City of Pasadena operates
for new plants considered in this study.
a small plant on the San Gabriel River. The Escondido
Mutual Water Co. operates two small plants. In addition,
Potential projects on the California Aqueduct of
the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power oper-
the State Water Project are discussed in a section under
ates four plants on its Los Angeles Aqueduct.
that heading.
59
32 COLORADO DESERT BASIN
KEY MAP
NEVADA
Needles
Lake Havasu
Parker P.H.
RIVER
San Gorgonio No. 1
San Gorgonio No. 2,
N
Whitewater
Indio
River
COLORADO
Z
Coachella
Salton
I
I
Sea
W
Side
Turnip P.H.
Canal
Imperial Reservoir
N
Laguna Reservoir
Pilot Knob
El Centro
P.H.
P.H.
3
2
Siphon Drop P.H.
4
P.H. 5
wiew
All American Canal
Double Weir P.H:
MILES
10
0
10
20
30
40
See legend page 11.
60
COLORADO DESERT BASIN
EXISTING
POTENTIAL
Installed
Average Annual
Installed
Average Annual
PLANT NAME
CONDUIT
Capacity
Energy Genera-
Capacity
Energy Genera-
CATEGORY
OR SITE
OR
Thousands
tion Millions
Thousands
tion Millions
STREAM
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
watts
Hours
watts
Hours
Siphon Drop
Yuma Canal
1.6
13.0
Turnip
W. Side Main Canal
0.4
1.2
Double Weir
Central Main Canal
0.6
2.0
Drop No. 2
All American Canal
10.0
50.0
Drop No. 3
All American Canal
9.8
35.0
Drop No. 4
All American Canal
19.6
89.4
Drop No. 5
All American Canal
5.0
24.0
3
Pilot Knob
All American Canal
33.0
40.7
Parker
Colorado
120.0
659.6
San Gorgonio No. 1
San Gorgonio
1.5
3.0
San Gorgonio No. 2
San Gorgonio
0.8
1,5
TOTALS
197.3
895.4
5.0
24.0
The Colorado Desert Basin in California contains an area of about 20,000 square miles in San Bernardino,
Riverside, Imperial, and San Diego Counties. Runoff of streams in the basin is largely intermittent and is of relatively
small importance for power production.
Potential Development
Existing Development
The only remaining development of significance
Except for Parker Dam Powerplant on the Col-
is installation of an energy recovery plant at Drop No. 5
orado River and two small plants operated by Southern
on the All-American Canal. Other potential projects
California Edison Company, all existing power plants are
would produce less than the minimum energy output for
situated on water supply conduits.
new plants considered in this study.
61
CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT
SONOMA
NAPA
SACRAMENTO
SOLANO
3
7
AMADOR CALAVERAS
DUOLUMNE
N
CONTRA COSTA
SAN IDAQUIN
MONO
DELTA PP
CLIFTON COURT FOREBAY
San Francisco
ΓO
BETHANY RESERVOIR
ALAMEDA
STANISLAUS
MARIPOSA
SAN MATEO
South Bay Aqueduct
-
SANTA CLARA
MERCED
O'NEILL FOREBAY
SANTA SAN LUIS RESERVOIR
CRUZ
SAN LUIS PH
DOS AMIGOS PP
Fresno
5
SAN BENITO
R
MONTEREY N
4
PULA
KINGS
BADGER HILL PP
LAS PERILLAS PP
SAWTOOTH PR
POLONIO PP
DEVIL'S
DEN PP
Bakersfie
SAN LUIS-OBISPO
K
C.
SAN LUIS OBISPO PH
BUENA VISTA PP
-
WHEELER RIDGE PP
WIND GAP PP
Coastal Branch
A.D. EDMONSTON PP
N
Oso,PP
SANTA BARBARA
PYRAMID PH
PYRAMID LAKE
CASTAIC PH
CASTAIC OUTLET PH
VENTURA
West Branch
N
See legend page 11.
62
CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT OF THE STATE WATER PROJECT
EXISTING
POTENTIAL ADDITIONS
Installed
Average Annual
Installed
Average Annual
PLANT NAME
STREAM
Capacity
Energy Genera-
Capacity
Energy Genera-
CATEGORY
OR SITE
Thousands
tion Millions
Thousands
tion Millions
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
of Kilo-
of Kilowatt
watts
Hours
watts
Hours
San Luis¹
California Aqueduct
424
2952
Pyramid
Cal. Aq. West Branch
157
950
3
Castaic¹
Cal. Aq. West Br.
256
200²
1000
12572
3
Castaic Outlet
Cal. Aq. West Br.
30
125
3
Cottonwood
Cal. Aq. East Br.
15
125
3
Devil Canyon
Cal. Aq. East Br.
120
877
Perris Outlet
Cal. Aq. East Br.
5
30
3
San Luis Obispo
Cal. Aq. Coastal Br.
5
41
3
TOTALS
800
1372
1212
2403
'Pumping-Generating Plant.
2Exclusive of pumped-storage operation.
The California Aqueduct is part of the State Water Project and conveys surplus water from the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta some 444 miles to various water deficient areas around San Francisco Bay, the San Joaquin Valley and
Southern California. Aqueduct facilities include pumping plants, pumping-generating plants and power recovery
generating plants as well as conveyance facilities. Ultimately the aqueduct will deliver over four million acre feet of
water annually for which it will require electric energy for pumping substantially in excess of its generation. Conse-
quently the energy values are not shown in Tables 1 and 2.
Existing Development
Potential Development
Power producing facilities include the San Luis
Pyramid Powerplant will be constructed on the
Pumping-Generating Plant, jointly owned with the fed-
West Branch, where aqueduct water enters Pyramid
eral Central Valley Project, which pumps water into San
Lake.
Luis Reservoir for seasonal storage and generates energy
Additions to Castaic Pumping-Generating Plant
incidental to the release of water from storage. It can also
on the West Branch are being constructed by the Los
produce power by a pure pumped storage operation.
Angeles Department of Water and Power, primarily for
There is a small federal O'Neill Pumping-Generating
pumped-storage operation which will cycle water be-
Plant associated with the San Luis facilities which moves
tween Pyramid and Castaic Lakes.
water between the federal Delta-Mendota Canal and
At the control structure for the Foothill Feeder of
O'Neill Forebay but produces only minor amounts of
the Metropolitan Water District at the downstream toe of
energy.
Castaic Dam there is a possibility for a power plant.
The first generating unit of the Castaic
Studies are in progress on Cottonwood Power-
Pumping-Generating Plant being constructed by the Los
plant on the East Branch which would be constructed on
Angeles Department of Water and Power is installed on
an aqueduct drop.
the West Branch where aqueduct water enters Castaic
At the outlet from Lake Perris on the East Branch
N
Lake.
there is a possibility for a small power plant.
Devil Canyon Powerplant is installed on the East
San Luis Obispo Powerplant is planned on a fu-
Branch at the drop from Silverwood Lake.
ture extension of the Coastal Branch of the aqueduct.
/
A
R
D
N
SAN
7
COTTONWOOD PH
/
I
ASTAIC
LAKE
I
SILVERWOOD LAKE
$ ANGELES
DEVIL CANYON PH
Los Angeles
LAKE PERRIS
PERRIS OUTLET PH
RIVERSIDI
ORANGE
INTERIOR OF OLD FOLSOM POWERPLANT
(PHOTO BY TOM MYERS)
BULLETIN NO. 194 HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY POTENTIAL IN CALIFORNIA 1974
OF SEAL THE EUREKA CAEAT STATE THE OF CALIFORNIA