Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 116 

. r J, Water Storage, 11 

Senes \_ M, General Hydrographic Investigations, 14 

DEPART.~IEN'r OF THE INTERIOR 

UNITI~D ~TATES UEOLOniCAL SURVEY 

CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIRECTOR 

WATER PROBLEMS 

OF 

SANTA BAill3~\RA, CALil~ORNIA 

BY 

J. B. LIPJ->INC~()TT 

::: ." o • : : • o" • •. : ." • •. : • • : : • • :. : 

.... · .. ·.·: .. · ... ·: .. · .. :~.·.·=· . .. . . . :.·.: ... . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . • a • • • • • •• 

: ::·-.:··.: . .... . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . : ::··.:·::.-.:.·· .. · . . . . . ..... . . . . : ·., : 

\VA S II I N < t T 0 N 

G 0 V Ji: R N 1\1 g N T P l{ IN 'l' I X G 0 l!' F I C E 

1H05 
.·. . .. : . ·· .. · . . ........ ·. .. =~····: :: ~·=··· ··: 

.. . ... . . . . .. : :. · ....................... . . · .. · . . ... * e e G 

·: .·: 

. ...... . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ···.: :~.:: .. : 

. . . . . . . .. . . . ... ·.: .:·.:-.:: : .. · ... ·: : : · .. · ... 
CONTENTS. 

Page. 

Letter of tramnuittaL ______________________________________________________ - 7 

Introduction______________________________________________________________ 9 

Location and drainage of the district__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 10 

Review of earlier work by others_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 11 

Report of George F. Wright, 1889_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 11 

Needs of district_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 11 

Streams south of Coast Range___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 12 

Streams north of Coast Range_______________________________________ 14 

Juncal rcscrYoir site_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 14 

Report of E. J. S. Purslmv, 1896_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 17 

Needs of district___________________________________________________ 17 

Possible supply____________________________________________________ 19 

Bhw Canyon site_______________________________________________ 19 

:Main Hiver site _____________________________________ .__________ 19 

Juncal site ____________________ . _____________________________ ._ 20 

RPport of R. B. Canfidd, 18Uti_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 21 

Rep.ort of .J. Linn Moyer, Hl03. ______ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 22 

1Iono site ___________ . _____________________ . _________ ._._______ 22 

Conclusions drawn from foregoing reports_. ____________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 22 

Population and consumption of water __________________ ._____________________ 23 

Near-by supplifs _______________________ . ____________ . ______________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 25 

Mission Creek _________ . ____________ .___________________________________ 26 

De Ia Guerra wells ___ . _________________ . _________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 33 

City tunneL ____ . _______________ .. _____________________________________ 33 

Cost_ ______ . ___________ . ______ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 34 

Discharge ____ . ___ . _________________ . _____________ .________________ 35 

Total near-by supply ________ . __________________ . __________ .____________ 40 

Distant supplies ____ . _________________ . ______________ . _____________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 40 

Extension of pres(·nt city tunneL________________________________________ 40 

Construction of ntw tunneL ___ ._________________________________________ 41 

Agreement with water company _______________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 42 

Contract for construction ______________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 43 

Ventura River_________________________________________________________ 43 

Water available _________ . ________________ ._________________________ 44 

Cost of piping and pumping. _________________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4.5 

Santa YnPz Hivcr ___ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 48 

HainfaiL __ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 48 

Run-ofL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .50 

Quality of wat<•r_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5!5 

Analyst's of samp!!'s_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ fiG 

Discussion of analyses___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ til 
4 CONTENTS. 

Distant supplies-Continued. Pa.ge. 

Santa Ynez Hiver-Continued. 

Forest cover ____ . ____________________ . __________ . _______ . _____ . ___ _ 

Reservoir sites __________________________________ . ___ . __ . ____ . _____ . 

Juncal site ___________ . _______________________________________ _ 

Main River site _____________________________________ .. ________ _ 

Blue Canyon site ________________________________________ . _____ _ 

l\fono site __________________________________ . __ . ______________ _ 

Discharge _______ ....... __ . _______________________________ _ 

Contents and cost of dams _________________________________ _ 

Quicksilver mine site __________________________________________ _ 

Gibraltar site _________________________________________________ _ 

Discharge ________ ........ ___ . __________ . _________________ _ 

ContPnts and cost of dams _________________________________ _ 

Tunne Is _________ . _ ... _ .......... _________________________ _ 

Comparison of Gibraltar and Mono sites _____________ . _____________ _ 

Finnncial statr•mcnt __________ . ______ .. _ .. _____________________ _ 

Conclusions _____________________ . _____ .. _________ . _______________________ _ 

Index. _ ... _. __ ................••.•...........•.•..•. -•. - -. ---. -. -- -. -... -

66 

67 

67 

68 

71 

71 

72 

73 

79 

80 

80 

80 

90 

93 

94 

96 

97 
ILLUSTRATIONS. 

Page. 

PLATE I. Topographie map showing upper drainage basin of Santa Ynez River, 

also Santa Barbara and vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 

II. A and B, Grneral views of Santa Barbara and vicinity................. 10 

nr. A, ~Iono CrPPk dam sitP and gaging station; B, Santa Ynez basin on projected location of old city tunneL................................ 14 

IV. A, ~Iono dam site, left abutment; B, Mono Creek reservoir site, view 

upstream from dam site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 

V. A, B, and 0, Bulkhead and discharge pipes in old city tumwl, Cold 

Springs Canyon...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 

VI. Quicksilver mine dam site, right abutment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 

VII. QuicksilvN mine reservoir sitP, view upstn•nm from dam sitl'............. 78 

VIII. A, Gibraltar dam sitP, lower Pncl of gorge, view upstream; B, Gibraltar 

dam site, upper Pncl of gorgt• at proposed axis of dam, view downstreanL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 

FIG. 1. Diagram showing relation of rainfall to run-ofT for California streams...... 15 

2. Main Riv(•r reservoir site._ .... _ .. __ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 

3. Main RivPr dam site ........... _ ........ _ .............. _ ...... _ ... _ 69 

4. Mono rt'servoir sit£> ....................... _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 

5. Mono clam site, showing 110-foot loos. -rod\. dum ...... _ .. _............. 74 

G. Mono dam sitP, showing plan of subsidiary Parth dam for 110-foot looserock-fill dam .............. _..................................... 74 

7. ~fono dam sitl', showing plan for 110-foot concret£' dam........ . . . . . . . . . 75 

8. Quicksilver mine reservoir site.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 

9. Quicksilver mine dam site ............... _ .......................... _ 79 

10. Gibraltar reservoir site.............................................. 81 

11. Gibraltar dam site, showing plan for 155-foot rock-fill dam .............. _ 83 

12. Gibrnltar dam site, showing plan for 1.55-foot masonry dam......... . . . . . 86 

13. Sfction of masonry dam for Gibraltar reservoir based on concrPte weighing 

130 pounds per cubic foot............................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 

u. SPction of masonry ovPrflow weir dam basL d on masonry wr ighing HO 

pounds per cubic foot ..................... _...................... 88 

15. Section of masonry dam based on masonry weighing 140 pounds per cubic 

foot. .................................................... _. . . . . . 89 

16. Section of new Santa Barbara tunnel in solid rock ........ _ ...... __ .. __ . 91 

17. Section of new Santa Barbara tunnel in loose rock ............. _ ... __ . . 92 

5 

L E T 'f E R 0 F T R AN S ~[ I T T A L . 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 

HYDROGRAPHIC BRANCH, 

lVashirzgton, D. 0., May 1.2, 1.904. 

SIR: I have the honor to subrnit herewith, for publication as a 

water-supply and irrigation paper, a report on the water problems 

of Santa Barbara, Cal., transn1itted by :Mr. J. B. Lippincott. 

As the city and suburbs of Santa Barbara forrn one of the most 

attractive and productive districts in southern California, a thorough 

knowledge of the water supply of the region is of the utrnost importance. It is thought that the facts brought out in the report will 

be of n1uch interest. 

. Very respectfully, F. H. NEWELL, 

Chief Eng·irzeer. 

Hon. CHARLES D. WALCOTT, 

Director United States Geologi.cal ~urvey. 

7 

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 116 PL. I 

Scale 2 

Contour interval 500 feet 

T.6. N. 

T.4. N. 

IF I C OCEA 

UPPER DRAINAGE BASIN OF SANTA YNEZ RIVER, ALSO SANTA BARBARA AND VICINITY. 
.\VATER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. 

By J. B. LIPPINCOTT. 

INTRODUCTION. 

The Santa Barbara coast extending frmn Goleta to Carpinteria, 

including the city and suburbs of Santa Barbara, is naturally one 

of the nwst attractive and productive districts of southern California. It is) ho,n•ver, deficient in water supply. 

Desiring a broad and cmnprehensive study rnadc of this locality, 

with a view to a solution of the prohlen1s involved, the. city and 

county of Santa Barbara have reqtH'sted (1) that the topographic 

\Vork of the Geologica] Survey b(! extended so as to cover this district, and (2) that tlw hydrographic branch of the Survey rnake an 

investigation of the water prohlen1s involved. These topographic 

surveys have now been made, and the n1aps of the Goleta, Santa 

Barbara, Santa Ynez, and ~Iount Pinos quadrangles have been published. The Santa :l\faria quadrangle has been surveyed and the map 

is now being engraved. This will complete the rnapping of the county. 

These topogrnphic rnaps nrc of the very greatest assistance and 

importance in determining relative elevations, nreas and elevntions 

of drainnge basins, and possible tunnel locations through the Santa 

Ynez Range. 

In tl~e hydrographic investigations the city of Santa Barbarn has 

cooperated, paying one-half of the expense connected \vith the 

rnnintenancc of a gnging stntion on Santa Y ncz River and l\iono 

Creek, on whieh strearns daily observations have been rnade for 

silt, vohune of flow, and rnineral irnpurities of the water, and also 

approxirnately 2.5 per cent of the expense connected with the preparation of this report. This portion of the work, therefore, is in the 

nature of a joint investigation by the city of Santa Barbarn and 

the Geologicnl Survey, all of the field work and investigation being 

done by the Survey and n, portion of the expense being paid by the 

c.ity of Santa Barbara. 
10 WATER PROBLEMS OF SAN'l'A BARBARA, CAL. (NO. 116. 

T~OCATION AND DRAINAGE OF THE DISTRICT. 

The district under investigation extends from Ventura River in 

Ventura County along the coast as far as Goleta in Santa Barbara 

County, and more particularly into the high mountainous districts 

of Ventura and Santa Barbara counties lying on the north side of 

the Santa Ynez Range and inelucling the drainage basin of Santa 

Y nez River and its tributaries. 

The coastal plain fronting the ocean consists of a series of old 

marine beaches and undulating foothills faeing Santa Barbara Channel Views of this coastal plain are shown in Pl. II. This district 

is of great natural beauty, and has beeome the home not only of 

agriculturists and horticulturists, but also of many eastern people 

who have sought it for reereation and health. It is one of the most 

attraetive regions in California. The winds are n1ild, those from 

the south heing te1npered by the Paeific Oeean, and those from the 

north being barred out by the Santa Ynez Range, whieh parallels 

the eoast, rising to elf'Yations of frmn 3,000 to 4,000 feet and presenting a bold and attraetive haekground to the undulating foothill 

districts. (See Pl. I.) 

The strea1ns flowing from the southern slope of this range are 

precipitous and have short drainage basins of small area. This 

topography produces a torrential strean1 condition after rains, followed by a period of extren1e low water in time of drought. The 

range is fornlE'cl chiefly of shale ariel sandstone, the strike being parallel to the eoast and the dip nt'arly vertical, inclining somewhat to 

the south. This ge~logic formation admits of a nun1ber of small 

but perma1wnt springs in the canyons t'roded by the streams, and 

is also favorable to tlw devt'lopment of water by tunnels run at right 

angles to the line of strikt'. Beyond the erests of the Santa Ynez 

Range is the drainage basin of Santa Ynez River. A second range 

of 1nountains, consisting of the crest of the Coast Range and culminating in 1fount Pinos, the elevation of which is 8,826 feet, rises 

to the north and trends parallel to the Santa Ynez 'Mountains. These 

higher n1ountains are drained by streams running- in a southerly 

direetion and uniting with Santa Y nez River proper, which runs 

close to the northerly base of the Santa Y nez Mountains, flowing 

westerly and paralleling the Coast Range. It has a total length of 

about 70 miles, with flat grades, and offers frequent opportunities 

for in1pounding water in storage reservoirs. 

The results of the investigations indicate that a solution of the 

water problen1 for the coast district lies in impounding the flood 

waters in the drainage basin of Santa Ynez River and conveying 

the1n to Santa Barbara through a long tunnel beneath the Santa 

Ynez Range. 
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER -SUPPLY PAPER NO. 116 PL. II 

A 

B 

VIEWS OF SANTA BARBARA AND VICINITY, 
LIPPINCOTT.] wATER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. 11 

It is here deemed proper to review the work which has been done 

along this line in the past by other engineers, both for the city of 

Santa Barbara and for the Santa Barbara "VVatcr Cmnpany. The first 

report \vas n1ade for the city of Santa Barbara on October 19, 1889, 

by George F. Wright, n1en1ber A1nerican Society of Civil Engineers, 

and at the time city engineer of Santa Barbara. The second report 

was presented on .July 2, 1896, by Ernest J. S. Purslow, civil engineer 

for the Santa Barbara Water Cmnpany. Both of these gentle~nen, 

who are no\V deceased, were residents of Santa Barbara, engineers 

of distinction, n1en of good standing in the con1munity, and thoroughly 

acquainted with local conditions. In general their judgment 

respecting the subject here under consideration is approved by 

the present writer, both from personal knowledge of the locality 

and fron1 observations else\vhere. Their opinions particularly \vith 

reference to local water supplies on the south side of the range are 

worthy of aeceptance, and it was not deemed necessary or advisable 

to Inakc further field exa1ninations over this ground \vhich they 

had previously covered in detail. Because these reports were n1ade 

a long time ago and are now unfamiliar to Inany new residents, 

and are out of print, it is considered advisable to briefly revimv the~n. 

REPORT OF GEORGE F. WRIGHT, x88g. 

NEEDS OF DISTRICT. 

Mr. Wright states: "I have endeavored to cover the whole field 

in my report, trusting in Inany cases to previous examinations and 

surveys made by Inyself, aided by the available 1naps of that portion 

of the territory lying south of the sununit of the Coast or Santa Ynez 

Range of Inountains." He calls attention to the fact that even at 

that tiine the city had never had an a1nple \Vater supply to 1neet its 

demands, a condition which, as all the residents of the district are well 

aware, has never been 1naterially changed. He states further: ''The 

immediate necessity deinands a supply of 2 n1illion gallons per day 

(equivalent to 200 gallons per capita for 10,000· persons), which 

will certainly be increased to :3 Inillion gallons, and probably 4 million gallons, per day before 1nany years." This statement was 

n1ade on the assumption that the city, with an an1ple water supply, 

would have a vigorous gro\vth, and a development proportional to 

that of other towns of southern California as suitably located and 

having adequate supplies. In n1arked contrast with this de1nand, 

he states that the low-\vater flow of Mission Creek (a present source 

of supply) is reported to fall as low as 300,000 gallons daily in midsummer, and that a trial test of the De la Guerra ·wells showed an 

average daily output of 600,000 gallons at that tin1e. 
12 WATER PROBLEMS Ol!"' SANTA BARBARA, CAL. [NO. 116. 

STREAMS SOU';l'II OF COAST RANGE. 

A complete investigation was 1nade by Wright of all the adjoining 

drainage basins, extending frmn Rincon Canyon on the east to 

Cafiada Refugio on the west, during the sunnner of 1889. The rainfall at Santa Barbara had been 21.44 inches during the preceding 

winter, and 21.71 inches the winter before that-unusually good 

records, as the Santa Barbara 1nean is only 16.78 inches. Consequently Mr. Wright's figures on stream flow are above what should 

be accepted as an average condition. His table descriptive of the 

strean1s is given below.a 

TABLE I.-Streams east of Santa Barbara and south of Coast Range. 

---------------------·--

1 

I Catch- I Di n . Daily flow 

Name _ment area fro~;aci~; in_miner's I Remark~: .Fl~w in min- of stream. 

I

m square , in miles mches er s mches. 

m1les. .

1

. · (1889).b 1 

------------ --------~-------- ! I 

Rincon, proper_._ ... __ . ___ .. ___ ._ 8. 8 17 .5. 8 June 16, 1900: 1.5. 

Gobernador ____ . ____ . __ . ______ . _ _ 7. 8 16 29.0 

Carpinteria, including Sutton __ ... . 

Santa Monica ................ _ ... ' 

Parida, ineluding Oil ............ . 

~~::~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! 

5.3 

3.6 

3.3 

1.4 

3.0 

15 

11 

10 

8 

6 

3. Y June 16, 1900: 0.1. 

11. 6 

15.5 

15.5 

11. 6 July 18,1902: 3.0. 

Cold Spring ____ .. ____ .. __ .. _. _.. 3. 8 4 11. 6 

1

1 I 1

Mission, jJune 14, 1900: 1.0. including Rattlesnakt'.. . . . 5. 7 1 23 2 1 J . ll· lUll' 17, 1900: 2.5. -----

Total daily sumnwr flow .. _. _ .... __ . __ . __ ... \ 127.7 

I ! 

"During the last year the Fnited States Geological SurYey has made a detailed topographic field 

suryey of the mountainous district in the vicinity of Santa Barbara, indicating in contours the area 

of drainage basins, together with their altitude. These maps are more accurate than any preYlons 

ones, and have been used in determining the drainage areas of all the streams described by Wright 

that could be recognized from his names. In each case the area has been determined above the point 

where the stream issues from the foothllls or mountains. In the case of a few of these streams other 

measurements are available for Ia ter years. These are included and show, partirnlarly for the year 1900, 

a marked decrease in volume over that measured by Wright. The rainfr..Jl in the year 1899-1900 at 

Santa Barbara was 12.ti8 inches. 

b A miner's inch is taken as equal to one-fiftieth of a cubic foot per second, or a flow of 12,925 gallons 

per day. 
LIPPINCOTT.] REVIEW OF EARLIER WORK BY OTHERS. 13 

TABLE 2.-Streants west of Santa Barbara and south of Coast Range. 

Stream. ~:~~~~ Length in Dista~ce Dailv flow square catch- ~rom_city in niiner's 

miles. ment. m miles. inches. 

Remarks: Flow in miner's inches. 

--- ---------1----1---------

Arroyo Burro _____________ , ________ 2.5 2.5 11. 6 June 17, 1900: 1.5. 

M . y . I r: 7 J. • ana gnama _ - - - - - - - - - -, D. 2.0 6.0 all. 6 

San Jose. __ . ____________ I 6.0 2.5 7.0 13.6 July 30,1900: 38.1. 

San Pedro ______________ 2. 7 2.0 9.5 3.9 

Arroyo Camero __________ 3.3 2.0 10.0 3.9 

Annes. _________________ 1.0 12.0 I 3.9 

Annito _________________ 4.0 

1.5 13.0 1.9 

Tecolote ________________ 5.2 2.5 14.0 13.6 

Aguila----------------- 4. 5 2.0 

I 

15.0 5.8 

Dos Puc blos. ____________ 6. 7 2.0 17.0 27.2 

Canada Verde (Las Varas). 1 2.5 2.0 I 

18.0 3.9 

Canada Llaces ____________ 1.5 2.0 20.0 3.9 

El Capitan _______________ 1.5 1.0 22.0 11. 6 

Canada dd CorraL ________ 1.0 1.0 23.0 7. 7 

Caiiada Refugio ___________ 2.0 2.0 25.0 15.4 

TotaL _____________________ : _______________ _ 139 .. 5 

I 

a Laguna Blanca 'Vater Company. 

Wright correctly states that the grades of these local streams on 

the south side of the nwuntains are very steep, affording no opportunities for the construction of storage reservoirs. He also states 

that while it n1ight be possible to divert son1e of these storrn waters 

by n1eans of large canals into basins in the flat lands to the side, 

the 'vork would be exceedingly expensive and impracticable. 

The conclusion that he reaches with reference to the streams on 

the south side of the Coast Range is as follows: 

l do not deem it prac.ticable to secure an ample supply of water for Santa Barbara south 

of the Santa Ynez Range of mountains, for the following reasons: 

1. The aggregate daily summer flow of the entire watershed from Rincon Creek to and 

including Refugio Creek is less than 4 million gallons per day. 

2. This flow is all claimed by riparian owners, water companies, and individual water 

claims. 

3. Storage-reservoir sites of sufficient capacity and elevation do not Pxist along the 

streams, if at all. The construction of numerous small reservoirs would increase the 

operating expenses and also the first cost of construction. 

4. Diverting dams in the streams would be nccrssary to turn thr winter flow, and the 

conduits leading to the storage rrservoirs would nPcessarily be large and expensive. 

5. It is nory doubtful if tllf' city of Santa Barbara could establish a claim on tlw waters 

of these streams which would PnablP lwr to obtain them through kgal process. \Vhere 

it is possible to do so, howPYPr, tlw eit.y enn not afford to appropriak water which, if not 

now needed, soon will bt•, for tlw supply of thl' rapidly increasing population of tllf' Carpinteria and Montecito valleys on the cast and tlll' Goleta and Dos Pueblos on the west. 
14 WATER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. (NO. 116. 

STREAMS NORTH OF COAST RANGE. 

Having failed to find an adequate supply of water on the south 

side of the range, the investigations of Wright were extended to the 

north side of the range, into the basin of Santa Ynez River. Surveys 

to detennine relative elevations were n1ade, and detailed reports on 

two reservoir sites, one known as the Juncal, near the head of the 

Santa Y nez, and the other as the ~fain River reservoir site, below 

the rnouth of Blue Canyon. A general view of the basin of Santa 

Ynez River is shown in Pl. III, B. 

From a study of the rainfall data available at the tin1e of his 

report Wright coneludes that it will be necessary to have a storage 

reservoir capable of holding water frmn years of average or excessive rainfall for years of deficient rainfall. He believes that ·in 

some 'vinters there will be little, if any, storn1 water in these streams. 

Frmn April, 1876, to October, 1877, inclusive, there was a period 

of drought of nineteen rnonths in which the rainfall was insufficient 

to much rnore than supply evaporation. On his basis of 200 gallons per day per capita, for a population of 20,000, requiring 

4 1nillion gallons per day, this would cal1 for a storage of 2,280 

million gallons, which is equal to 7,000 aere-feet of water, an acrefoot being the vohnne of water sufficient to cover 1 acre 1 foot 

deep, or 43,560 cubic feet. 

JUNCAL RESERVOIR SITE. 

The Juncal reservoir site was detennined to have the following 

capacities with the heights of darn stated: 

TABLE 3.-Capacities of Juncal rescruoir with mrious heights of dam. 

I : 'II eight of dam i Capacity in gallons. Capadty in in feet. I acre-feet. 

200 I 4,000,000,000 12,276 

17.5 I 2, 3.52, 000, 000 7,218 

150 I 1' 877' 000, 000 .5,760 

125 1,437,000,000 4, 410 

100 1, om, ooo, ooo 3,222 # 

7.5 70.5, 000, 000 2,164 

.50 350,000,000 1,074 

_____ , ___ -------------

A clam 200 feet high would he .5.50 feet long on top, and one 

100 feet high would be 272 feet long on top. Purslow in his report 

estimates that a clmn at the ~Juncal 100 feet high, with a diver-· 

sion conduit to Santa Barbara, would eost $300,000. The area 

of the drainage basin is given as 23 .. 5 square rniles by both Wright 

and Purslow. Fro1n the topographic surveys of the United States 
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WA TER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 116 PL. Ill 

A . MONO CRE EK DAM SITE AND GAGING STATION. 

JJ. SANTA YNE.Z BASIN ON PROJECTED LOCATION OF OLD CITY TUNNEL. 
LIPPINCOTT.] REVIEW OF EARLIER WORK BY OTHERS. 15 

Geological Survey it is found that they were seriously in error, and 

that there is but 13.4 square 1niles of area naturally tributary to 

this reservoir site. This directly affects the value of the Juncal as 

a storage reservoir. Wright gives certain figures showing that, in 

his judgment, the water supply would be always sufficient to meet 

the dmnands upon this reservoir. At the tin1e the reports of both 

Wright and Purslow were written little available data existed indicating the flow that n1ight be expected frmn drainage basins on the 

Pacific coast, particularly in southern California. Esti1nates were 

therefore based upon observations on eastern strean1s. Since that 

2,000r--------,-------,------.,------..-----~-----, 

g Sac·ramento River watershed. 

o West portion of Peninsular watershed, San Mateo Creek. 

6 S E'ly portion of Peninsular watershed, San Mateo Creek. 

y Above S E'ly portion of Peninsular watershed, San Mateo Creek. 

xx: Cuyamaca reservoir watershed. 

~ Sweetwater reservoir watershed. 

~ Arrowhead Reservoir Co. watershed. 

~ King River watershed. 

+ o Salt Springs Valley watershed. 

s 

o Stanislaus River watershed. 

¥ Tuolumne River watershed. 

Jo San Joaquin River wate·rshed. 

FIG. I.-Diagram showing relation of rainfall to run-off for California streams. (For description sec 

page 50.) 

time, however, the United States Geological Survey has been Ineasuring California strean1s and detennining drainage areas and 

their rainfall, and there is now better infonnation available on 

this subject. The whole trend of these late strean1 1neasurmnents 

has been to show that estin1ates of run-off for southern Ca1ifornia, particularly those based on obserYations on eastern rivers 

which were previously considered as con1parahle, give excessive and 

unreliable results. \Vhile it is in1possible to predict accurately what 

the discharge frmn any given drainage basin will be, nevertheless, 

from exa1ninations 1nade of the basin of the Santa Ynez and the 

application of average conditions observed in localities smnewhat 
16 WATER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. [NO. 116. 

similar and of a nwuntaincius character, it is possible to forn1 an 

approxi1nately correct idea of the true results. Table 12 shows the 

estin1ated run-off frmn the drainage basin of the Juncal and neighboring strea1ns in detail. Frmn an extended comparison of rainfall 

data it is believed by the writer that the precipitation on average 

years in the basin of the Santa Ynez nmy possibly reach 22 inches. 

But since late records indicate less rainfall, the Santa Barbara mean 

of 16.78 is used by the author as the basis of his esti1nates in table 

12 (p. 53). Wright considers that it will be over 20 inches throughout the drainage basin, and Purslow that it will be 27 inches. The 

rainfall in the nwuntains variPs in the sa1ne ratio for wet and dry years 

as the rainfall at Santa Barbara city. The first rains are absorbed 

by the ground and retained in the soil until evaporated either fron1 

the surface or by the growing plants. It takes about 9 inches of 

rain to meet these demands, and, generally speaking, no n1aterial 

strea1n flow \viii result from a \vinter's rain unless it exceeds this 

amount, provided all of this precipitation does not occur in hard 

suceessive storms, in which event there would be run-off; usually, 

hmvever, there will be no stream flow unless thC' winter rain exceeds 

9 inches. "\\Then these de1nands of evaporation are met, the sueceeding stonns furnish nwre and nwre of a water supply for the 

strea1ns, and the per eent of rain so discharged increases in a growing ratio. 

From the studies above referred to, assuming a rainfall of 25 

inehes in this basin, it is concluded that during the year 1897-98, 

when the rainfall at Santa Barbara mnounted to 4.DD inches, there 

would have been no high-\Yater stream flow in the mountains. In 

1898-99 there would have been available at the Juncal reservoir 

1,114 acre-feet; in 1SDD-1DUO, 1,:3G7 acre-feet. This is a three-year 

1nean of s:n acre-feet, which would yield a supply of but 7:30,000 

gallons per clay, evaporation not being deduetecl. These figures, 

c01npared \vith Wright's estimated necessary supply of 4,422 acrefeet annually to 1neet future conditions reasonably within sight 

(20,000 people), show that the Juncal reservoir site and drainage 

basin \voulcl be inadequate to n1eet the de1nands of the city of Santa 

Barbara. The conclusion of vVright or of Purslow that the Juncal 

alone is a suitable source for a water supply for the city can not be 

accepted, although it 1nay be used properly as a supple1ne1ital reservoir for hold-over purposes, its \Vaters being liberated at such periods 

as 1nay be necessary to 1nake up for deficiencies in reservoir sites 

lower on the strean1. In conclusion l\fr. 'Vright makes the following 

state1nent: 

I consid<'r tlw ~unta Yrwz Rin·r abovl' tlw !!Iouth of Blue Canyon to hL· not only an 

uvailnblP Rouren of supply, but the only Rourer• possible for tlw futurt> supply of Santa 

Barbara with an ahundanec· of good potable water, for the following n•asons: 
LIPPINCOTT.] REVIEW OF EARLIER WORK BY OTHERS. 17 

1. Not only the sources of the streams but the entire river are uncontaminated by any 

of the organic wastes pertaining to civilization, and from the rugged nature of the country 

are likely to remain so. Tlw sandstone gathering-grounds are of the best class for delivering 

water free from mineral impurities. 

2. The elevation and capacity of the storage sites and the extent of the catchment insure 

an ample supply of water in all seasons. 

3. The riparian rights in that portion of the stream sought to be appropriated are merely 

nominal, as none of the summer flow above Blue Canyon ever appears on the surface as 

far down as the San Marcos rancho. The only riparian owner is therefore the owner of 

the Los Prietos y Najalayrgua rancho.!/ This right can. probably be purchased, or if not, 

can be condemned by lrgal process. 

4. Tlw t•xpansive eapacity of the district for increasing the supply to meet all possible 

demands is amph· and in excess. This feature alone, other things bring equal, should 

decide in favor of this source of supply. 

5. Storage reserYoir sites are numerous and ample. The fall of the stream being comparatively light, renders it practicable to arrest the entire flow to the extent required by 

the demand. 

6. The expense of constructing a thoroughly efficient and permanent system of works is 

no greater than would bP the cost of works of equal capacity on the coast side, and maintenance will be much less. 

I also recommend tlw construction of the works as a whole. Omitting the storage 

reservoir iA simply gambling on our good luck, viz, that we will not have a dry season this 

year or next, and so on until we do gd a dry year, whPn it will be too late to save ourselves from great discomfort and possible pecuniary loss. 

REPORT OF E. J. S. PURSLOW, r8g6. 

:Mr. Ernest .J. S. Purslow, deceased, a civil engineer, living in 

Santa Barbara at the time and employed by the Santa Barbara 

Water Company, investigated in 1896 the sa1ne questions covered 

hy Wright's report of 1889. As engineer for the water emnpany, 

he would naturally have a point of view some,vhat different fron1 

that of the representative of the city. 

Purslow states that the present Santa Barbara vVater Cmnpany, 

which consolidated the 'vater rights on :Mission Canyon and the De la 

Guerra 'veils, was incorporated in January, 1889. This was done 

in order to increase the available 'vater supply then obtained frmn 

Mission Creek by a gravity systenl of diversion, and frmn tne De la 

Guerra 'veils, located in the eity li1nits, by a ptnnping systmn. 

NEEDS OF DISTRICT. 

Purslow says : 

The pre~Pnt water supply is so inadequate and incomplete that it is a physical impossibility for the city to inerrasP in sizt• or population, or for thP surrounding country to advance 

in development, until water is procured from a source other than those in the immediate 

vicinity, which are now all used to their fullest rapacity. The scarcity of water is the first 

impression that visitors receive, and many who have desired to make this their home have 

abandoned the idea owing to the gravity of this drawback. 

a On December 22, 190:3, this ranch was included in the Santa Barbara Forest Reserve, lien scrip 

having been issued to the owners for it. 

IRR 116-0.5--2 
18 WATER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. [NO. 116. 

By the general introduction of metcrs and the most economical type of Sl'rvice taps 

the supply of ,130 gallons should he ample for all purposes; at which rate the immediate 

demand of the present population would be about 1 million gallons per diem. The total 

supply at present, during the dry months of a year with average rainfall, is about 600,000 

gallons pcr diem, about half from the Mission streams and half from the De Ia Guerra wells. 

Nothing has retarded the advance of the city so much as the condition of the water 

supply, and nothing will promote its future prosperity and growth as much as a remedy 

for this condition. The present demands of the city being upwards of 1 million gallons 

per diem, a system could not be considered adequate which will not have a capacity to 

supply at least 1,500,000 gallons per diem as soon as work can be constructed, with means 

for subsequently increasing the supply with the growth of tlw city. 

The suburbs of Santa Barbara, and the land extending easterly and westerly from the 

city, are improved only to the extent to which the waters of the small mountain streams 

have been made availahlP, principally at points adjacent to and riparian on these streams. 

West of the eity, where small quantities of water are obtained, the land is devoted principally to horticulture, and where water is not obtainable it is used as grazing and farming 

land. East of the city lies thP famed district of El Montecito, which is inhabited, to the 

extent to which the small streams can supply water, by a class of people who for the mo"lt 

part haw independent means, many of whom have built substantial and handsome houses 

and beautified their grounds, and among whom there arP enough people of intellectual 

pursuits and tastes to form a nucleus which makes it especially attractive for that class of 

people. It is primarily and distinctively a residence district. Consisting of a gPntle 

slope from the foothills toward the channel, broken and din•rsified by thP natmal watercours::-s, which, though herPft of watt•r during the summer months, an• lined with natural 

timber growth, baeked and protected on the north by the Santa Ynez Mountains, nearly 

every spot commanding a comprehensive and magnifieent view of the channel and eoast 

line and the distant islands, possessing the most equable elimate in the world and everything p}st:' which Almighty God could give exeept plenty of water, it is destim•d to become 

one of the garden spots of the world. 

Land which has \Vater is sold at from $500 to $1,000 an acre, and although land has 

very little productive value without water, sueh dry land is held and readily sold in El 

Montecito district at from $250 to $500 an acre. - In spite of the unprecedented business 

depression of the past two years, salPs of this land have been made during this period of 

some "10 tracts :·wattPrPd through this district, aggregating some 670 acres, at an average 

price of about $330 an acre. There is no other residence district in California where priers 

for bare, dry, suburban or agrieultural land have been so maintained and sales so extensively 

made during thf' past two years. EI Montecito comprises a bout 4,500 acres of land susceptible of irrigation, only a small fraction of which is supplied with water for more than domestie purposes. The duty of water here for full-bearing lemon orehards has been f'ound to be 

one miner's inch to 10 acres of land with the average soil, a miner's inch being equivalent 

to a continuous flow of 12,960 gallons per diem. .Many lemon orchards have been planted 

during the past two years on tracts of land which have appurtenant to them such small 

allowances of water that it is feared that the trees will die before reaching full maturity. 

When orchard trees are young and small a very small quantity of water suffices to moisten 

the soil immediately surrounding them: but, as they increase in size and their roots extend, 

it is necessary to use watPr enough to irrigate the whole orchard surface. The owners of 

such orchards will be compelled to purchase more water or sf'e their years of labor end in 

failure. Ornamental grounds, n•getables, oranges, and other fruits reqmre 1tbout the same 

quantity of water as lemons. a 

--------------~ ----------------- ---~- ---

a The tu~nel line from the lower reservoir sites on the Santa Ynez (see p. 41) will command all the 

lands of El Montecito as well as of the city of Santa Barbara. The elevation of the south portal 

of the present city tunnel is 1,393 feet above sea level. The new tunnel line proposed through Mission 

Canyon will be at an elevation of 1,186.46 feet (Geological Survey datum). 
LIPPIXCOTT.] REVIEW OF EARLIER WORK BY OTHERS. 19 

POSSIBLE SUPPLY. 

Purslow then proceeds to show that the proper and adequate solution of the water problmn for Santa Barbara and vicinity consists of 

the storage of the stonn waters of Santa Y nez River and their diversion by 1neans of tunnel lines to the south side of the range. He 

states that there are three available sites for storage reservoirs on 

lands owned by the water company on the Santa Ynez-one in Blue 

Canyon, \Vhich he afterwards condemns as an i1npracticable proposition because of its expense and s1nall drainage area; one on the n1ain 

river near the confluence of the Blue Canyon \vith the Santa Y nez, 

which he na1nes the l\Iain River reservoir site, and which has a large 

storage eapacity; and a third, the Juncal reservoir site, near the headwaters of the stream. 

BLUE CANYON SITE. 

He states that the Blue Canyon site is located at an elevation of 

1,500 feet above sea level, with a drainage area of only about 8 square 

n1iles. A contour survey which he made showed that a da1n 100 

feet high above the bed of the gorge would impound 1,500 n1illion 

gallons, equivalent to 4,600 acre-feet. He ad1nits that the local 

drainage naturally tributary is totally inadequate to fill i:,his reservoir. 

It would require a tunnel10,550 feet long to connect this reservoir with 

the south side of the mountains. 

MAIN RIVER SITE. 

In describing the .Main River reservoir site he said: " This is one of 

the best in California''; certainly a very singular statement for an 

engineer to Inake, in view of the faet that the \vidth of the dan1 site 

on the bed of the creek is 427 feet. He says the drainage area tributary to the Main River reservoir site is 1.50 square 1niles, ranging in 

elevation from 1,500 to 6,000 feet, 'vith a 1nean rainfall of 30 inches 

in the drainage basins and a probable minimun1 of 7 inches. Fron1 

the recent official surveys of the United States Geological Survey it 

has been definitely determined that the drainage area above this 

reservoir site is 71 square n1iles. The elevation of the bed of the canyon at the· ~fain River dam site is 1,460 feet above sea level. This 

reservoir site is of sueh elevation as to con1n1and by gravity the present 

city tunnel line, which n1.ay be extended as the outlet for the Mono 

reservoir site (see pp. 40-41). The Main River reservoir site is owned 

by the Santa Barbara Water Company and is of some merit. If a 

tunnel is carried through the range this reservoir, commanding the 

present city tunnel in elevation, n1ay ultimately be built, either by 

the water company or by its successors, thus materially adding to the 

supply for the district south of the 1nountains, which demands all the 

water possible to be obtained from Santa Y nez River. 
20 WATER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. [NO. 116. 

JUNCAL SITE. 

Purslow states that an observer was stationed at the Juncal, recording the rainfall and taking n1easurements of the flow of the stream 

during the" past winter," and that these records show that up to the 

date of writing the flow available for storage was upwards of 800 !nillion gallons (2,455 acre-feet). This quantity includes the flow of 

Alder Creek basin (2.4 square 1niles), which he proposed to divert into 

the Juncal. It can not be definitely stated what space of time he 

1neant to include within this period, but as his report bears date July 

21, 1896, it is probable that these 1neasurmnents extend frmn the 1st 

of Novmnber, 189.5, to say the 1st of July, 1896. The rainfall during 

that winter wa..;; 13.77 inches at Santa Barbara, and his conclusion can 

not be accepted that this record 1nay be taken as an approxi1nate 

1nininnun for streams in the Santa Ynez Mountains, particularly as 

there was at Santa Barbara in the 1nonth of January a precipitation 

of 6.84 inches, which should, in all probability, have yielded a flood 

condition in the strea1ns. 

Purslow's surveys of the capacity of the Juncal reservoir site practically confirm those by Wright, already stated. The site is one of considerable merit, and possibly the da1n should be built ultimately in 

connection with supplen1enting the storage capacity of the lower dams. 

The Gibraltar reservoir site, below the Mono on the trunk stream, 

however, offers a very n1uch cheaper storage capacity and a 1nuch 

larger available supply. Purslow probably overestin1ates the underflow at the Main River site. 

Purslow proposes using a riveted-steel pressure pipe line to divert 

the water to Santa Barbara; probably the life of this pipe line would 

not be n1ore than fifteen years. His detailed estimate of the cost is 

$300,000 to obtain water frmn the Juncal. The dam which he proposes is to be 100 feet high, with .a storage capacity of 1,023 1nillion 

gallons. He estimates the minimun1 season's supply as 400 million 

gallons, and considers an annual draft of 600 million gallons (equal to 

1,845 acre-feet) as the amount that 1night be obtained from the 

reservoir with that dan1. 

It is here estimated that the run-off from the Juncal would have 

been in minimun1 years as follows: 

Rtm-off from Juncal reservoir. 

Acre-feet. 

1869-70 ........ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 603 

1870-71. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 

1897-98 ........................... -.......................... 0 

1898-99 ..................................................... 1, 114 

1899-1900 .................................................... 1, 367 

It must be rmnembm·ed that these estin1ates are only approximations based upon observations on other streams somewhat similarly 
LIPPINCOTT.] REVIEW OF EARLIER WORK BY OTHERS. 21 ,. 

situated and are not absolute. However, they are believed to be fair 

conclusions from the best available data, and, using thmn, we can not 

accept the conclusion that 1,845 acre-feet of water could annually 

be withdrawn frmn this reservoir site. This, however, does not condmnn the site, if it is used in connection with the lower site to supplement the supply in dry years. It is believed that ultin1ately this 

reservoir may be constructed for this purpose, but it is not believed 

that it is wise to base a water supply for the city of Santa Barbara on 

it alone with its drainage basin of but 13 square miles. 

REPORT OF R. B. CANFIELD, 18g6. 

On July 28, 1896, Mr. R. B. Canfield, president of the Santa Barbara Water Cmnpany, n1ade a report supplemental to that of Purslow. 

Mr. Canfield's conclusions are also of interest because of his inti1nate 

and accurate knowledge of the water situation near Santa Barbara, 

on the south of the Santa Y nez Mountains. It n1ust be rmnembered 

that the n1easurmnents of Wright to which he refers were made in a 

year of excessive strean1 flow. 

Canfield says: 

Mr. Wright found all the streams east of Santa Barbara, together with Mission Creek-9 

streams in a.ll-to be yielding daily 1,650,000 gallons, and the 15 creeks west of Mission 

Creek, to and ineluding the Refugio, to be yielding daily 1,725,000 gallons, but he justly 

dismisses the idea of obtaining the needed supply from these sources as impracticable, 

partly owing to the expPI1ile of gathering and conveying the supply from so many points 

and over so long distances, and partly owing to the fact that all this water is claimed by 

riparian owners and individual water claimants and water companies organized to supply 

districts adjacent to some of the streams. It is well known that the demand for this water, 

especially in the neighborhood of this city. is beyond the capacity of all the streams to supply, 

and it is obvious that the expense of obtaining watPr from these sources would bP prohibitive. 

All the streams (excepting the flow· of the Hot Springs) on the south slope of the range 

east of Mission Creek as far as Romero Canyon, 8 miles distant, were yielding when measured in the summer of 1889 a total daily flow of 500,000 gallons, while the creeks west of 

}.fission Canyon to and including San Jose Creek, 7 miles distant, were yielding a total 

daily flow of only 47fi,OOO gallons, notwithstanding ·the comparatively abundant rainfall 

of preceding seasons. Even though these were the minimum quantities to be obtained 

in the dry season from these streams (which is far from being the case) and it were 

possible to bring them all to Santa Barbara for the supply of the city, whether hy surface 

diversion or by means of tunnels in their neighborhood, which would intercept the supplies 

and drain their channels, it would not be desirable to do so. Santa Barbara, if she could 

afford the expense necessary for the acquisition of these waters, could not afford the loss 

she would suffer by the destruction of the prosperity and beauty of her suburbs of Montecito 

and Goleta. The prosperity of Santa Barbara depends in a large measure upon that of 

the neighboring rural districts, as does theirs upon that of the city. To the extent to which 

the city deprives the suburbs of their natural water supply, it injures itself. 

During the last spring borings were made under the direction of the city engineer west 

of the city in the hope of finding considerable underground currents, hut without success. 

The subterranean waters in the eastern part of the ctiy are tapped by the wells of the 

Santa Barbara Water Company for the supply of its pumping plant; but all efforts to 

obtain the large additional supply which the city needs from these and other sources have 
22 WATER PROBLEM~ OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. [NO. 116. 

only tended to confirm the soundness of Mr. Wright's conclusion when he said: "I consider Santa Ynez River above the mouth of Blue Canyon to br not only an available 

source of supply, but the only source possible for the future supply of Santa Barbara with 

an abundance of good potablE' watf'r.'' 

Water is now sold in Santa Barbara at the rate of about 16 cents per thousand gallons 

to the city for street-sprinkling pu~poses (at the rate of $35,000 per year for 1 second-foot) 

and to private consumers at from 20 to 2.5 cents per thousand gallons, which are moderate 

rates as compared with thosr realized in some other cities in this State; and it is believed 

that although the development of the business in the future may justify some reduction of 

rates, an aYerage rate of 15 cents per thousand gallons at least can be calculated upon. 

The city requires for its imnwdiate needs at least 1,000,000 gallons of water daily, and its 

steady growth, soon to be accelerated by the completion of the railroad to San Francisco, 

will be constantly increasing this demand. 

REPORT OF J. LINN MOYER, 1902. 

MONO SITE. 

On August .5, 1902, :Mr. J. Linn :Moyer, city engineer of Santa Barbara, 1nade a report based on a reconnaissance through portions of 

the drainage basin of Santa Ynt>z River, particularly examining a new 

reservoir site suggested by ~Ir. Frank :B~. Kellogg, which the latter 

had observed on Mono Creek, the largest tributary of the upper portion of Santa Ynez River. Moyer made a favorable report on this 

situation, based on this reconnaissance, and n1ade recmnmendations 

that further exan1inations be 1nade. It was his judgn1ent that the 

reservoir site, which is called the :Mono site, was a good one and that 

the water supply available would be an1ple to meet the necessities 

of the city. Pis. III, A, and IV, A, B, show views of the Mono dan1 

and reservoir sites. He reeon1n1ended as follows: 

1. That the exact elevation of the dam site be determined in order to ascertain whether 

or not the water could be conducted to the city tunnel. 

2. That borings and excaYations he made on the dam site to ascertain the depth of bed 

rock and the quality of same. 

3. That a topographical survey be made of the reservoir basin in order to dPtermine the 

height necessary to construct the dam, and also to determine the amount and location of 

land necessary to lw purchased. 

4. That an option be obtained on the land nPcessary to he purchased, as will be shown 

by the topographical surTey. 

5. That a chemical analysis be made of the waters of Mono Cref'k. 

6. That the grade of the present eity tunnel be reduced to the lowest possible rate. 

Moyer found that a provision should be made to furnish a continuous supply of 1 million gallons per day in addition to the present flow 

of the tunnel in order to fully supply the entire present population of 

the city. 

CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM FOREGOING REPORTS. 

The foregoing reports have been reviewed in extenso because doing 

so brings these investigations up to date and also because they furnish 

a proper basis from which to start on the present investigations. It 
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER~SUPPLY PAPER NO. 116 Pl. IV 

A. MONO DAM SITE, LEFT ABUTM E NT. 

R . MONO CREEK RESERVOIR SITE. 

View upstream from dam s1te. 
LIPPINCOTT.] POPULATION AND CONSUMPTION Olf WATER. 23 

will be seen that all of these distinguished authorities, each one of 

whon1 was intimately acquainted with the local situation, agree on 

the following vital points: 

1. That the present supply of water for the city of Santa Barbara 

is inadequate and that unless it is increased the n1aterial developInent of the town will be seriously in1peded. 

2. That there is no adequate water supply within a reasonable 

limit of the city of Santa Barbara on the south side of the range from 

which the city could be supplied, and even if the water of such sn1all 

streams as there are could be obtained it would be at a sacrifice of 

existing developn1ent. 

3. That it is feasible and desirable to obtain an adequate supply of 

water fron1 the drainage basin of Santa Ynez River, and that this can 

be done at a profit. 

The writer has, therefore, taken up the consideration of the subject 

at this point and prepared estimates of cost, etc. 

POPULATION AND CONSU~IP'riON OF WATER. 

The population of Santa Barbara, according to the enumeration of 

the United States Census, is as follows: 

Population of Santa Barbara. 

1870.-------------------------------------------------------- 2, 889 

1880.------- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 3, 460 

1890.-------------------------------------------------------- 5, 864 

1900.-------------------------------------------------------- 6, 587 

1905 (estimated) _____________________________________________ 10,000 

1910 (estimated) _____________________________________________ 12, 500 

The rate of growth of Santa Barbara 'vas n10st rapid from 1880 to 

1890, but it has ahvays shown a substantial increase in population. 

Projecting it into the future we obtain the populations for 1905 and 

1910 as stated above. It is believed by the other engineers, as 'vell 

as the writer, that the development of the city is largely dependent 

upon an adequate water supply, not only in the city hut upon the 

adjacent suburban property. If this is once obtained it 1nay be 

expected that the population will n10re rapidly increase. An10ng 

people looking for future honws, espeeially in the West, the water 

question is considered one of prime i1nportance in the selection of a 

residence. At present (1903) the Inunieipal waterworks has son1e 

709 taps through which water is served, and the Santa Barbara 

Water Cmnpany has about 900, 1naking a total of 1 ,609 taps, serving 

a population of about 8,045 persons. The Gates systmn supplies 50 

taps n10re. 

In ~-fay, 1902, 301 n1eters of the n1unicipal waterworks indieated 

81 gallons per capita daily consumption. In June, 1902, 329 n1eters 
2:1: WATER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL [NO. 116. 

indicated a eonsumption of 82 gallons per eapita. In .July, 1902, 369 

1neters indieated a eonsun1ption of 75.5 gallons per eapita per day. 

It will be seen that 55 per cent of the eity's services are 1netered. 

It is estimated that 15 gallons per eapita per day, not jncluded in the 

above rate, are used in publie buildings and in street sprinkling. It 

would probably be fair to say, using round nun1bers, that the present 

consun1ption of the eity is 100 gallons per eapita per day. This is a 

rather low rate of eonsumption for a California city, and in all probability the city would use to advantage nwre \Vater if it were available at reasonable prices. The consumption in Los Angeles before 

meters were introdueed, in the summer of Hl01, was 306 gallons per 

capita per day. After the introduction of several thousand 1neters it 

is now 242 gallons per capita per day. The water conunissioners of 

that city in their annual report for 1902 estimate that a reasonable 

constnnption \vould be 150 gallons per capita per day for 1netered 

services. The eity of San Jose, in 1890, \Vas using 194 gallons per 

eapita daily. Wright, in his report to the city, estin1ated on a consumption of 200 gallons, and Purslow considered that 130 gallons 

should be sufficient. 

Considering the evidenee in the case, it is believed that i_t is desirable, for the proper development of the city, improven1ents of lawns, 

gardens, ete., that 150 gallons daily, as an average for the year, should 

be used, and this has bel:'n adopted as a proper basjs for this report. 

In considering the storage of flood waters necessary to 1neet this 

situation, it has been estimated that 60 per eent of the water supply 

would be used in the six sunnner months, and 40 per eent in the 

six winter nwnths. The question of evaporation fron1 reservoirs 

is an important one in estimating on a storage system. It is believed 

that the annual evaporation from reservoirs in the basin of the 

Santa Ynez \votlld be approximately 42 inches in depth, 67! per 

eent of this oceurring in the six summer months, and 32~ per cent 

in the six winter nwnths. Frmn a study of the n1onthly rainfall 

tables of precipitation occurring at Santa Barbara (see table 11) 

it appears that there ·would, in all probability, have been no 1naterial 

addition to the waters stored in any reservoirs in this locality from 

May 1, 1876, to Deeember 1, 1877, a period of nineteen n1onths. 

Again, between April 1, 1S97, and October 1, 1898, or for a period 

of eighteen months, there would have been no 1naterial addition. 

It will be necessary, therefore, in order to prepare for the worst condition that will probably occur in the future, as judged by a reeord 

of thirty-!')ix years' rainfall in the past, .to eonstruet reservoirs that 

will hold a supply of water for a period of nineteen nwnths of eontinuous withdrawal without replenishn1ent. 

With a population of 10,000 persons in 1905, reasonably within 

sight and necessary to imn1ediately prepare for, at 150 gallons per 
LIPPINCOTT.) NEAR-BY SUPPLlES. 25 

day, there will he a consun1ption of 1,500,000 gallons daily. This 

an1ount of water "\Vithdrawn for a period of nineteen nwnths will 

require 2,826 a ~wre-feet for actual dmnestic uses. It is also necessary to provide for a loss _by evaporation of about 692 acre-feet 

(for a reservoir of this size for nineteen Inonths), or a total of 3,.518 

acre-feet for use and evaporation during the worst period of drought 

that the city will probably ever have to faee. 

Reducing it to a 1nonthly withdrawal, there will be required for 

summer use 170 acre-feet, for sununer evaporation about 45 acrefeet, and for sun11ner use and evaporation 215 acre-feet. 

From surveys that have been n1ade of the reservoirs, described 

later in this report, it appears that a da1n 85 feet high at the Mono 

site, impounding water to a depth of 7 5 feet, will give storage eapaeity for 3,880 acre-feet of water-enough to 1neet the above needs, 

even asstnning the severe eonclusions that no pennanent supply 

can be relied upon frmn the tunnel, and that the 1nunieipality is 

to furnish all the water for the town. Si1nilarly a dan1 100 feet 

high at the Gibraltar site (see p. 55) would give an equal eapaeity 

and have tributary thereto a larger and better water supply. 

NEAR-BY SUPPLIES. 

The question of local water supply on the south side of the range 

was extensively discussed under the review of the reports of Wright, 

Purslow, and Canfield. Generally speaking, the an1ount now 

available for the city Jnay he taken in average years as 300,000 

gallons daily frmn ~fission Creek, 300,000 gallons frmn the De la 

Guerra wells (statement by Purslow), and 350,000 gallons from 

the city tunnel, Inaking 950,000 gallons to n1eet an estimated norn1al 

present de1nand of 1,200,000b gallons, or a deficit daily of 250,000 

gallons. 

a One acrP-foot is e,quivalent to a25,8.')1 gallons. 

bOn basis of lW gallons per <lay for s,mo persons. 
26 WATER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. [NO. 116. 

MISSION CREEK. 

The following 1neasurements of l\1ission Creek taken at variOus 

times, as stated, may be of interest in this connection: 

TABLE 4.-Discharge rneasurements on ·M·iss-ion Greek. 

____:_·"· -~~-- Hydrographer. Discharge I Gallons per in secondfeet.u , __ d_a_y_. __ 

1 

Ja~888;51 A. Poott ................... _____ ..... . 

24 , ___ .. do. _______________________________________ _ 

Feb. 7 . _ . _do. _______________________________________ _ 

Mar. 16 ____ do. _______________________________________ _ 

July 26 ___ .do. _______________________________________ _ 

29 ___ .. do. _____________________________________ _ 

1889. 

July 13 ___ .. do. _______________________________________ _ 

17 ____ .do. _______________________________________ _ 

Aug. 

181 ~: ~~~~:~i~~t~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Sept. 1 _ .... do. _________ .. __ _ 

1892. 

June 11 

1894. 

__ .. do .. ____________ ....... ______________________ _ 

June 28 Flourney. ______________________________________ _ 

1900. 

~fay 10 . ___ .do ______ . _____________________ . ___________ _ 

June 17 L. ~Ioyer ___ . __________________________________ _ 

a One second-foot is equivalent to 50 miner's inches. 

z, Above diversion not on bed rock. 200 feet above dam. 

TABLE 5.-Measurements 1·n Jfission Canyon. 

[50 miner's inches=l cubic foot per second.] 

0.93 

2.80 

1. 37 

2.23 

.36 

.28 

. 43 

. 3() 

. 34 

. 21 

. 32 

. 36 

.24 

. 2.5 

.0-!.5 

605,594 

18,200,000 

888,552 

1,452,000 

233,000 

184,747 

282,609 

232,551 

219,672 

137,052 

206,821 

232,673 

155, 115 

161,600 

b 29,084 

AT NOTCHED WEIR NEAR PORTAL OF PROPOSED NEW CITY MISSION TUNNEL. 

Date. Tinw. Hydrographer. I 

------ 1----------~ ---------

1903. 

Aug. 14 

15 

15 

1.5 

15 

15 

2. 30 p. m ________ R. L. North and J. Compton _______________ .. 

8. 30 a. nL _______ .. _ . _do __ . ________ . __ . ____ . ___ .. ______ .. _ .. 

9 a. nL ...... _ ... '- . _ . _do .. ___________ . _ .. _ . __ . _ . _ ... ____ . __ _ 

9.30 a. nL ___ . ___ ', ____ .do .. ___ . ____ . _. _____ . ___ . ______ . __ . _-. 

10 a. Ill. ____ . _________ do .. __ . ________ . _____ . ___ . __ .. _ .... _ --

10.30 a. Ill. ___________ do ... _ . _ . ___ . _________________ . __ ...... ' 

Discharge 

in inchf's. 

6.367 

9.474 

8.817 

8.817 

8.689 

8.140 
LIPPINCOTT.) MISSION CREEK. 27 

TABLE 5.-Jf'easurements in Mission Canyon-Continued. 

AT NOTCHED WEIR NEAR PORTAL OF PIWPOSED NEW CITY MISSION TUNNEL-C't'd. 

------~------------~----------------------------------~------

Date. Time. Hydrographer. Discharge 

in inches. 

-------'-------------l------------------------------------l-------

1903. 1 

Aug. 15j' 

15 . 

11 a.m .......... R. L. North and J. Compton ................ . 

11.30 a. nL ...... 1 ..... do .............................. -------

15 12 llL ................ do .... __ .............................. . 

15112.30 p. n1. ........... do .......... __ ._. ___ .. __ .... __ .. ____ .. . 

15 , 1 p. nL ............... do ..................................... . 

15 1.30 p. nL ............ do ............................. _ ...... . I 

15 1 2 p. nL ............... do .................................... . 

15 2.30 p. nL ............ do ........ ______________ .... __________ . 

15 3. P· nL _ .... _ .... _ .. _do ... ______ . -- -. -. -... -- -.. - -. -- -- -- -- -I 

1.5 3.30 p. m. __ .. ____ .... do .. ____ . _________ ._._ .... ___ . __ .. __ ._-: 

15 -1 p. nL ___ . _______ ... , do. __________ . __ . _ . _ . __ . __ .. ______ . __ . _: 

. / 

:: I : :o ~;_ "'~: : : : : : : :~_:: ;:: : : : ---____: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :I 

AT OLD MISSION DAM. 

7.823 

7.832 

7.242 

6.959 

6.363 

6. 109 

5.600 

.5. 359 

5.220 

4.851 

4.851 

4.851 

5.042 

Au

1

;

03;216.30 p.m ........ I L. M. llyde and R. L. North .... -.---.-----·-· 0.909 

4. 762 

8.333 

6.896 

23 9.10a. nL ....... 1 ..... do .................................... . 

24 8.25 a. nL __ ... _ _ L. M. Hyde, R. L. North, and G. D. Morrison .. _._ 

24 6.15 p. IlL __ .. ___ .... _do .... _ . __ ......... ___ ..... _ . _ .. _ .... __ ' 

25 7.45 a. nL ....... L. )L Hyde and R. L. North ................. . 

27 ! 7.15 a. nL ... __ .. R. L. North, R. F. ·wyckoff, and G. D. Morrison .. _ 

A'r NOTCHED WEIR AS ABOVE. 

10. ()()() 

10. ()()() 

--------,--------------------------------------------------c----

1903. 

1 Aug. 27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

8.30 a. m. __ . ___ . 

9 a. IlL ......... _ 

R. L. North and R. F. Wyckoff ..... __ ... ___ ... 

1 

~ : ~ ~ ;~~ : : ~ : : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ : : : : : : : : : : ~I 1 p. nL ........ . 

1

1.30 p: IlL. - .. - -

2 p. m _________ _ 

I ~-:. ;:; '" : : : : : : : : : : : ~:: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 

9.080 

9.080 

7.070 

6.420 

5. 750 

5.750 

5.410 

4.950 

4.990 

4.990 

4. 810 

3.30 p. IlL ___ .. __ . __ .. do. _ . __ . ____ ... ___ .. ___ .... ___ ..... __ _ 

: :. :~: "'_-: --: : : : -: : £ -:: -: :- :: --:: :: -: :- -: :: :: -: : : : : --: -: i 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

:·· 

.. .. . . 

••••••••• 'l ••• •• • • • •• • • 

: .. :. : : : : :: .. :: .··:·. : .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .... . 

" . • • • 

. . . • •• a • •., • • .. . ... . ... . . . . .. 
28 W A'l'ER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. 

TABLE 5.-Measurements in Mission Canyon-Continued. 

AT OLD MISSION DAM. 

Date. Time. Hydrographer. 

-----1--------1-----------------

1903. 

[No.116. 

Discharge 

in inches. 

Oct. 3 f2.20 p.m ....•... J. L. Moyer, T. B. Curley, and D. Boyle.......... 5. 320 

I 

AT NOTCHED WEIR AS ABOVE. 

1903. I 

Oct. 19 

19 ~-;~ :· ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~~ -~~~~~-e- ~~~- ~~ ~-- ~l~i~~~---_·_· _· ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. 19 9 a. 111. •••••••••• 1 

••••• do ................................... . 

19 9.30 a. 111 ..•••.•• 1 ..... do ................................... . 

19 10 a. In ............... do ................................... . 

19 10.30 a. nL ........... do ................................... . 

19 11 a.m ............... do ................................... . 

19 

19 :~·:_·: ~L: :::: :!:::: :~::: :::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::: 

19 12.30 p. m ............ do ................................... . 

19 1 p. n1. ............... do ................................... . 

19 1.30 p. n1. ............ do ................................... . 

19 2 p. Ill ................ do ................................... . 

19 2.30 p. m... . . . . . C. M. Elliott. .............................. . 

19 3 p. nL ............... do ..................................... j 

19 

19 

19 ;~ :<:~::- -_ -:::-- _:::-: --:::::--:--:::: :_ ::-_ :::: _- :--::-:I 

19 .5 p. nL..... .. .. . ... do .................................... . 

Nov. 4 8.30 a. n1....... G. D. Morrison ............................ . 

4 9 a. Ill.......... . ... do ................................... . 

4 9.30 a. nL....... . ... do ................... _ ............... . 

4 10 a. n1.......... . ... do ................................... . 

4 1 

10.30 a. m ............ do .................................... . 

4 : 11 a. nL .............. do .................................... . 

: I ~~ -~~- ~~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ : : ~ : : ~ ~ ::: ~ ~ : :: : : :: : : : : : ~ ~: :: ~ : :: :: ~ ~ : : ~ ~ ~ : ~ : ~II 

7.532 

7.356 

6. 742 

6.314 

6. 158 

6.003 

6.003 

5.803 

5.600 

5.317 

5.042 

4.810 

4.591 

4. 591 

4.378 

4.255 

4. 169 

4. 169 

3.970 

8.817 

8.753 

7. 708 

7.416 

7. 187 

6.852 

6.792 

6.579 

4 12.30 p. m ............ do .................................. 0 • 0 6. 579 

4 1p.mo .. o .. o.ooo ooo •. do ............................ oo.o··o·O' 6.261 

4 1.30 p. 111. •••••••••••• do ............... 0 ••••••••••••• 0. 0 00 00. 6. 003 

; ~.~ \:. ::: : : : : : :I: : : : : ;~: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :: :: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :I 

: :. . . ·.: .. ·. :. ·. ~ :. · ... : .. ·. . . : : : .. : .. ·. · ..... :: · .. ·.: · .. : .. : · .. :.:: ·.·.: . :: .. · .. · . . ... .. ...... . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. ··· .. •! , ··~· ......... . 

... · ·.:· .. ·--.:: : .. · 

6.003 

5.853 

5.903 

5.600 
LIPPINCOTT.) MISSION ORE EK. 

TABLE 5.-.Measurements in Mission Canyon-Continued . 

.AT NOTCHED WEIR AS ABOVE-Continued. 

29 

------------c-----------------------.,----

Date. 

1!)03. 

Nov. 4 

4 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

Dec. 24 

24 

24 

Time. Hydrographer. 

4 p.m ...... ____ . G. D. Morrison. ____ ........ __ .. __ .. __ ...... . 

::~~ ~: :::~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i- ~.-~ ~~y·c~;~ _-_ -_ -_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 a. m. . . . . . . . . . . . .... do .••..... __ ... _ ...... _ ... _ ........... . 

9.30 a. nL _ ........... do ...... _ .......... _ ................. _. 

10 a. nL .. _ ........... do ........ _ .. _ .... _ .. _ ... _ ... _ ........ . 

10.30 a. nL _ .......... do._ .. __ .. __ .. __ .. __ ...... _ .. __ .. _ .... . 

11 a. nL ......... _ .. _.do._ .. __ .. __ .. __ .. __ ... _._ ... _ ........ . 

11.30 a. IlL ........... do._ .. __ ... _ ... _ ............. _ ........ _ 

12 111 ••• _ •••••••• _ •• _.do._ .. __ .. __ ... _ ......... _ . _ . _ .. _ ..... _ 

12.30 p. nL ___ . __ I ____ .do. ___________________________________ _ 

~ -~~ ~~1-- :~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~I 2 p. IlL •....•.••• 

2.30 p. IlL .•••••• 

3p. ffi __________ _ 

3.30 p. IlL. - -- -- -

.... do .. ________ -------- __________________ . 

.... do .. ____ ---- .. ______ .. __________ .. ____ _ 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~! 4 p. nL .. ___ . ___ . ____ do. _________________ .. __ . ___________ . __ 

4.30 p. 111. _...... ___ .do. ___ .. _ .. _ ................. _ ..... _ .. . 

8.30 a. nL _ .... _. R. L. North._ .. __ ... _ ....... _ ........... _ .. . 

9 a. IlL _ .. _ ... __ . . . __ do. __ . __ .. _ .... _ .................... _ .. 

9.30 a. nL _ .. ___ . . . _.do._ ... _ .. __ .. _ ........ _ ........... _ .. . 

10 a. nL .. _ ... __ . . . _.do .... __ .. __ ... _ .......... _. __ .. _ ... __ 

10.30 a. nL .. _ .. _ _ __ .do._ .... __ ._ ....... _._ ... ___ . _______ . __ 

11 a. nL _ ... __ . ___ .. _ . do .. __ ...... __ .... _ ... _ .. _ ....... __ .. _ I 

11.30 a. IlL ....•. 1 ...•• do. ___ ... ___________ . ___ .. ____________ _ 

12m .... _. __ .... I ... _ .do .... __ .. __ .. _ ........... _. __ ....... _ 

1 p. nL _ ... _ .......... do ................................... . 

1.30 p. m. __ .......... do .................................... . 

2 p. m .... _...... . ... do .................................... . 

~-:~ :~- :~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - 3.30 p. nL __ . _ .. __ .. _ . do. __ .. _ .. __ .. __ . _ ... _ ... ____________ _ 

4 p. nL .. __ . __ ... _ .. _.do._ .. __ .. ___________________________ _ 

4.30 p. m .. _ . _ ... I _ .. __ do. __ ...... _ .. _ ... _ .. _ . _ . ___ . ________ _ 

5 p. m. _ ......... i .••.. do._ ............................. _ ... . 

10.30 a. m....... G. D. Morrison. __ .. __ .......... _ ... ___ .... . 

11 a.m ... __ .. __ ...... do ................................... . 

11.30 a.m ...... -,- .... do ...................•..•............. 

Discharge 

in inches. 

5.750 

5.600 

8.689 

7.945 

7.299 

7.242 

6. 595 

6. 792 

6.687 

6.420 

6.314 

6.314 

5.853 

5.600 

5.269 

5. 131 

4. 9.50 

4. 8.51 

4.680 

6.370 

6.690 

6.000 

.5. 900 

.5. 6.50 

5.6.50 

5.510 

5. 510 

5.040 

4. 8.50 

4. 720 

4.680 

4.680 

4.340 

4.300 

4.130 

3.970 

7.470 

6.560 

6.370 
30 WATER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. [No.116. 

TABLE 5.-Measurements in Mission Canyon-Continued. 

AT NOTCHED WEIR AS ABOVE-Continued. 

Date. Time. 

I 

H h ydrograp er. ~~~ in inches. 

----!--------------------------1----

1 12 nL .......... . 

1903. 

Dec. 24 G. D. Morrison ............................. . 

24 12.30 p. nL. . . . . . . ... do .................................... . 

24 1 p. IlL......... . ... do .................................... . 

24 1.30 p. nL. . . . . . . ... do .................................. _ .. 

2412 p. IlL..... . . . . . ... do ......... __ ... _ .. _ ..... ____________ . _' 

24 1 2.30 p. nL. . . . . . . . ... do ................................... . 

24 3 p. n1. ......... _ .... do ................................... . 

24 3.:30 p. IlL...... . ... do ................................... . 

24 4 p. nL......... . ... do ................................... . 

1904. 

Feb. 29 11.15 a. n1...... L. l\1. Hyde ............................... . 

Mar. 14 3.30 p. rn....... . ... do .................... _ .............. . 

AT OLD .MISSION DAM. 

1904 1 1 

Apr. 4 ;- ................ 

1 

L. l\1. Hyde ................................ . 

TABLE 6.-1lfeasurements in Rattlesnake Canyon. 

6. 210 

6. 160 

6. 160 

5.950 

5.600 

5.460 

5.320 

5.080 

5.040 

18. 190 

16. 310 

16.670 

AT NOTCHED WEIR ABOUT 200 FEET UPSTREAM FROM WHERE WATER IS DIVERTED 

FOR SANTA BARBARA WATER SUPPLY. 

[.50 miner's inches=l cuhic foot per second.] 

Date. Time. Hydrographer. 

I 

Discharge 

in inches. 

-----1-------1--------------------------

1903. 

Aug. 17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

8.30 a. rn........ R. L. North and J. Compton ................. . 

9 a. nL.. . . . . . . . . . ... do ...................... _ ............. . 

9.30 a. nL....... . ... do .................................... . 

10 a. rn......... . ... do .................................... _, 

10.30 a. nL. . . . . . . ... do ....................... - ... - ...... -- . [ 

~ ~ _;~ :.-~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : i 

I 12 rn ........... 1 

••••• do .................................... . 

12.30 p.m ...... ,. _ ... do .................................... . 

1 p. m...... . . . . r-- ••• do ................................... . 

1.30 p.m....... . ... do ........ _ .......................... . 

2 p.m.......... . ... do ................................... . 

2.f/J7 

2.596 

2.507 

2.216 

2.216 

2.216 

2.261 

2.261 

2.216 

2.261 

2.216 

2.216 
LIPPINCOTT.] MISSION CREEK. 31 

TABLE li-M easuremenfs in Rattlesnake Canyon-Continued. 

AT NOTCHED WEll{ ABOlTT ::!00 FEET UPSTREAM FROM WHERE WATER IS DIVERTED 

FOR SANTA BARBARA WATER SUPPLY-Continued. 

Date. Time. I Hydrographer. Discharge 

in inches. 

1903. 

Aug. 17 2.30 p.m ........ I R. L. North and J. Compton ................ . 2. 132 

2.080 

2.080 

2.080 

2.080 

17 

17 

17 

17 

3 p. nL __________ I _____ do. ___________________________________ _ 

3.30 p. IlL ____________ do ____________________________________ _ 

-! p. IlL _____ . ___ • 1• ____ do. ________________________ ..... __ ..... 

4.30 p. nL _______ , I ____ .do. _____________________________ . ______ _ 

17 ,5 p. IlL .......... 1 •••• do ..•...•............. -- -. -... - - -... -- -i 2. 216 

Oct. 3 3.-!.5 p. IlL______ J. L. Moyer, T. B. Curley, and D. Boyll'. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2. 261 

Nov. 

19 8.30 a. uL , ___ . . R. L. North. _____________ .. _. ____ .. __ . ______ : 1. 772 

19 9 a. m. ________ . ____ do. ____________________ . ________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ 1. 627 

Hl 9.:30 a. IlL _____ ._ _ __ .do.____________________________________ 1. -!92 

19 10 a.m. _______ . ___ .do.____________________________________ 1. 582 

Hl 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 

10.30 a. IlL _- __________ do. __________________________________ _ 

11 a. nL _____________ .do. __________________________________ _ 

11.30 a. IlL _____ . _____ do. _____________________ . ____________ _ 

12 nL _______________ .do. _____________ ; ____________________ _ 

12.30 p. nL ______ ' ____ .do. __________________________________ _ 

1 p. I IlL _________ .

1

. ___ .do. __________________________________ _ 

1.30 p. nL _______ : _____ do. __________________________________ _ 

Hl ! 2 p. nL __________ : _____ do. __________________________________ _ 

19 2.30 p. IlL ___________ .do. ___________________________________ _ 

19 3 p. nL ____________ ._.do. ___________________________________ . 1 

19 3.30 p. nL ____________ do. ____________________________________ I 

19 4 p. nL ______________ .do. ___________________________________ . 1 

Hl 4.30 p. IlL _______ i _____ do. ___________________________________ _ 

19 

') 

'-' 

fi p. nL __________ I _____ de. _____________ . __ .----- ___ --- .. _. _ -.. : 

9.30 a. nL _______ G. D. Morri~OIL ____________________________ _ 

3 10 n. IlL ______________ do. ____________________________________ , 

3 10.30 a. m ____________ do. ___________________________________ _ 

3 11 a. 111. _________ · _____ do ____________________________________ _ 

3 11.30 a. nL __________ .do. ___________________________________ _ 

3 12 m. ___________ : ____ .do. _____ . _____________________________ _ 

3 12.30 p. nL ______ : _____ do. ___________________________________ _ 

3 1 p. nL __________ I _____ do. ___________________________________ _ 

3 1.30 p. m. _______ 1 _____ do. ___________________________________ _ 

3 2 p. IlL _______________ do. ___________________________________ _ 

3 2.30 p. nL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ do. ___________________________________ _ 

3 3 p. nL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ .do. ___________________________________ _ 

3 i 3.30 p. m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ do. ____________________________________ ' 

3 4 p. m .. ___ . . . . . _ ... do ........... _____ ..................... I 

1.471 

1. .582 

1. .582 

1. 302 

1. 448 

1. 403 

1. 242 

1.471 

1. 302 

1. 262 

1. 403 

1.514 

1. 448 

1.514 

1.871 

1. 847 

1. 897 

1. 822 

1. 797 

l. 797 

1. 746 

1. 772 

1. 772 

1. 651 

1. 746 

1. 722 

1. 722 

1. 772 
32 WATER PROBLEMS OE' SANTA BARBARA, CAL. (NO. 116. 

TABLE 6.-Jfeasurements in Rattlesnake Canyon-Continued. 

AT NOTCHED WEIR ABOUT200 FEET UPSTREAM FROM WHERE WATER IS DIVERTED 

FOR SANTA BARBARA WATER SUPPLY-Continued. 

Date. Time. Hydrographer. 

HJO::l. 

Nov. 3 1 4.30 p. IlL _______ G. D. Morrison. _____ . ___________ ._ ... _____ .. 

Dec. 

~~ I ~.;~I:~- :1~~::::::: -~· -~~~~~--c~~:~---_- _-::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

l.5 10 a. nL _ .... _ . _ ....... do ... _ . _ ............................ _ .. 

15 , 10.30 a. m .......... _.do .. ~._ ........ _ .... _ .. _ ............ _ .. 

U5 · 11 a. 111. .•.•... __ ... _ • do .............. _ ... _ .. _ .. _ .... _ .. · .... . 

15 11.30 a. 111. •••• __ ••••• do ........ _ ... _ ..... _ ..... _ ......... _ .. 

1.5 12 nL __ .. ______ . __ . _do .. ___ ............ _ . _ ................ . 

1.5 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

1.5 

15 

1.5 

28 

28 

28 

28 

2g 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

23 

23 

23 

1::uo p.m .... __ .... do._ ..... ___ :. ____ .................... . 

1 p. Ill_ _____ -·.- .... do ...... __ .. __ ........................ . 

1.30 p. Ill.-- -- -- .... do ...... __ .. ____ ...................... . 

2 p. 111. _ .. _ .• __ • • • __ do. __ . _ ...... _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . ____ . _ . _ .... __ .. 

2.ao p. n1. _. __ • _ __ .. do ..... _____ . __ . _ .. _. _ .. _ ............. . 

3 p. n1. _. __ • _ • . . _ •..• do ..... _ . _ . _ .. _ . _ ................... _ . _ 

3.;30 p. IlL .•••• _. _. __ .do .. __ .. _ ...... _._ .. __ ._ .. _ ... _ ....... . 

4 p. nL ___ .. _ .... ___ . _do. __ . _ . _ . _ ... _ .. _ ... _ . _ ............. __ 

4.30 p. nL. __ .. _ _ __ .. do ..... __ .. _. __ ................ __ ..... . 

8.30 a. 111. _ .••• _. G. D. Morrison._. ___ .. _. __ .. _ ..... _._ .... _._ 

9 a. IlL ____ • _ •. _ _ _ ·. _do .. ___ ... _ . _ ........ _ ......... _ . ____ . _ 

9.30 a. n1. -.-.... . __ .do ..... _ ... ___ . __ ._ .......... ______ ._ .. 

10 a. IlL_. __ ..•. ____ .do .. ___ .. __ . __ .. _ ... _._ ... __ .. __ .... _._ 

10.30 a. nL .. _. _ .. _.do._ .. _. __ . ____ ._ .... _ ... _ .. ____ .. _ .. _. 

11 a. nL ___ .. __ _ 

11.30 a. n1. _ .. .. 

12m .......... . 

12.30 p. m. _ ... _ 

1 p. lll ........ -· 

1.30 p. IlL..----

2 p. IlL ....... .. 

2.3!') p. Ill ..... -· 

3 p. Ill. ----. -- --

3.30 p. IlL. . -- --

4 p. Ill. ........ . 

9 a. rn. ____ . _ .. . 

9.30 a.m ... __ .. 

10a.m ....... .. 

.... do .......... __ .......... ________ ...... . 

.... do ................ __ ...... __ .......... _ 

.. _·_do ...... ____ ...... ·-·-·-······ ____ .... _ 

.... do ...... __ ................ __ .......... . 

.... do ........................ -----·---- .. - 1 

.... do .................... ______ .......... _ 

.... do._ ...... __ .......................... . 

.... do .......................... ____ ...... . 

__ .. do .... __ .. __ ................ __ ........ . 

__ .. do .... __ .. ______ ............ __ ...... __ _ 

.... do ........ __ .. ____ .................... . 

.... do. ___ .... ____ .............. __ ......... ! 

___ .do._ ...... __ .......... ____ .. __ ........ . 

.... do. ___ .... ____ .. __ .. ·-·--- .. ____ .. ---·· 

Disch~~rgc 

in inches. 

1. 772 

2.360 

2.360 

2.272 

2. 160 

2. 160 

2. 132 

2. 132 

2.080 

2.080. 

2.080 

1. 972 

2.051 

2.080 

2.051 

2.051 

2.080 

2. 160 

2.110 

2.030 

2. 0.10 

2.000 

1. 950 

1. 950 

1. 900 

1. 950 

1.900 

1. 850 

1. 820 

1. 820 

1. 770 

1. 720 

1. 750 

2.510 

2.510 

2.480 

23 10.30 a. m ...... _ ... _do. ____ . __ . ____ . _ ... ____ . _ .... ___ .. _ . _. 2. 480 

23 11 a. 111. •.•••••••••. do ................................... ,, 2.300 

23 11.30 a. m. . . . . . . ... do ........... - .. -........ - . - -......• ~,, ~. 860 
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

A 

B 

c 

WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO, 116 PL. Y 

--- - -:: --- --li \C) 

I 

I 

BULKHEAD AND DISCHARGE PIPES IN OLD CITY TUNNEL, COLD SPRINGS CANYON. 

A, End view; B, plan; (', longitudinal section. 
LIPPINCOTT.] DE LA GUERRA WELLS. 33 

TABLE ll.-Measnrements in Rattlesnake Canyon-Continued. 

AT NOTCHED WEill ABOUT 200 FEET UPSTREAM FROM \VIIEHE WATER IS DIVERTED 

FOH SANTA BAHBARA WATER SUPPLY-Continued. 

Date. Time. Hydrographer. Discharge 

in inches. 

-----· 1-------------l----------------------------------j------

1903. 

Dec. 23 12m ____________ [ G. D. Morrison______________________________ 2.360 

I 23 12.30 p. nL. _______ ... do .. __________________ ._............... 2. 270 

23 1 p. nL _______________ do. _____________________ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 270 

23 1.30 p. nL ____________ do. ___________________________ . _ . _ ... _ 2. 330 

23 2 p. IlL ______________ .do. ______________________ ... ___ ._.____ 2. 360 

23 : 2.30 p. m. ____________ do. ___________________ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 360 

23 3 p. nL _______________ do. _________________ . ___ ............... , 2. 360 

23 3.30 p. nL ______ ! ___ .do. _________________ . __ ...... - ... -.--._' 2. 390 

23 4 p. UL ________ . ___ .do_ ... _ .. _ .................... -....... _! 2. -!50 

i 

L. :M. Hydl'.--- -- -- -- -................. -. -- .I 12. 460 

1904. 

Apr. 7 1.4.5 p. m ...... . I 

DE LA GUERRA WELLS. 

At the De la Guerra pu1nping station there are seven cased wells 

fron1 200 to 700 feet deep. These diseharge into a eonerete well 25 

feet in dia1neter and 30 feet deep, having a capacity of 110,160 gallons. This well fills during the night and is pumped out during the 

day. If the wells are considered as discharging as nnlCh during the 

clay as they do during the night when the tank is filling, their flow 

at present is about 220,000 gallons daily and is (in 1903) decreasing. 

As the pumps run more than twelve hours each day the output is correspondingly greater. There is installed at this station one Prescott 

ptnnp of 11 million gallons nominal capacity and one Worthington 

pump of 1 1nillion gallons capacity daily. The pu1nps discharge 

directly into the city n1ains and work against a pressure head of 

tron1 100 to !20 pounds. Mr. Wright states that in August, 1889, 

a six-day test of these wells indicated a capacity of 600,000 gallons 

daily. It is stated that these wells afterwards failed and that deeper 

wells were then sunk, fr01n which the present supply is now obtained. 

CITY TUNNEL. 

In the 1nonth of January, 1896, the city of Santa Barbara started a 

tunnel for the developn1ent of water in sec. 36, T. 5 N., R. 26 W., San 

Bernardino meridian. The tunnel has been successful in this particular and has been of inestin1able service to the city in sustaining it 

through the period of intense drought of the last few years. The 

tunnel is 7 feet high and 5 feet wide at the base. The elevation of 

IRR 116 -05---3 
34 WATER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. [NO. 116. 

the portal is approximately 1,400 feet above sea level, and it was 

driven for the first 4,800 feet of its !ength on a grade of 1 foot in 100. 

The purpose in running the tunnel at first was solely to develop water 

and not with the intention of extending it on through the mountains. 

It will be noted from the table of discharge that during its construction the discharge was surprisingly constant, irrespective of length. 

Enough water is thus obtained for a number of consun1ers, but not 

enough to supply a large town or city. The amount of water which 

was extracted frorn the rnountain was sufficient to pay for the cost of 

the excavation. It is quite possible that in years of ordinary rainfall the unregulated flow of water fron1 the tunnel would have been 

more constant, but the years of construction were ones of unusual 

drought. However, frorn the fact that the 'vater supply has not been 

materially increased by lengthening the tunnel, and that the flow 

of the water pays for the cost of the work, it has been a natural and 

logical sequence that the city should contemp1ate the extension of 

this or some other tunnel entirely through the Coast Range into the 

drainage basin of the Santa Y nez in order to n1ake available the 

water of this large rnountainous area. The tunnel 'vork has been 

carried on wit~1 intelligence, the power frorn the water coming therefronl being conducted through pressure pipes and used for the running of drills for the excavation work. 

COST OF TUNNEL. 

As a guide to what the city may expect in the future, the expense 

of doing this tunnel work is of interest. It will be noted that there 

has been variation in the cost, owing to local conditions of the labor 

n1arket, etc. The city has installed the rnachinery necessary for 

doing the work, and the contractor has furnished the labor and 

material necessary for its prosecution at the rate named in the table. 

TABLE 7.-0ost of labor and material in dri!'ing city tunnel. 

! 

Distance excavated. I Price per Distance excavated. Price per I foot. .Joot. 

--~--] Feet. Feet. 

0 to 1, 000 .. _____ . -~ $5 .. 50 1,642 to 1,750 ..... ................... 

1,000 to 1,146 ... _ .. 7.50 I 1,750 to 1,786~ .... $13. 76 

1,146 to 1,202 ...... 8. 73 1,786~ to 2,286, .... 9.30 

1,202 to 1,276!. ____ 7.58 2,286 to 2,572 _ .... 10.00 

1,276~ to 1,363i .... ! 6.89 2,572 to 3,072 ..... 1 

10. 75 

1,363~ to 1,434~ .... I 8. 2.5 3,072 to 3,572. ........ 10.48 

1 ,434~ to 1,500 .... -I 9. 00 3,572 to 4,072 ..... 9. 17 

I 1,500 to 1,582 ..... _, ___ ..... 4,072 to 5,072 ..... 9.00 I! 1,582 to 1,642 ..... -I 9. 00 

I~ 
LIPPINCOTT.] CITY TUNNEL. 35 

DISCHARGE OF TUNNEL. 

The tunnel is run in a sandstone and shale formation characteristic 

of the Coast Range, the rock -being considerably broken and sornewhat stratified. As the 'vork progresses rnany crevices and cavities 

in the rock filled with water, probably frorn rainfall, are found, and as 

the tunnel cuts the various lines of cleavage these underground reservoirs are tapped. The actual rock is not of a very porous nature and 

in itself does not yield rnueh water, but it is believed that these cavities 

will be refilled, at least in part, by subsequent rains and that a rnaterial 

arnount of water can be perrnanently withdra\vn frorn the tunnel. If 

the city does obtain a supply therefrom permanently there will be 

just that n1uch more water at its disposal, and there certainly is a 

rnarket for it all, either in the city or on adjoining agricultl}rallands. 

The water is led fron1 the tunnel to two city reservoirs, each with a 

capacity of 1,600,000 gallons, situated at an elevation of 350 feet 

above the city datum plane. 

The power now available a.t the tunnel for driving the drills and 

blowers is inadequate for its continuation. Generally speaking, it 

requires from 10 to 12 horsepower to run each air drill, not including 

the pmver for the blowers for ventilation. 

In order to regulate the flow of water frorn this tunnel after the last 

eontraet 'vas finished, to the 5,000-foot point frorn the heading, a bulkhead ·was designed by the author and placed in the tunnel about 800 

feet from the portal. During the winter of 1902-3 there was a fair 

arnount of rainfall and the streams 'verp capable during that time of 

meeting the dernands of the city. As soon as the bulkhead could be 

closed this was done-about July l, 1903. 

Because of the fissured condition of the rock in the tunnel it was not 

feasible at the point where the bulkhead 'vas first placed to cornpletely close the supply from the heading, as springs occurred below 

the bulkhead toward the portal, flowing in considerable volume. 

However, the pressure ran up to 49 pounds to the square inch on 

July 25, as reeorded by the pressure gage placed in the discharge 

pipe, indieating an aecun1ulated head of water back ot the bulkhead 

of 114 feet. This shows that the tunnel was developed into a storage 

~·eservoir. The gate valve in the bulkhead was gradually opened as 

the season progessed, and the supply rnaintained a flow of from 24 to 

33 ruiner's inehes during the remainder of tho sununer. On October 

17, when the valve was con1pletely opened and the pressure had been 

reduced to zero, the flow had fallen to 24 miner's inelws. This was 

suffieient to carry the eity through the summer suecessfully. 

During the winter of 1903-4 a ne\v bulkhead was placed at a 

point in the tunnel where a heavy clay seam occurs in the rock. This 

new bulkhead was more effective than the first one constructed in 
36 WATER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. LNO. 116. 

holding back the water. It is hoped that this will fonn an impervious 

barrier against the passage of the ground \Vater, thus enabling the 

tunnel to accunuuate a high head of water. a 

Table Sa shows the variation in volu1ne discharged frmn the 

tunnel, as well as the pressure in pounds per square inch, as the season 

advances. 

TABLE 8.-Flou• of water from city tunnel. 

I 

Length of, Flow in Flow in 

Date. tunnel in I miner's . gallons per 

feet. , inches.l> i day. I ~~~-~--

1900. 

~fay 1 ______________________________________________ _ 2,952 2.5.00 323,12.5 

July 26 _________________________________ -_ -- -- -- -- -- - 3,078 19.00 245,575 

August L ___________________________________________ _ 3,103 19.00 245,575 

October 27 __________________________________________ _ 3,267 20.00 258,£00 

Noven1ber 4 _________________________________________ _ 3,280 25.00 323,125 

HlOl. 

January 9 ___________ ·- _______________________________ _ 3,393 38. 00 ~ 491,150 

February 1 __________________________________________ _ 3,448 w.oo 646,250 

February 28 ________________________________________ _ 3,561 63.33 818,583 

April 1 ____________________ ~ _________ .. ______ .. _ .. __ 3,614 5.5. 00 . 710,875 

May 1 ______________ ------------ ______ ----·---------- 3,680 4.5. 00 581,625 

June 1 ___________________________________________ .. __ _ 3, 740 45.00 581,625 

July 1 ________________________ -______________________ _ 3, 792 ('35.00 452,375 

August 1 ____________________________________________ -I 3,865 30.00 387, no 

1902. I 

I February -L __________________________________________ ; 4, 182 30.00 387,750 

l\farch 4 _____________________________________________ ' 4,256 30.00 387,750 

l\farch 31 ___________________________________________ _ 4,309 33.00 426,52.5 

April 29 ____________________________________________ _ 4,367 30.00 387,750 

June 7 ___________________________________ - -- -- -- -- -- - 4,50:;) 24.00 310,200 

July 2.5 ______________________________________ -- _----- 4,560 25 . .50 329,588 

August 4 ____________________________________________ _ 

September 2. ________________________________________ _ 

Dece1nber 1. ________________________________ · ________ _ 

4, 578: 27. 7f51 358,669 

4,647 30.30 ' 391,628 

4,832 30.00 1 

387,7[0 

a24.59 inches of rain fell at Montecito between September 24, 1904, and March 3, 1905, and the pres- sure on the tunnel bulkhead had increased to 80 pounds per square inch. 

1>50 miner's inches are equivalent to 1 second-foot, and 1 miner's inch to 12,925 gallons per day. c Estimated. 
TABLE 8a.-Daily mean head over 18-inch weir, and discharge, of Santa Barbara tunnel, 1903.a 

January. --- ·-- Febru~- I ------y:~~- April. 

1 

Mean Discharge. ~ean I ---Dis~harge.--- Mean Discharge. Mean Discharge. 

head head ------ - --- head ----- ---- ·head ------ ---

over Second- Miner 's1 Gallons for over Second- Miner's Gallons fori over Second- Miner 'sl Gallons for over Second-: Miner's Gallons fc r 

Day 

----------~--- -- --- -----~- -~----- -- --------------

weir. feet. inches. 24 hours. weir. 1 feet. inches. 24 hours. I weir. feet. inches. I 24 hours.. weir. feet. j inches. 24 hours. 

1......................... 0.191 0. 405 20.25 261,758 0. 210 0. 469 23.45 303, 122

1 

0. 271 0. 679 33.95 438.848 0. 292 I 0. 756 37.80 488,614 2------ .. -------- .... --... . 193 .412 20. 60 266, 282 . 214 . 482 24. 10 311, 524 . 270 . 675 33. 75 4:36, 263 . 326 . 890 44. 50 57:5, 220 3......................... . 195 .418 20. 90 270, 160 . 218 .493 24. 65 318, 633 . 270 . 675 33. 75 436, 263 . 370 L 068 53. 40 690, 264 4.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . 195 .418 20. 90 210, 160 . 211 . 489 24. 45 316,048 . 269 . 971 33. 55 433, 677 . :~71 1. 012 53. 60 692, 850 5 .......................... 19.5 .418 20.90 270,160 .214 .482 24.10 311,524 .269 .671 33.55 433,67i .369 1.064 53.20 687,679 6 .......................... 195 .418 20.90 270,160 .210 .469 23.45 303,122 .268 .668 33.40 431,738 .36.5 1.046 52.30 676,045 7......................... .195 .418 20.90 270, 160 . 214 . 482 24. 10 311,.524 . 268 . 668 33.40 431, 7a8 . 361 L 032 51.60 666, \!97 8......................... . 195 .418 20. 90 270, 160 . 220 . 500 25. 00 323, 158 . 267 . 664 33. 20 429, 153 . 357 L 016 50. 80 656, 656 

10----..... ----.-- .. ----... . 195 . 418 20. 90 270, 160 . 235 . 553 27. 65 3.'i7' 412 . 266 . 660 33. 00 426, .568 . 352 . 995 49. 75 643, 083 9......................... . 195 .418 20. 90 270, 160 . 227 . 524 26. 20 338, 669 . 267 . 6641 33. 20 429, 153 . 354 L 003 50. 15 648, 2.'54 

11.-- ... ------------ .. --... .195 .418 20.90 270, 160 . 234 . 549 27.45 354,827 . 266 . 660 33.00 426,568 . 3.50 . 986 49.30 637,267 12 .......................... 200 .435 21.75 281,147 .231 .538 26.90 347,7171 .265 .656 32.80 423,983 .346 .969 48.45 626,279 13.-- ....... -------- ... ---- . 204 . 448 22. 40 289, 549 . 228 . 528 26. 40 341, 254 . 26.5 . 656 32. so 423, 983 . 344 . 961 48. 05 621' 109 14-- .. ------------ .... --... . 200 . 435 21.75 281, 147 . 232 . 542 i 27. 10 350,303 . 2&1 . 653 32.65 422,044 . 342 . 9.54 47.70 616,585 15......................... .200 .435 21.75 281,147 ,238 .560! 28.00 361,936 .264 .653 32.65 422,044 I .340 .947 47.35 612,060 16......................... .200 .435 21.75 281,147 .246 .589 29.45 380,680 .263 .650 32.50 420,105 .338 .940 47.00 607,.536 17......................... .200 .435 21.75 281,147 .254 .618 30.90 399,423 .263 .650 32.50 420,105 .341 .944 47.20 610,121 18 .......................... 200 .435 21.75 281,147 .247 .592 29.60 382,618 .264 .653 32.65 422,044 .350 .986 49.30 637,267 19-- ..... -------- .. --...... . 202 . 442 22. 10 285, 671 . 240 . 567 28. 35 366, 461 . 264 . 653 32. 65 422,044 . 350 . 986 49. 30 637' 267 20-- . -- ............ --. . 204 . 448 22. 40 289, 549 . 240 . 567 I 28. 35 366, 461 . 266 . 660 33. 00 426, .568 . 350 . 986 49. 30 I 637. 267 21................... .205 .452 22.60 292,134 .249 .600' 30.00 387,789 .266 .660 . 33.00 426,568 .3.50 .986 49.30 il 637,267 22 ........ _............... . 205 . 452 22. 60 292, 134 . 256 . 626 . 31. 30 404, 593 . 265 . 656 I 32. 80 423, 983 . 350 . 986 49. 30 637, 267 

23-- . ------.---- ----.... . 205 . 452 22. 60 292, 134 . 2.57 . 630 31. 50 407' 178 . 26.5 . 656 I 32. 80 42.3, 983 . 350 . 986 49. 30 I 637. 267 2-L .. -- .... -- ... ---- . 205 . 452 22. 60 292, 134 . 261 I . 645 32. 25 416, 873 . 263 . 650 ! 32. 50 420, 105 . :~50 . 986 49. 30 I 637' 267 

25........................ .20.5. .452 2:..J.60 292,134 .259 .. 637 ·. 31.85 411,703 .262 .647' 32.35 418.,166 .350 .986 49.30 I 637,267 

26 ..... --.-- .. ---- .. -- .... 'I . 207 . 459 22.95 296,659 . 2581 . 633 31.65 409, 117 . 262 . 647 32.35 4. 18, 166 I • 350 . 986 49.3011 637' 267 27 ...................... _.. . 21J . 469 23. 45 303, 122 . 257 . 630 31. .50 407, 178 I . 262 . 647 32. 35 418, 166 . 349 . 982 49. 10 634, 681 28......................... .214 .482 24.10 311,524 .265 .656 I 32.80 423,983 .266 .660 33.00 426,568 .351 .990 49.50 639,852 29......................... .212 .476 23.80 307,646 ........ 1

........ ........ ............ .268 .668 33.40 431,738 .350 .986 49.30 637,267 30-- ....................... I . 209 . 46.5 23. 25 300, 536 .... -- ........ -- .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . 269 . 671 33 . .55 433, 677 . 348 I • 978 48. 90 632, 096 

31. ........................ ! -~ .4.59 22.95 296,659 ,:.._-__-__-__---~,---- .... -~·:..:..:...-~ :------------~- .278 .7oti__l 35.30 ~56,298 :..:...:..:.._-• .:..:..:..:._:_1 ...... :..:. .......... .. 

I~;~;,, : :: I ::.oi -- :;;o 2i:9.il 8

' ;~;:'.J /- ;;; 1·:;,;.;1- ;;: "' 10' ::::~ 1-- : 2i6 --:w; : ;_; 0s l•'·:;c~::._~~;;;- \ : 0s2 I'" oo-l''·~::\~ a By the closing of the bulkhead during the spring of 1904 the water was again impounded in the tunnel and the flow regulated therefr(')m so as to sustain a fairly con- stant flow throughout the summe~ of 1904. Owing to the drought this was the main water supply of the city during that period. 

t: 

~ z 

C':l 

0 

"'! 

.::. 

0 

~ 

1-3 

~ 

1-3 

cj 

~ 

z 

t?;j 

r 

CJ.:) 

--1 
TABLE Sa.-Daily mean head over 18-inch weir, and discharge, of Santa Barbara tunnel, 1903-Continued. ~ 

00 

M:ay. June. July. August. -------------- - ~-----------------

Day. I "-I D"oha,.,, Mean Discharge. Mean I Discharge. Mean Discharge. 

head 1 

head head head over Second-1Miner 's Gallons for over Second- Miner's Gallons for over Second- Miner 's[ Gallons for over Sec~~d-iifi~r 's Gallons for weir. feet. [inches. 1 

24 hours. weir. feet. inches. 24 hours. weir. ! feet. inches. 24 hours. weir. feet. inches. 24 hours. ~ ------! -- ------- --- --- >-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0.354 i:~~ i 

50.15 I 648,254 0.302 0. 796 39.80 514,467 0.326 0.890 44.50 575,220 0.307 0.816 40.80 f-3 527,393 t:j 

.360 51.4.5 665,058 .300 . 788 39.40 509,269 .326 .890 44.50 575,220 . 318 .857 42.85 553,892 ~ .362 1. o36 1 51.80 669,582 .301 . 792 39.60 511,881 .326 .890 44.50 575,220 .320 .865 43.25 559,062 .362 1.036 . 51.80 669,582 .302 . 796 39.80 514,467 .326 .890 44.50 575,220 .326 .890 44.50 575,220 f"d 5 ......................... .358 1. 021 I 51.05 659,888 .302 . 796 39.80 514,467 .326 .890 44.50 575,220 .329 .902 45.10 582 976 ~ 6 ......................... .360 1. 029 i 51.45 665,058 .300 . 788 39.40 509,269 .300 . 788 39.40 509,296 .329 .902 45.10 582; 976 0 

i .. ·············· ......... .363 1. 0391 51.95 6il, 521 .300 . 788 39.40 509,269 .239 .563 28.15 363,875 .336 .932 46.60 602,366 txl 8 ......................... .366 1.050 52.50 678,631 .300 . 788 39.40 509,269 .225 .. 518 25.90 334,791 .333 . 919 45.95 593,963 ~ 

9 ........................ - .366 1.050 52.50 678,631 .298 

. "'' I 

39.00 504,126 .220 .500 25.00 I 323,158 .322 . 873 43.651 564,233 t:j 

10 ......................... .360 1.029 51.45 665,058 .292 . 756 37.80 488,614 .220 .500 25.00 323,158 . 321 .869 43.45 561,648 ~ 11 ......................... .360 1.029 i 51.45 665,058 .293 . 760 38.00 491,199 .219 .496 

~!:~I 320,572 .328 .898 44.90 580,391 w 12 ......................... .360 1. 029 51.45 66.5, 058 . 278 . 706 35.30 456,298 . 219 .496 320,572 .290 . 748 37.40 1 483,444 13 ......................... .358 1. 021 51.05 659,888 I .306 .812 40.60 524,808 .220 .500 25.00 323,158 .249 .600 30.00 387,789 0 14 ......................... .308 .820 41.00 529,978 1 .307 . 816 40 .. 80 527,393 .220 .500 25.00 323, 158 . 273 .687 34.35 444,018 ~ 

15 ......................... .223 .• 510 25.50 329,621 .308 .820 41.00 529,978 .234 .549 27.45 354,827 .275 .694 34.70 448,543 r:n 16 ......................... .258 . 633 31.65 409,117 .310 .828 41.40 535,149 .270 .675 33.75 436,263 .277 . 702 35.10 453,713 > 17 ......................... .300 . 788 39.40 509,296 .311 .832 41.60 537,734 .292 . 756 37.80 488,614 .276 .698 34.90 451, 128 18 2l ......................... .301 . 792 : 39.60 511,881 .312 .836 41.80 540,319 .268 .668 33.40 431,738 . 275 .694 34.70 448,543 19 ......................... .302 . 7961 39.80 514,467 . 313 .840 42.00 542,905 .254 .618 30.90 399,423 .274 .690 I 34.50 445,957 1-3 

20 ........... ·············· .303 .800 40.00 517,052 .314 .843 "·"I 544,844 .258 .633 31.65 409,117 .273 .6871 34.35 444,018 > 21 ......................... .304 .804 40.20 519,637 .315 .847 42.35 547,429 .272 .683 34.15 441,433 .270 .675 33.75 436,263 txl 22 ... ········· ............. .305 .808 : 40.40 522,22.'3 .316 .850 42.50 549,368 .271 .679 33.95 438,848 .300 . 788 39.40 509,296 > 23 ... ················· ..... .307 .816 I 40.80 527,393 .317 .853 42.65 551,307 . 267 .664 33.20 429,153 .324 . 881 44.05 569,404 

24 ... ··············· .. ····· .308 .820 41.00 529,978 . 318 .857 42.85 553,892 .272 .683 34.15 441,433 .254 .618 30.90 399,423 ~ 

25 ........................ .307 .816 40.80 527,393 .319 .861 43.05 556,477 .275 .694 34.70 448,543 .134 .241 12.05 155,762 txl 

26 ......................... .307 .816 40.80 527,393 .320 .865 43.25 559,062 .274 .690 34.50 445,957 .194 .415 20.75 268,221 > 27 ......................... .306 .812 40.60 524,808 .321 .869 43.45 561,648 .271 .679 33.95 438,848 .277 • 702 35.10 453,713 ~ 

28 ......................... .306 . 812 40.60 524,808 .322 . 873 43.65 564,233 .276 .698 34.90 451, 128 .278 . 706 35.30 456,298 ? 29 ..... ----. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 . 808 40. 40 .522, 223 . 323 . 877 43. 85 566, 818 .264 . 653 32.65 422,044 .260 .641 32.05 414,288 

30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3031 . 800 40. 00 . .517. 052 . 325 . 885 44.25 571,989 .260 . 641 32.05 414,288 .258 .633 31.65 409,117 0 31. ........ ----............ . 303 . 800 40.00 517,052 ·······- ------·· -------- -----·----·· .274 .690 34.50 445,957 .256 .626 31.30 404,593 >- ------------- -- ------=::-:-.115, 898, "" -- ~: oo;·j--;;: ;;· 

r' Total ....................... , ................ 117, 742,639 · ··: 3os"!" .. :s20· ·--:267' 13,355,452 ... : 285' ... : 737" "'36:85· 14,767,561 

Average . . .. .. . . . . . . . 324 . 886 I 44. 28 572, 342 41. 00 529, 935 430,821 476,373 

'i' 

.0 

:= 

?' 
Day. 

I November. December. 

I-M-ea-n---.----D-is_c_h-ar_g_e_. ---I-M-e_a_n-;----D-is_c_h-ar_g_e_. ---1 Mean Discharge. Mean l D-is_c_h_a_rg_e_. __ _ 

head head head ---- head ---------

over Second-~Miner's Gallons :for over Sccond-·.,

1

Miner's Gallons :for over \'Second- Miner's Gallons for over Second- Miner's Gallons :for 

weir. feet. inches. 24 hours. weir. feet. inches. 24 hours. , weir. feet. inches. 24 hours. weir. feet. inches. 24 hours. 

1 ............... _ . _ .. ____ . ~~ 2; -o_-6-18-[---;o-. 90- ----;99, 423 ~--2-40- --o_-5-6; !_28 ___ 35 ___ 3_6_6_, 4-6~ -o-. 2-28-li- o-_ 5-28- --26-. -40- __ 3_4_1 ,-25~ -o-. 2-23- --o-. 5-1o- - 2!i. 50- --3-29, 621 

2 ····-··----·--·---··----· .252 .6121 30.60 39.5,545 .238 .561 28.05 362,5831' .228 .528 26.40 341,2.'i4 .222 .507 25.3.') 327,682 3 .......................... 250 .604 30.20 390,374 .260 .641 32.05 414,288 .228 .528 26.40 341,254 .222 .507 25.35 327,682 4......................... .250 II .604 j 30.20 390,374 .276 .698 34.90 451,128 .228 I .528 26.40 341,254 .222 .507 25.35 327,682 5 ......................... .248 .596 i 29.80 385,204 .260 .641 32.05 414,288 .2281 .528 26.40 341,254 .222 .5tl7 25.35 327,682 6......................... .248 .596 i 29.80 385,204 .250 .604 30.20 390,374 .228 .528 26.40 341,254 .222 .507 25.35 327,682 7 . , .... --................. • 248 • , 596 I 29. 80 385,204 , 244 , 581 29. 05 375, 509 , 228 i' , 528 26. 40 341,2.54 , 222 , 507 25, 35 327 1 682 8 .................. , ....... 248 .596 29.80 385,204 .241 .. 570 28.50 368,400 .228 .528 26.40 341,254 .222 .507 25.35 327,682 9 ......................... .24S .596 29.80 385,204 .240 .567 28.35 366,461 .228 I .528 26.40 341,254 .222 .507 25.35 327,682 

10 .... - - -.. - - - - - - - - - - - - -.. . . 248 . 596 29. 80 385, 204 . 260 . 641 32. 05 414, 288 . 2271 . 524 26. 20 338, 669 . 222 . 507 25. 35 327' 682 11 -.. ---------------------- . 248 . -596 29.80 385,204 . 244 .. 581 29.05 375,509 . 227 . 524 26.20 338,669 . 222 . 507 25.35 327,682 12 .... -----·-----···-------1 .248 .596 29.80 385,204 .241 .570 28.50 368,400 .227 .524 26.20 338,669 .222 .507 25.35 327,682 13 ... -.. ---------- .. ----... . 248. . .596 29.80 385,204 . 240 . 567 28.35 366,461 . 227 . . 524 26.20 338,669 . 222 . 507 25.35 327,682 14 .. __ .. ______ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . 247 . 592 29.80 382,618 . 239 .. 563 28. 15 363,875 . 227 ,

1 

. 524 26.20 338,669 . 222 . 507 25.35 327,682 

15 .......................... 246 .589 29.4.5 380,680 .238 .560 28.00 361,936 .227 .524 26.20 338,669 .222 .507 25.35 327,682 16 · ..... • ... • ... , .......... 

1 

I , 246 , 589 29.45 380,680 , 236 , 556 27,80 359,351 , 227 , 524 26.20 338,669 , 221 , ,503 25,15 325,096 

17 -----------·------------- .245 .. 5&5 29.25 378,094 .235 .553 27.65 357,412 .227 1 .524 26.20 338,669 .221 .503 25.15 325,096 18 .......................... 244 .. 581 29.05 375,509 .235 .553 27.65 357,412 .2271 .524 26.20 338,669 .221 .. 503 2.5.15 325,096 

19 ------------- .. -------.-- . 24:l .. 577 28. &5 372,924 . 235 . 553 27.65 357,412 . 227 . 524 26.20 338,669 . 221 . 503 25. 15 325,096 20 .. _______________________ .242 .. 574 28.70 370,985 .235 .553 27.65 357,412 .227: .524 26.20 338,669 .220 .500 25.00 323,158 21. ________________________ , .240 .567 28.35 366,461 .235 .553 27.65 357,412 .2271 .524 26.20 338,669 .220 .500 25.00 323,158 

22 .... -----.----------------1 .269 .671 33.55 433,677 .236 .556 27.80 359,351 .227 .524 26.20 338,669 .220 .500 25.00 323,158 23. ........................ 1 .262 .647 32.35 418,166 ,236 ,556 27.80 359,351 I ,226 .520 26.00 336,084 .220 .500 25.00 323,158 24-. · • · · •........... • 260 , 641 32.05 414,288 , 236 , 556 1 27.80 359,351 o 225 , 517 25,85 334, 145 , 220 , 500 25.00 323, 158 25._______________________ .259 .6371 31.85 411,703 .234 .5491 27.4.5 354,827 .225 .517 25.85 334,145 .220 .500 25.00 323,158 

26 ..... ·--·---------------- .221 .503 25.15 325,096 .232 .5421 27.10 350,30.'3 .224 .514 25.70 332,206 .220 .500 2.5.00 I 323,158 

27 ---------------·---------~ .240 .567 1 28.35 366,461 .232 .542 27.10 350,303 .224 .514 25.70 332.206 .220 .500 25.00 I 323,158 

28.________________________ .240 .5671 28.35 366,461 .2321 .542 27.10 350,303 .224 .514 25.70 332,206 .219 .496 24.80 320,.572 

29.,_, ____________ ------•. 240 .567 28.35 366,461 .232 .542 27.10 350,303 .224 .514 25.70 332,206 .219 .496 24.80 320,572 30 _________________________ .240 .567 28.35 366,461 .232 .5421 27.10 350,301 .223 .510 2.~.1\0 329,621 .218 .493 24.6.~ 318,633 

31. ________________________ :_-_._._._._-_-~'----~~~:_-··-~ .23~-~1__:6.75 345,779 ... .:_:_-~ -----_:_-_-~---- - .218 ~-2~.65] __ 318,633 

Total ............... \

1 

................ ~----- .. ·1 11,519,277 1--------1 ........ '--------~11,436,546 ................ 

1 

........ 10,136,802 ______ ·----·-· ........ 

1

1 10,081,227 

Average . . . . . . . . .. .. . 247 • 594 29.70 I 383,976 \ . 241 i • 571 I 28.55 368,921 I . 227 . 523 26.15 337,893 I . 221 . 503 25.15 325,201 

September. October. t"' 

::; 

"t! 

z 

<"l 

0 

.... 

.... 

.:.__. 

Cl 

~ 

1-3 

~ 

1-3 

c: 

z 

~ 

~ 

~ 

co 

~ 
40 WATER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. (N0.116. 

TOTAL NEAR-BY SUPPLY. 

Reviewing these measurmnents we have a probable summer 

mininnnn water supply available for the city fron1 local sources 

approxin1ately as follows: 

Local water supply of Santa Barbara. 

Gals. per day. 

Minimum from Mission Cn~<'k .. _______ ... __ .. ___ . ___ . _________ 100,000 

Minimum from De la Guerra wells. ____________________________ 300,000 

Minimum from city tunnd ___________________________________ 300, 000 

Total ___________ . _ . ____ . _ .. ____ .. ______ .. __ .. ___ ... _ _ 700, 000 

as against an estimated normal sun1n1er demand of 1,200,000a gallons per day, or an estimated normal deficit daily of 500,000 gallons. 

There is not as much water now being used in the city for beautifying lawns and gardens as \Vould be so applied if a more abundant 

supply were available. Frmn the above it is evident that the city 

should take imnwdiate steps toward increasing its water supply. 

DISTAXT SUPPT...~IES. 

EXTENSION OF CITY TUNNEL. 

With a view to the extension of the present city tunnel through 

the Santa Ynez Range to tap the waters of Santa Ynez River, a. 

system of triangulation was carried aeross the mountains frmn Santa 

Barbara to the Mono reservoir site by Homer Hamlin and W. B. 

Clapp, of the Geologieal Survey. The base line of this system was 

n1easur~d on State street, Santa Barbara, between Boulevard and 

Pedregosa streets, and the most northerly point \Vas the high peaks 

·south of the Mono reservoir site. The base line, whieh was earefully n1easured ·with a 300-foot steel tape under a uniforn1 tension 

of 2.5 pounds and eorreeted for temperature, was 9,753.7 feet long. 

The angles were measured with a Berger transit No. 1b, circles 6\ 

inches in dia1neter. Eleven prineipal triangulation stations and 

.5 seeondary stations \Vere oecupied, the secondary triangulation 

being neeessary to reaeh the south portal of the present city tunnel, which is situated in a deep eanyon. Angles were repeated three 

tin1es and n1easured in six sets of two eaeh. The triangles closed 

for angles within 0° 0' 0" to 0° 0' 10". The angle adjustn1ents were 

made_ by distributing the difference proportionally as probable 

error due to weather eonditions. The traverse of the outside boundary of the triangulation systmn closed as follows: N., 45,343.66; S., 

45,343.63; E., 28,397.22; vV., 28,397.15. 

a Gn basis of 150 gallons per day for 8,000 persons. 
. LIPPINCOTT.) CONSTRUCTION Ol!' NEW TUNNEL. 41 

The north portal of the extended tunnel, as projected, was fixed 

by a station on the cliff on the south side of Santa Ynez River. 

The north portal hears N. 26° 38' 18" E., and is 18,8·1:2.06 feet distant 

fron1 the smith portal of the present city tunnel. This tunnel was 

4,895 feet long on January 26, and if an angle is rnade in it at 5,960 

feet it will be necessary to drive 15,006 feet to reach Santa Ynez 

River and finish the work. By doing so a saving of 1,475 feet ·will 

be n1ade; otherwise the tunnel must have a length of 21,376 feet 

to get through the range. It is probable, however, that a still n1ore 

favorable location rnay be found. 

Frorn the surveys that have been rnade during the last season 

in the drainage basin of Santa Ynez River, the elevation of the south 

portal of the city tunnel in Cold Spring Canyon "\vas taken at 1,393.06 

feet; the rise on grade frorn the portal to station 48, at the projected 

north portal, is 49.02 feet. The total length of excavation necessary 

to complete this .tunnel through the range is 15,066 feet. At a 

grade of 0.1 per Cf'n t this will require 15 feet n1ore to be consurned 

in tunnel grade, making the elevation of the north portal of the 

tunnel 1,457.18 feet. The elevation of Santa Ynez River bed opposite is 1,425 feet. The necessary grade to be consumed frorn the 

north portal of the tunnel to the .Mono reservoir site would be about 

4 feet, making the elevation of the grade at the Mono reservoir site 

1,461.18 feet. The elevation of the heel of the creek at the ~Iono 

site is 1,440 feet, so that the conduit gradewould be21.18feetabove 

the bed of the creek at that point, hut the capacity of the lower portion of a reservoir site is ahvays very sn1all, and there would be a 

loss of but 1 per cent in the capacity of a 100-foot dan1 at the Mono 

with the elevations given. 

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW TUNNEL. 

In the old city tunnel in Cold Spring Canyon several angles occur 

in the alignnwnt. The grade of the tunnel is also not satisfactory, 

in that it is too high to rE'ach the bed of the stream at the rnouth 

of the ·Mono at the elevation of the creek. While the old city tunnel 

could be used in this regard, it is not eonsidered the hest site for a 

tunnel, in view of subsequent surveys and investigations. Moreover, the old tunnel is delivering a very substantial water supply 

under existing conditions, particularly since being regulated by the 

bulkhead described above, and as a new tunnel can be obtained at a 

satisfactory elevation, which will develop a new ·water supply and 

in addition conunand certain reservoir sites on lower portions of 

the stream below the n1outh of the ·Mono, it is desirable to adopt 

the second location. After the first investigations rnade in the 

basin of Santa Ynez River, whieh included the survey of the Mono 

reservoir site, the Main River reservoir site, and an inspection of 
42 WATER PRORLEMB OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. [NO. 116. 

sites higher on the stream, a much better site situated on the n1ain 

stream below the n1outh of the Mono was found. This is called 

the Gibraltar reservoir site and is described n1ore fully below. 

The capacity of the Gibraltar reservoir so not quite so great as 

that of the Mono, but is very satisfactory, while the dan1 site is very 

much better, and the tributary drainage area a great deal larger, 

including not only that of the Mono, but also that of the Santa Y nez 

above the !iono, and 17 square Iniles of Main Canyon below. For 

the season of 1902-3 the nwasured flow at the :Mono da1n site was 

8,934 acre-feet, at the Santa Ynez above the Mono 9,898 acre-feet, 

and for the Santa Ynez at the Gibraltar reservoir site 21,202 acrefeet. As the water supply is the most essential feature of the 

entire enterprise, no hesitation is felt in recomn1ending that the 

tunnel line which is to be run through the range should be made 

to command the Gibraltar reservoir site. This would be impossible 

with the old city tunnel, on account of its high elevation in Cold 

Spring Canyon. !ioreover, the con1.bined cost of the Gibraltar 

da1n and of a tunnel to it fro1n l\Ession Canyon is less than the combined cost for con1pleting the old city tunnel and building the Mono 

dam. 

For the reasons given above, the triangulation which had been 

n1ade for the old city tunnel "\vas extended so as to cover the site of 

a possible ne\v tunnel line from l\fission Canyon to the Gibraltar 

dan1 site, "\vhich would be 19,560 feet long and would run through the 

sa1ne general formation at right angles to the line of the strike of the 

rock, passing under portions of Mission Creek. 

AGREEMENT WITH WATER C'OMP ANY. 

An agreenwnt was n1ade with the Santa Barbara Water Company 

for rights of way for this new tunnel line. This con1pany has for 

years been acquiring lands along l\fission Canyon in order to protect 

its water supply, which comes n1ostlytherefrmn. The cmnpany naturally felt that the running of the tunnel beneath Mission Creek n1ight 

affect its supply of water from the creek and insisted on being 

secured against such a contingency. In consequence the Santa Barbara water comn1issioners entered into a contract with the con1pany, 

by which the city agrees to maintain the supply of the con1pany at 14 

inches from July 1 to Decen1ber 31 and at 22 inches fron1 January 1 

to June 30, supplying the water from the tunnel in case jt is not 

flowing naturally in the creek, provided that amount can be supplied 

from the tunnel alone and irrespective of water subsequently obtained 

fron1 storage reservoirs. In return the Santa Barbara Water Cmnpany gives the city rights of way over all its lands for wagon 

roads, tunnels, pipe lines, etc., and agrees not to run any tunnels on 

its lands in the vicinity of the city tunnel. This contract is fully 
I.IPPINCOTT.) CONSTRUCTION OF NEW TUNNEL. 43 

justified by the physical conditions encountered in the water developinent. Moreover, the water delivered to the watE>r company will 

be used in any event in the inunediate vicinity of Santa Barbara or 

for the beautifying and improven1ent of the town. 

A section of the proposed new tunnel is shown in figs. 16 and 17 

(pp. 91, 92), the ti1nbered seetion being used only where necessary 

and the roek seetion lwing the prevailing type for the tunnel. 

CO~TRACT FOR CONRTRUCTION. 

The work of driving the tunnel was divided into two parts, a 

southern portion of the· tunn<>l to be 11,000 feE>t long and constructed 

fron1 the south portal, and a nortlwrn portion to be 8,560 feet long 

and constructed fron1 the north portal. Bids were called for and 

received, and the contracts awarded to F. ,J. fhnith and E. J. Hunt, of 

Santa Barbara, for the south part, and to Robert Beyrle, of Los 

Angeles, for the north part. The prices were as follows: 

Successful bids for ne1r Santa Barbara tumul. 

division. division. 

I 

South North 

PC'r cubic yard of excavation ______________________________________ i --;8~; ~ $9. 00 

Overhaul per cubic yard pN 100 fPt>t (frt>e haul being 1)00 feet) ______ .

1 

• 02 · . 01~ 

Timbers in~l=~ (perM fet>t, B~~~~~~-~---~~--=--~-~~~~~~0 

The total cost of the southern portion of the tunnel under the contract will be $109,125, and for the northern portion $90,267, a total 

of $199,392 for the entire tunnel. The estimate of the author, as consulting enginef'r for the work, was 19,560 feet of tunnel at $10 a foot, 

$195,600, plus 10 per eent for contingencies, or a total of $215,160. 

An additional allowance was made of 5 per cent for engineering 

expenses. 

The yardage excavated in the tunnd is to be li1nited by the quantity shown on the section. After tlw eomplPtion of the work the contractor is required to leave his track in the tunnel for the purpose 

of hauling ce1nent through it for the eonstruetion of the dan1 on 

Panta Ynez River, thus avoiding a wagon haul over the high nlountains. The eontracts were let in February, 1904. 

VENTURA RIVER. 

Frmn an exatnination of the topographic 1naps of the Geological 

Survey, which ha:ve been recently prepared and which are of inestinlable value in a general consideration of this subject, it was found 

that it would be possible l)y a gravity line to divert the headwatE>rs 

of Ventura River from a point near the junction of the main and 
44 WATER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. [NO. 116. 

north forks of :Matilija Creek by gravity through Casitas Pass to 

Santa Barbara. A reconnaissance was rnade of this eountry, and a 

nurnber of water rneasurernents were rnade throughout the length of 

Ventura River. A n1onth of rninin1urn flow was selected as the proper 

time at which to make these deterrninations, as the minimum is the 

controlling condition in all questions involving water supply. There 

was a rainfall at Santa Barbara for the seasons of 1901-1902 of 14.06 

inches. The strean1 flow during this season, however, was below 

normal. 

TABLE 9.-Flow mea:wrements on Ventura Ri1'er and tributaries. 

1902. Loeality. Inches. 

Sept. 2.5 At Matilija, above North Fork _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 99 

2.5 North Fork at mouth___________________________________________ 21 

Total, all diverted. _____________________________________ ;:l_120 

2.5 River bed dry from ~Iatilija School to near Coyote Creek ____________ ! ______ _ 

25 Below Coyote Creek and below Domestic diversion. ________________ ' 14 

25 Head Domestie system's lower ditch______________________________ 185 

25 Head Domestie system's upper ditch _____________________________ i 62 

:---

Total Ventura River below and near Coyote Creek __________ -I 261 

26 Head of power ditch, below Domestic diversions __ .________________ 75 

26 River bed above and near power house ___________________________ ' 8 

TotaL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 83 

26 Domestic ditch above and near reservoir__________________________ 222 

"\YATER AVAILABLE. 

It will be noted that all of the water of :Matilija Creek at the 

point from which a gravity line could be started to Santa Barbara 

is diverted and now in use, and consequently there was on that date 

no supply available for Santa Barbara at this point. In addition 

to this, the intervening topography is rugged and the distance' would 

be very great, rendering it impracticable fron1 a con1nwrcial standpoint to obtain a supply from this source. · 

It will also be noted that there were 75 inches of water diverted 

into the power ditch of the Ventura waterworks, which runs fron1 

a point approximately 4 miles north of Ventura to a point approxirnately 1! miles north of this city, and that there were 8 inches of 

water above the point where this power ditch would discharge into 

the river, making a total of 83 inches in the lower portion of the 

river that was not diverted for dmnestic uses. During the daytime, 

at the time of the inspection, all this 7 5 inches of water was being 

used for irrigation, leaving but 8 inches of water in Ventura River 
LIPPINCOTT.] VENTURA RIVER. 45 

available for surface diversion. Infor1nation, however, was given 

that a portion of the water diverted through the domestic conduits 

during the daytin1e is accu1nulated in a certain don1estic reservoir, 

and that at nighttime, fro1n 11 p. 111. until 6 a. n1., a discharge of 

280 1niner's inches from this reservoir ordinarily takes place through 

the power house for the purpose of developing power and is wasted 

into the river. This is equivalent to a continuous flow of 82 1niner's 

inches. This water wasted into the sea, taken in connection with 

the 8 inches flowing in the stream bed above the power house, n1akes 

a total of 90 1niner's inches of water, which at this time, ad1nitted 

to be one of drought, n1ight be considered as wasted water and available for sale or disposal by the Ventura Water, Light, and Power 

Cmnpany. In addition to this, it is stated that the 75 inches of 

water diverted through the power ditch is not permanently sold fo"r 

irrigation purposes, but is used by irrigators by sufferance on the 

part of the water cmnpany, and that the Ventura "W~ ater, Light, and 

Power Cmnpany could sell it to the city of Santa Barbara if it so 

desired. There thus Blight be n1ade available fron1 the lower portion of Ventura River a low-water supply of 165 miner's inches 

(2,145,000 gallons per day), provided all the above assun1ptions are 

correct. 

The statement was Blade that there is practically a continuous 

use of the 30 inches of water frmn the power ditch during the daytin1e for irrigation, which might reduce these figures to 135 1niner's 

inches (1~7 50,000 gallons daily). This is an unusually large a1nount 

of water to be available for disposal along this coast, and it was 

considered to be sufficient to justify a further investigation to deterInine the cost of its delivery to Santa Barbara. 

The elevation at which this water could be obtained is practically 50 feet above sea level, and it would, therefore, have to be 

pun1ped to Santa Barbara through a long force 1nain, laid possibly 

on the railroad right of way, for an aggregate distance of 26.2 miles. 

There is quite favorable opportunity of obtaining cheap fuel along 

this line, and a pu1nping station 1night be erected at the intake and 

a sufficient head generated to force the water through the pipe line, 

delivering it to the city of Santa Barbara at the foot of State street 

without pressure, in order to avoid the expense of a long pipe line 

designed to withstand high heads. At this point it would be picked 

up by a second pun1ping plant and forced to the high levels of the 

city. No legal examination of title was made as to the ownership 

of this water. 

COST OF PIPING AND PUMPING. 

It 1nay be assumed, therefore, for the sake of estimating, that 

there is available from the lower Ventura River a supply of water 
46 W AT~R PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. [No.lJ6. 

sufficient to furnish 1 ,.500,000 gallons daily, adequate for 10,000 

people using 150 gallons per capita eaeh day. This is equal to 2.32 

cubic feet per second, or 116 n1iner's inches of water. This water 

would have to be purchased fron1 the Ventura Water, Light, and 

Power Cmnpany, fron1 which no figure has as yet been obtained as 

to the price for which it would be sold. It is believed that the 

parties owning this water would be willing to contract for its delivery. 

If $300 per miner's inch were paid for this water, it would cost the 

city of Santa Barbara $34,800 at Ventura. An 18-inch continuous 

wooden stave pipe laid from the Ventura River to the foot of State 

street would be 138,300 feet in length, or 26.2 miles. The friction 

head to be overeome by water passing through this length of pipe, 

when carrying 1,500,000 gallons daily, would be 48.4 feet. It is 

believed that the average fric.tion and hydraulic head on the pipe 

would be .50 feet. The pipe would be laid either on country roads 

or possibly along the railroad right of way. At certajn projecting 

and precipitous cliffs the pipe would have to be run through tunnels. The conduit would be what is technically known as a continuous wooden stave pipe with steel bands, a form of construc,tion 

whic!1 is satisfactory. It would be of a more permanent eharacter 

than riveted pipe, but not of so enduring a nature as cast-iron pipe. 

Cast-iron pipe, however, beeause of its present high cost ($45 a 

ton delivered at Pacific coast terminals), would be entirely out of 

the question. The water would be delivered without pressure at 

the foot of State street, in order to avoid exeessive cost due to necessarily stronger pipe required in case a high head was put on it to 

directly connect with the mains of the city for local distribution . 

.F'rom this point it would have to be lifted to don1estic reservoirs. 

The following table is an estimate on the cost of laying sueh a pipe 

line: 

TABLE 10.-Estimated cost of Santa Barbara-Ventura pipe line . 

I . . Soot! on. i I~ngth.l cx'!~!J.,~n Co,t I :i~"J:v~ [ Total cost. 

1 ! ~'J:fiY/ I ~~:"~1 I Ci~4~~~ ~-- ··r~in.ft. . Lin.ft. I twn. ___ · trenchmg. 

1. .......... ·:' 7, 920 Trench.... $0. 15274 $1,209. 70 $302.42 $1,512.12 $9,504.00 $11,016. 12 

2 ............ 6,864 ..... do ..... l .191 , 1,311.02 327.75 1,638.77 8,236.80 9,875.57 

3............ 2, 640 ..... do..... . 15274

1

1 403. 23 100. 81 504. 04 3, 168. 00 3, 672. 04 

4............ 1, 584 ..... do..... . 09546 151.21 37.80 189.01 1, 900.80 2, 089.81 

5............ 1, 320 Tunnel. ... 'r 5. 00 / 6, 600.00 6, 600.00 1, 584.00 8, 184.00 

6 ............ 27,984 Trench.... .09546

1

i 2,671 35 667.84 3,339.19 33,580.80 36,919.f!9 

7............ 6,072 Tunnel.... 5.00 30,360.00 30,360.00 7,286.40 37,646.40 

8............ 7, 392 Trench.... . 09546 705. 64 176.41 882. 05 8, 870. 40 9, 752. 45 

9............ 5, 280 Tunnel.... 5. 00 :[ 26,400. 00 . . . . . . . . . . 26,400. 00 6, 336. 00 32, 736. 00 

10............ 9, .500 I Trench.... .17183 ~ 1, 632.381 408.10 2, 040.48 11,400.00 13,440.48 

11 ............ 61,776 ~~~~ .09546 1 5,897.14 i 1,474.28 7,371.42 ,_74_,_13_1._20 ___ 81_,50_2_._62 

Total.. 138,3321 ........... "!" ......... 1 77,341.6713,495.41 80,837.08,165,998.40 246,835.48 
LIPPINCOTT.] VENTURA RIVER. 47 

A portion of the line would be in ground that is quite alkaline. 

The wooden part of the pipe would not be attacked by the alkali, but 

the iron rods would be. If we assume a length of life for the pipe of 

twenty year.s, and that a sinking fund at 4 per cent interest would 

necessarily have to be provided to renew it at the end of that time, 

$8,287.54 would have to be set aside annually to n1eet the charge. 

At 4 per cent interest this would capitalize at $207,188, which should 

properly be added to the first cost of the pipe, giving $454,023 as the 

real cost of the pipe line to the city. This computation is given in 

order to emnpare the real cost of this pipe line with other permanent 

eonstruetion n1entioned later. 

It would be necessary to install two plunping plants, one at Ventura 

to force this water through the pipe line against the friction head, and 

the other to lift the water fron1 the foot of State street to an assumed 

level of 300 feet to a domestic reservoir. The cost of the first plant 

would be $9,649,and of the seeond plant $13,970,or a total of $23,619. 

If a life of twenty years is assumed for pumping plants also, and provision is 1nade for their renewal by a sinking fund as before, bearing 

4 per cent interest, there 'vould have to be set aside each year for 

this purpose $792.49, whieh is interest at 4 per cent on $19,802, 

1naking a total cost to the city of pumping plants of $43,421. 

These . pu1nping plants would be i1nproved and modern tripleexpansion condensing stean1 plants. The first plant would eonsume 

5.5 barrels of crude oil daily, and the second 14.5 barrels of oil daily, 

or a total ot 20 barrels of oil daily to deliver 11-Inillion gallons daily. 

This oil at $1 a barrel, which would be a fair price for a long period of 

use, would represent a daily charge of $20, and an annual charge of 

$7,300. Attendance of engineers and assistants would probably 

a1nount to $5,000 annually; so the oil and attendance together would 

be $12,300, which, capitalized at 4 per cent, represents $307,500. 

To sum1narize we now have: 

Summary of cost of Santa Barbara-l'""f'nfura pipe line. 

First cost First eost. and main- tenance. 

-----------(---- -------

1,500,000 gallons of water daily .. ____ .... ________ . _ .......... ·1 $34, 800 

Pipe line .. __ ......... ___ . ___ ... _________ .... ________ .... ___ I 246, 835 

Two pumping plants. ___ .. _ ...... _____ . _ .. _. __ . _ .... _. __ ... __ i 23, 619 

Fuel and attendance_ . _______________________________________ I _________ _ 

I ___ _ 

Total. ______________ . _ .. _. ___ ----~- _____ .......... : 305, 254 I 

$34,800 

454,023 

43,421 

307,500 

839,744 

This figure of first cost and n1aintenance would represent the real 

expense to the city of building and maintaining such a plant perpetually, 
48 WATER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. [No. 116. 

and on this basis can be properly conrpared with pennanent construction, such as rnasonry. 

This plant ·would practically be incapable of being increased in 

capacity without rebuilding the entire systmn, and no estinrates have 

been included for rights of way. 

SANTA YNEZ RIVER. 

The county of Santa Barbara, by petition of its board of supervisors, 

and the city, through its trustees, requested the United States Geological Survey to make topographic surveys and hydrographic investigations in Santa Barbara County to assist in the solution of the difficult water~ problmns w:1ich eonfront this beautiful coast district, often 

called the American Riviera. As it is the policy of the Geological 

Survey to carry on its work where the results will be of greatest value, 

it acceded to this request and has extended its topographic surveys 

over the greater portion of the county. Pl. I is nrade up fronr the 

results of these surveys. Hydraulic investigations have also been 

begun, three reservoirs surveyed, several tunnel lines triangulated,· 

and three gaging stations established. It is intended to extend these 

investigations during the coming season so as to cover the entire 

drainage basin of Santa Y nez River. To a limited extent the city 

of Santa Barbara has cooperated financially in the hydraulic work. 

Santa Ynez River rises in the mountains of Santa Barbara and 

Ventura counties, and flm'\:s westerly with a flat grade to the Pacific 

Ocean, having a length of approximately 75 miles. The Santa Ynez 

Range of mountains, varying in elevation from 3,000 to 4,000 feet, 

fonns the southern boundary of this drainage basin. The northern 

divide ranges frmn 4,500 to 5,500 feet, culminating in ~fount Pinos, 

the elevation of whieh is 8,826 feet. The rnean elevation of the basin 

above the mouth of Mono Creek is 3,500 feet above sea level. 

RAINFALL. 

The mean rainfall at Santa Barbara is 16.78 inches; at Nordhoff, in 

Ventura County, at an elevation of 1,200 feet, it is about 18 inches; at 

Mutau Flat, on the headwaters of Piru Creek, and on the eastern 

slope of the range, at an elevation of 4,850 feet, it is 19 inches; at Snedden's ranch, on the north fork of the headwaters of the Piru, on the 

eastern slope of the mountains, at an elevation of 4,900 feet, it is 15 

inches; at Cuddy's ranch, at an elevation of 5,000 teet, in Kern County, 

near the head of Tejon Creek, it is 20 inches, and at Old Fort Tejon, at 

an elevation of 3,245 feet, it is 18 inches. These records, except those 

ot Santa Barbara, which were begun in 1867, are of rather short duration and fragrnentary. The mean rainfall given for each n1ountain 

station is determined by finding the ratio of precipitation at Santa 
LII'l'l:-lf'OTT.] RAINFALL. 49 

Barbara for the years during which rainfall was observed at the high 

point in question, and the mean of the :37 -year record at Santa Barbara, 

and applying that ratio to the observed rainfall at the mountain station. There arc no knmvn observations of rainfall in the upper 

portion of the Santa Y nez. 

It is well known by the people living along the Pacific coast that 

the rainfall increases as the slope of the n1ountain ranges exposed 

to the sea breezes is ascended. Usually this inerease anwunts to 

six-tenths of an inch of rain for each 100 feet rise in elevation, whieh 

inerease is to be added to the observed precipitation at the base of 

the range. On the eastern slope of the mountain ranges, on the 

side a\\~ay frmn the ocean, this estimate does not at all hold, there 

being an actual diminution of rainfall after passing a crest. Consequently it is to be expected that such stations as l\futau Flat 

and Snedden's ranch, situated easterly frmn the n1ain crest of the 

Coast Range, 'viii have less precipitation than occurs on the exposed 

westerly side of the range. The Santa Ynez Range undoubtedly 

abstracts a portion of the nwisture of the clouds that are passing 

inland over the drainage basin of Santa Ynez River, but the precipitation mi1st again increase on the 'vesterly sides of the high Coast 

Range on the northerly and easterly portions of the drainage basin, 

where the nwuntains rise frmn 2,000 to 3,000 feet higher than the 

sununits of the Santa Ynez l\[ountains. 

l\1r. Purslow says that the rainfall in the basin of the Santa Ynez 

above the reservoir sites which he examined is :30 inches, and .Mr. 

Wright states that in his judgrnent it is over 20 inches. Mr. ·Marsden 

:Manson, civil engineer of the California \Vater and Forest Association, prepared a rainfall rnap, showing precipitation throughout the 

State, on 'vhich he estimates the rainfall in this district as between 

20 and 30 inches. ~fr. \Villiarn Hanunond I-Iall, when State engineer of 

California, also prepared a rainfall rnap, showing the precipitation for 

this district to be between 20 and 30 inches. Lieutenant Glasf:ford, 

of the United States Signal Service, in 1891 officially estimated the 

rainfall on the headwaters of the Santa Ynez at frmn 20 to 25 inches. 

After a careful exarnination of the drainage basin, of the vegetation covering it, of available rainfall records, and frmn a general 

knowledge of the precipitation throughout this portion of the State, 

the writer believes that the average rainfall in this basin is about 

22 inches. However, in order to be 'vithin safe limits in rnaking 

the estimates of available water supply, the same rainfall is used for 

computing the run-off of the Santa Ynez basin as has been observed 

at Santa Barbara. 

IRR 116-05--4 
50 WATER :PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. [:-~o. 116. 

RUN-OFF. 

The question of determining the relation of what is called run-off 

(or the anwunt of water the streams discharge) to rainfall is one of 

considerable difficulty and uncertainty. It is dependent upon the 

character of the rains, whether gentle showers or violent storms 

(the latter yielding the greater run-off), and also upon the steepness 

of the slopes and the size of the watershed. Other things being 

equal, the sn1all watershed has the higher percentage of run-off. A 

one or t'vo years' record does not establish a final ratio. 

The forest cover of the drainage basin also greatly affects the 

run-off. If it is a denuded area the floods are n1ore violent and 

shorter in duration and the summer streanr is n1ueh lower. If the 

drainage basin has a proper forest or brush cover the strean1 is n1ore 

unifonn in flow and carries less silt. The general porosity of the 

soil and rock also affects the character of the run-off. 

A nurnber of efforts have been rnade to establish this ratio of 

rainfall to run-off. The diagram presented herev~rith as fig. 1 (p. 1.5) 

shows by curved lines on a horizontal seale the arnount of rainfall 

in inehes of depth, and on the vertical seale the total corresponding 

vohune of water discharged in acre-feet, an acre-foot of water being 

the arnount that will cover 1 acre 1 foot deep, or 43,.560 cubic feet. 

The curve which is used in this report is one that has been deterruined as the result of a large nurnber of rneasurements in California 

rnade by the United States Geological Survey. It will be noted 

that it indicates less run-off than the others. 

The Salt Springs Valley reservoir is in Calaveras County, Cal., in 

the foothills. The Newell curve for ''nwuntainous areas'' is a general determination, by l\Ir. F. H. Newell, hydrographer of the Geological Sur,rey, for the high nwuntain areas of the western portions 

of the United States. The Arrmvhead reservoir is in San Bernardino County, Cal. The Newell eurve for "undulating areas" is the 

relation detennined by 1\ir. Newell for hill eocntries. The general 

eurve for large watersheds for California is the one used in this report 

as the result of California observations made largely during the 

drought period through which we have passed. It will be noted 

that there is no run-off indicated until after the rainfall exceeds 

10 inches. All of these eurves arc nrueh more unfavorable to large 

run-off than has eustmnarily been accepted for eastern streamso 
.IPPI:-;C'C•TT.] RUN-OFF. 51 

TABLE 11.-Record of precipitation at Santa Barbara, Cal. 

:Latituue, :34o 25'; longitude, 11\:1° -!0'. Elevation, 100 feet. Authority, War Department and Weather 

BurPau.] 

Year. 

18G7-68. __ . _ 

186t>-69 .. _ 

1869-70.---

1870-71.----

;ept I Od I Nov I D~ -I Ja~-:-1 F;b 1-:~;:-l :'I'' I May June July ·I Aug -'J'otaL 

o. oo o. oo 2. 31 lu. 67 i a. 97 : 2. oo I 1. o8 2. H . o. 72 o. oo o. oo I o. oo 25. 19 

. 00 . 00 1. 25 I 4. :?6 i 3. 26 i 2. 12 i 4 'l•J 46 I • 20 . 00 00 • 00 15. 77 

.oo .30 .65; .57 .25 1 

• s· 1 .&3 :gg I .74 .07 :oo .. oo 10.27 

1t>71-72 .. -.--

1872-73.-.-

. 00 1. 04 . 27 1. 41 . . 86 I ~: ;~ I . 02 2. 02 . 37 . 00 . 00 . 00 8. 91 

. 00 . OH 1. ~ G .. 56 2. 53 . 1. 81 . 18 1. 80 . 00 . 14 • 00 . 02 14. \J6 

·~ I ;~ . 1 ~; ; ~ ,; E : :: ·~ I ·~ ! ·~ :E :E I :E ::::: H\7:3-74 _____ _ 

1874-75.-----

1875-76.------ . oo . oo 6. 5.3 . 31 7. 56 5. 6i: 2. 73 . 27 . . oo . oo . 00 I • oo 23.07 

1876-77-----

1877-78.----- . 

1878-79.-----

1879-80.----

. oo . :32 . oo . oo 2. 72 . oo . 82 . 18 . 45 . oo . oo . oo I 4. 49 

. 00 .00 1.32 3.12 7.17 11.7:3 2.47 3.34 .29 .07 ,00 ,(~I 29.51 

. oo . 32 . oo 5. 16 5. 24 . n . 34 1. 60 . 21 . oo . oo . oo n 58 

, 00 , 41 1. 62 4. 57 1. 30 10. 86 1. 15 5, 73 , 00 , 00 I , 00 , 00 25. 64 

1885-86 ....... 1 .00 

1886-87- -. - . -. 

1887-88.-----. 

1888-89 ...... . 

.00 

. :38 

.03 

. 28 9. 73 2.83 

.33 . 95 1.13 

. 77 .10 2. 18 

.00 2. 76 6.:33 

. 79 6. 62 1. 2.3 

!J. 84 2. 47 5.12 ' 

.3U . 87 : . 86 

.:n 1. 1CJ I 4. 43 

. 07 i 5. 62 

1889-90.-----. .00 8.6.5 3. 21 

. 48 

.00 

5. 59 

10.61 

:3. 5::l 

2. 26 

. 31 

10.15 

.29 

5.32 

UIU0-91. . _ . . . . 1. 50 .50 

189HI2. ____ .. .18 

18n-!1:3. _ _ _ _ _ _ . oo 

18\l3-U4. __ . __ . . 00 

1894-95 __ . ___ .

1 

t. 36 

18ns-\J6. ____ . _

1 

. oo 

1896-a7. __ . __ .

1 

. oo 

1.S97-98.-.---. . 00 

18\:18-\JU. ___ .. _ 3. 17 

1Sfl\l-1!l(~)_ _ _ __ . 00 

1\JOQ-1!101.---- . 0! 

HJ01-2.. . 36 

1\102-3 .. ____ .00 

l\l03-4. '1'. 

37-year 

.oo I 

.oo I 

.. , • ±- I 

6'1 . 

. 78 

:3.70 I i. 31 

T. I 3.50 

.11 ' 4.16 

. 77 

. \12 i 3.51 

1.-!4 I .oo .u .00 

2. 06 1. 97 

2.4:J 

1.-18 

T. 

3. 99 

1.16 

4. ()1 

.0:5 

.m 

2. 92 

.00 

.36 

2.35 

()') 

T. 

2. 24 

'l'. 

mean ....... ____ _ 

1. 04 

4..32 

.65 . 

6.25 : 

6.84 

4..35 

. 63 

4.48 

2.32 

4. 86 

1. 36 

2. 06 

.46 

.30 

2.:38 

2.\12 

\J.68 

. 07 

1. 1U 

8.64 

1. 30 

1.29 

2.96 

8.82 

2.48 

3. 55 

1. 25 

5. 74 

3. 64 

u. 77 

. 3.5 

2. 03 

.13 

3.86 

7.:n 

1.10 

1. fi;j 

3.36 

i. 53 

.50 . 22 

.67 1. gg 

.59 .00 

1.63 I .oo 

. 29 I 2. 79 

2. 60 ! .39 

3.00 .00 

3.40 .00 

1. 43 . .33 

.16 .02 

. 49 . 76 

. 31 .18 

1.90 .00 

.34 .62 

.38 .00 

.00 .00 

.20 .00 

.35 .00 

1.62 .00 

.00 .00 

.00 

1 

.. 00 

.03 .00 

T. T. 

.13 .00 

.00 .00 

.00 .00 

.00 .00 

.00 .00 

. 00 15.23 

.00 H. 27 

. 00 113.41 .00 34.47 

.00 ' 13.08 

.00 24.24 

.00 12.99 

T. ~ 21.71 

.00 21.58 

.00 32.37 

.00 18.38 

. 00 10.28 

.~) 27.41 

. 35 . 86 . 00 . 15 . 00 6. 85 

. 46 . 02 . 05 T. • 00 15. 85 

. 00 2. 37 1. 78 . 08 . 05 . 40 . 0() 13. 77 

3. 65 2. 73 o·> . oo . oo . oo . oo 18. 10 

1. 3\J . 28 T. 1. 25 . 00 i T. . 00 4. 9\l 

. 00 2. 78 . 64 • 00 . 78 ' . 00 . 00 12. 35 

. 05 1. 58 . 42 1. 90 . 01 . 02 T. 12. 68 

3. 65 . 16 2. 07 . 34 . 10 . 06 . ()9 15. 53 

4. 40 2. 89 1. 40 . 07 . 00 . 00 . 00 14. 06 

1. 63 6. 12 2. 91 . 00 . 00 . 00 . 00 :1. 20. 45 

4.W 1.10 l.SO I .1\9 ·110_[_:\Xl_l_·'" . ll.6R 

·--~--- --·----c~~--- ____________ 1 ______ 

1 

______ 1 16.78 

As has been previously stated, the rainfall for the drainage basin 

of the Santa Ynez above the :Mono, and for :Mono Creek, is taken 

in the cmnputations as 16.78 inches as an nverage, which is the 

rainfall observed for thirty-seven years at Santa Barbara. 

The drainage aren above the vnrious reservoir sites was carefully 

determined frmn the topographic surveys of the Geologieal Survey 

whieh have been recently Inade. The area above the Juncal reservoir site is 13.4 square 1niles; above the :Mono reservoir site, 119 

square 1niles; above the Main River reservoir site, on the Santa 

Ynez just below the Inouth of Blue Canyon, 71 square 1niles; 

above the Gibraltar reservoir site on the 1nain river, 207 square miles. 
f>2 WATER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. [No. 116. 

The cxpo::sure of the drainage basin of the Santa Ynez proper is 

nwre favorable for a large an1ount of run-off than that of the Mono. 

The rainfall usually increases as the n1ountains rise in elevation, 

but the heaviest precipitation is generally just beyond the erest of 

the range of hills; consequently we would expect an unusually large 

precipitation just beyond the summit of the Santa Ynez Range 

:aorth of Santa Barbara. Moreover, this exposure being a northern 

one, there is less loss by evaporation frmn the soil. This rainfall 

is strikingly indicated by the brush cover on the Santa Y nez :Mountains as compared \vith the cover in the drainage basin of the :Mono. 

As an illustration, it may be 1nentionecl that during the season of 

1902-3 the :Mono drainage basin discharged 8,934 acre-feet of water 

fron1 119 square 1niles; the Santa Ynez above the ~1ono discharged 

9,898 aere-feet from 71 square miles, and the basin above the Gibraltar cla1n site cliseharged 21,202 a acre-feet fron1 207 square miles. 

By applying the cliagran1 (fig. I) showing the relation -of rainfall to 

run-off to the drainage areas of each of the sites, the probable volun1 ~ 

of water available at each in each year has been obtained and is given 

in the last three columns of table 12. It will be noted that there is 

a very great fluctuation in the volume discharged in various years. 

For instance, in 187.5-76 there were probably 3.5,190 acre-feet of water 

discharged through the Gibraltar reservoir site; in the following year 

there were no flood discharges \Vhatever; while in the year 1877-78 

there \Vere probably 66,240 acre-feet. This is a strong argument in 

favor of building reservoirs of sufficient capacity to hold over from 

years of abundance to years of deficiency. It would not be possible to 

catch and retain all the \Vater in all of the years, as there is a lin1it to 

the height of clam that should be built to be com1nercially profitable. 

In consulting a table of estimated discharge of strean1 flow for 

any given section, it must be borne in 1nind that the figures are 

purely hypothetieal, exaet determination being impossible, for numerous reasons. The character of the run-off is dependent upon the 

character of each partieular rain storm, whether it is a gentle shower 

or violent downpour. Again, one stonn quickly following another 

\vill produee a greater stream diseharge, because there is less opportunity of absorption of the rain by the ground. The charaeter 

of the exposure, forest cover, etc., all enter into the eonsiderations, 

rendering the question one of great intrieacy. The table given 

is based upon general results obtained in southern California and 

n1ust be eonsidered merely as an estimate made fron1 the most 

reliable data in hand. In order to obtain intelligent results along 

these lines, it is exceedingly important for the city of Santa Barbara to 1naintain gagings on Santa Ynez River continuously, particularly during the eonstruction of the tunnel prior to the building 

of the dam at Gibraltar. 

a Estimated. 
LIPPI"'COTT.] RFN-OFF. 53 

TABLE 12.-llypotlletical run-off for Santa rnez 1W!ert'oir gites on basis of observed Santa 

Barbara rainfall and run-off diagram. 

I 

Ralniali of I Run-nffl . 'fotul nm-~ofl' in acre-feet. 

Santa Bar- .per square Juncal ' Mono Main river Gibraltar 

1 bara and mile in . (drainage (drainage (drainage (drainage 

I 

Santa Ynez.l' acre-fePt.l area, 13 I area, lHl area, 71 area, 207 square 1 square I square square 

Yf'ar. 

-------- ________ !___ miles)._ /_ miles). miles). miles). 

1867-68 __ -----------

1868-69- - - - - - - - -- -- -! 

1869-70_------------

1870-71.--- ------ -- -: 

1871-72.------------

1872-73.----------- _

1 

1873-74_------------

1874-75.------------

1875-76.------------

1876.-77-- -- -- -- -- -- -

1877-78. ____________ I 

1878-79.------------

1879-80- - - - - - - - - - -- -

1880-81. - - - -- -- -- - - -' 

18S1"'-B2. ____________ I 

1882-83.------------

1883-84_------------

1884-8.5_- -- -- -- -- -- -

1885-86- - -- - - -- -- - - -

1886-87- - - - - - - - -- -- -

1887-88_------------

1888-89- - - - -- - - - - - - -

1889-90- - - - -- - - - - - - -

1890-91_ - - - - - - - -- - - -

1891-92_------------ i 

1892-93- - - - -- -- - - - - -' 

1893-94 __ -----------

1894-9.5_- -- -- -- -- -- -

~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J 

1897-98- - - - - - -- - - - - -i 

1898-99_------------

1899-1900- - - - - - -- - - -

1900-1901__ ---------

1901-2_ -------------I 

1902-3_-------------

1903-4- - - -- -- - - - - -- -

2.5. 19 210 I 2, 730 ' 24, 990 I 14, 910 : 43, 470 

1.1. 11 . oo 1 1so 1, uo 1 4, 25o I 12, 42o 

10.21 , ________ · __________________ I ____________________ _ 

8. 91 __________________________ ) __________ I __________ _ 

14. 96 i'iO i 650 5, 950 I 3, .550 i 10,3.50 

10 .. 5o _______ -I- _______ , __________ I _________ -.- _________ _ 

14. 44 40 .520 4, 760 2, 840 I 8, 280 

18.71 10.5 1,365 12,495 7,455 21,735 

23.07 

4.49 

29 .. 51 

13.58 

25.64 

15.25 

14.27 

13.41 

34.47 

13.08 I 

24.241 

12.99 

21.71 

21. .58 

32.37 

18.38 

10.28 

27.41 

6. 8.5 

V5. 83 

13.77 

18. 10 

4.99 

12. 3.5 

12.68 

Hi .. 53 

14.06 

20.45 

11.68 

110 1 2,210 

--------------

320 4,160 

40 .520 

230 2,990 

.50 6.50 

40 i .520 

30 390 

430 i .5, .590 

30 390 

190 2,470 

30 390 

1.50 .1, 9.10 

1.50 1, 9.:0:0 

370 4,810 

90 1,170 

20,230 12,070 

--~~.- ~~ l" -;;: ;;~ 

4, 760 ' 2, 840 

27,370! 16,330 

5, 950 

1

, 3, .5.so 

4,760 2,840 

3,.570 2, 130 

.51, 170 30,.530 

3,.570 2, 130 

22,610 ' 13,490 

3,.570 2, 130 

17,850 10,6.50 

17,8.50 10,6.50 

44,030 26,270 

10,710 6,390 

35, 190 

66,240 

8,280 

47,610 

10,3!50 

8,280 

6,210 

89,010 

6,210 

39,330 

6,210 

31,0W 

31,050 

76,590 

18,630 

• • -;~,~ l" ~.- ~~'~-! • • • ~~.- ~~~-:- • • ~~.- ~~~ I • • • • ~;: ;~,~ I I 

_______ : ________ ---------1----------·-----------

60 780 7, 1-10 ! 4, 260 12,420 

40 520 4, 760 2, 840 8, 280 

go 1,110 10.110 6,390 18,630 

-------------- ---------1--------- ---------- 20 260 2,380 1,420 4, 140 

30 ' 390 3,mo 2,130 6,210 

60 780 7,140 4,260 12,420 

40 .520 4,760 2,840 8,280 

120 1, .560 (/14,280 11 8, 1)20 24,840 

].5 Hl.5 1, 78.5 1, 06.5 3, 10;) 

a Measured flow, 8,934 acl'e-feet. I> Measured flow, \l,i.:fJR aere-fpet. 
54 WATER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. (NO. 116. 

TABLE 13.-Jleasured run-off of Santa rnez Rit'er and Jlono Greek for 190f12-S. 

1 Total run-off in acre-feet. 

Month. 

1902. 

July •. ______________________________________ . ____ . ________ _ 

August ____________________________________________________ _ 

September _________________________________________________ _ 

October ___________________________________________________ _ 

N oven1 her _________________________________________________ _ 

Decen1ber _________________________________________________ _ 

1903. 

January _____________________________________ . __________ . __ _ 

~:~:a_r~---- _- _- ~ ~: ~::: ~ ~:: ~ ~ ~ ~:::::: ~:: :::::::::::::::::::::::I 

April. _____________________________________________________ , 

:h-fay ______________________________________________________ . 

JunP- .. ______________________________________________________ I 

Estimate for 1902-3. __________________________ . _ .. __ ... __ .. _ 

Run-off for 1902-3, in acn~-feet per Rquare mile. ____ ._. ___ ..... . 

190::3. 

July ....... __________ .. ____________ .. ______________ .. 

August . ____ . ____________________________________________ _ 

Septen1her _________________________________________ . ____ .. _ 

October . _________ . _ .. ____________ .. ____________ . ________ . _ 

Novembe.r ____ . _____ .. _______ . ___ . __ . __ .. _________ . _______ _ 

December_ . ___ .. ___ .. _____ . ___________ . - ____ ... __ - - . ___ - - - -

, E r.t.imn t<>d. 

Run-off at Gibraltar, in acre-feet, for 1902-8. 

[Estimated.] 

Mono at dam site 

(drainage 

area, 119 square 

miles). 

0 

0 

0 

0 

173 

12 

676 

389 

1, 845 

4,820 

799 

220 

8,934 

14,280 

7ri. 1 

21 

10 

7 

3 

2 

3 

46 

I Main river 

1 

above Mono 1 (drainage ' area, 71 square 

miles). 

0 

0 

0 

0 

280 

111 

1,193 

75.5 

1,230 

4,998 

1,045 

286 

9,898 

8, .520 

139.4 

68 

31 

18 

9 

rt 12 

({ 14 -----

1.52 

Mono at dam site _______________________________________________________ _ 8,934 

9,898 

2,370 

Santa Ynez above :Mono _________________________________________________ _ 

17 square miles bQlow ~Iono, eRtima ted ( 17 X 139 A) ________________________ _ 

Total for Gihrnltar _________________________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 21, 202 
LIPPINCOTT.] RUN-OFF. 

Totalrun-()ff, ir: aaP-fPef, of main ril'el' at Oibraltar dam site. 

li>rainagP :tn•a, ~07 squarn milL·~-1 

1903.11 190-J-. 

July. __ .. __ .. ___ ._ ... __________ _ 

August .. _ ... _ . _ .... __ . _ .... _ . __ . ~ ! ~~~;u~~ _- _- _- : : _- : : _- _- _- : _- : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ September ....... ____ ... _._ .. _ .. _ 0 1 September. .... _ ......... ___ . __ . 

October ...... _ ...... _ . _ .... ___ .. 0 October _______ . __ ............. . 

November_ ...... __ .. _. ____ . ____ _ 0 I N ovem her. _ ................... . 

Deeem her _ . _ .. ___ .. _ .. _ . ______ . _ 1 i 1 Decem her _ ... _ ..... _ . _ . _______ _ 

190-J-. 1905. 

55 

2 

0 

11,484 

.s.% 

381 

430 

.January (7-::n) . __ ... _ . _ .. _. ____ _ 45 

690 

1,8.1)7 

1, 12.5 

418 

42 

,January_ ...................... _ 4, 538 

February ________ . ______________ _ February .. _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 7 53 

:Mareh _ . _______________________ _ 

April _______ .. __ .. _____________ _ 

11ay ................ -- .. --------

June. ____ .... ____ .. __ ... _____ ... 

Total for season .... _. ____ ... 4, 194 

It is suggested that a reservoir should be so constructed as to 

supply at least 150 gallons per capita daily for a population of 

10,000, the use and evaporation in thig case anwunting to about 

2,100 acre-feet yearly. At the :Mono reservoir site a dam 85 feet 

high, holding water to a. maxinmn1 depth at the da1n of 7."> feet, 

would give this continuous supply for nineteen nwnths. At the 

Gibraltar reservoir site a dan1 100 feet high would impound a two 

years' supply, and a da111 15:1 feet high v;ould have a capacity of 

15,793 acre-feet. These figures a.s to flow of the strearns and capacities of reservoirs indicate the adequacy of a systen1 based upon these 

physical conditions. The records of stremn ilmv should be eontinuously 1naintained to assist in the detennination of the requisite 

height of dam. 

QUALITY OF' WATER. 

The quality of the water in the neighborhood of Santa Barbara 

has been n1ade tlw subject. of long study hy Prof. Jan1es A. Dodge, 

of :l,anta Barbara. IIerewith arP given certain analyses 1nade by 

hin1 of the water of creeks in this vieinity. Although these are not 

absolutely complete, inasnuwh as sn1a1l quantities of minerals present 

are not stated, they were 1nade 'vith care. Other complete analyses 

that were n1ade subsequently show no n1atPrial difference frmn the 

results given. The analysis of the watE·r oft he city tunnel as supplied 

to constnners in Santa Barbara was n1ade at the request of Doctor 

Cassal, hea.lth officer in 1800. The an10unt of mineral substances in 

80lution in the tunnel water dot•s not 1naterinlly differ frmn that shown 

by the analysis 1nade of :Mission Creek waters in 189.J-. Other analyses 

n1ade by Professor Dodge at vtuious tinws, of waters frmn the wells 

a Estimated. 
56 W ATF.R PROBLEMS OF ~ANTA BARBARA, CAL. [No. 116. 

in the city, shmv thern to he, gen{'rally speaking, very similar to the 

creek 'vater. Professor Dodge eoneludes that the ordinary water in 

use for domestic purposes frmu the strip of country between Santn. 

Y nez Mountains and tlw ocean is practically uniforrn in quality. 

There are, however, exceptional waters in this vicinity differing 

decidedly from those above referred to, one of these being the 

Veronica water, and another the water from the Hot Springs. 

A~ALYSES OF RA:\IPLES. 

Certain analyses were made of the water frmn :Mono Creek by 

Prof. Laird J. Stabler, chernist for the rnivNsity of Southern California and also for the Southern California ~Iedical College, one 

(No. 5) being of the low summer flow, consisting of merely a few 

rninpr's inches seC'ping through the sands and gravels and naturally 

containing an abnorrnally large arnount of rnineral n1atter. Another 

(No. 7) 'vas of the 'vater from the first floods from the drainage basin, 

which, as is custmnary after a long drought, carried smne of the 

accunuilated salts -deposited along the margins of the stream by 

summer evaporation, and also a large anwunt of pulverized sediment trampled by stock during the preceding summer and readily 

picked up and carried away by the first dash of water over the 

ground. These analyses of the low-water stage at the end of a dry 

s{'ason and the first flood water are the most unfavorable that could 

be n1ade. The analyses of thC' later floods, made as tlw S<'ason 

advane<'d, give smaller arnounts both of silt and of mineral rnatter, 

as shown in analyses No. 0 and No. 12. 

Analysis No.1, INlfer of Mission Creek. 

[Analyst, James .\.. Dodgr; date of annlyi'if1, Jmw, 1R94.] 

Orains pPr 

F. S. gallon. 

Sodium chloridP _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1. 28 

Sodium sulphatP _____________________________________________ _ 

Calcium sulphate _____________________________________________ _ 

Calcium carbonat£' ___________________________________________ _ 

.Magnesium carbonate _________________________________________ _ 

Potassium carbonate _________________________________________ _ 

Alumina and iron salts _______________________________________ _ 

Silicn __________________ -------------------------------------

"6. 9.5 

7.4.5 

6.02 

A. 21 

Trace. 

TracP. 

TracP. 

TotaL ___________________ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2fl. 91 

Reactinn of rPsidtH' left hy PYaporntion in a platinum dish, slightly alkalinP. 

Analysis No.2, u•attr of Cold Spring CrePl.·. 

[Analyst . .Tamrs A. DodgP; <latr of nmt!ysif1, .Jtmf', lk\l4.J 

f<rains per 

F. R. gallon. 

Sodium chloridP _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1. 0.'5 

Sodium sulphate___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ fl. 96 

Caleium snlphatt• ________________________ . ___ ~ _______ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 10. 63 
l.lPPINCOTT.] ~UALI'l'Y 01.< 'VATER. 

Grains per 

F. 8. gallon. 

Calcium carbonat(• _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6. 25 

Magm·sium carbonutt•_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6. 54 

Potassium earbonatt> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Trace. 

Alumina and iron salts ___________________________________ . __ . _ TntC'f'. 

Silica_______________________________________________________ Trac0. 

TotaL____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 30. ·13 

RPaetion of resichw l0ft. by PYaporation in a platinum dish, slightly nlknlin('. 

Analysis No. ;7, 1/Ylfff' from thr Santa Rrrrlwrrr rity 1mter hmnrl. 

57 

[AnalyRt, .Tnmrs "\.Dodge; annlyRis ma(Je in NoYrmllPr. lS(l\1, for lloetor CnRRal. IH•alth offie<'r.) 

Grains per 

F. 8. gallon. 

Sodium chloride_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 . .1137 

Sodium sulphate __ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ S. 392 

Magnesium sulphate __________________________________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3. 118 

Magnesium carbonat". __________________________________ .______ 1. 769 

Calcium carbonat£'. ___________________________ . _______________ 14.097 

Iron carbonate. ______________________________________________ _ 

Potassium carbonatr• _________________________________ · ________ _ 

Lithium salts ________________________________________________ _ 

Silica ______________________________________________________ _ 

Nitrates ____________________________________________________ _ 

Organic carbonaceous mattn ___________________________ .. ______ _ 

. 122 

. 379 

Trac0. 

TraeP. 

Trac0. 

Tmc0. 

TotaL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 28. 414 

Analysis No. -L 1/Yltll' from Santa rw'z HiNT at yrrr,lny station Ollr-half milt almrr mmdh of 

Jlono Orwk. 

[Collected by 8. n. H('llnett, January .t. Jno:l; annlyRt, Lainl .T. 81nhlrr. Ch•ar watrr; low Rtnge hrfore 

wintrr floolls.] 

Sodium chloride ___________________________________________ _ 

Sodium sulphatP __________________________________________ _ 

Sodium ear bonate> __________________________________________ _ 

Total solids _________________________________________________ . 

I 

Graim: per ~ Parts per gallon. 100,000. 

2.72 

29.82 

16 .. 57 

42.91 

!----

4.68 

51. Hl 

28.41 

73.60 

Analysis No. Fi, 1/'ater fmm Jlrmn Creek at yartiny station near mnuth. 

[Cnilrdt>d by~- (L HPrmett, January 4, 1\IO:l; annlyRt. Lnir•l .T. Rtahlrr. Clt>ar water, low fitage.] 

OrninR per PartR pPr 

Sodium ~-hloriu:~~ -~ ________________________________________ I 

gallon. 100,000. 

.1. ~l..J. 10.20 

Sodium sulphate ___________________________________________ _ IJS. 2:-1 D9.9..J. 

Sodium carbonate. _________________________________________ _ li.D-1 30. 7..J. 

Total mine>ralmattf'r. __ ... __________________________________ _ St. IH 1-10.00 
58 WATER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. [No. 116. 

Analysis No. fl, u·ata from Santa rnez Ritw abo11e mouth of Mono Greek. 

[Collected by W. B. Clapp, Xovember, 1H02; analyst, Laird J. Stabler. First fiood.l 

,--. --~~~ 

Parts per 100,000. 

I

, Grams per gallon. 

-------------------------- ------- ~--------

Sodium chloride ..... _ ................ _____ . ______ .......... _I 2. 50 3.5 

65.6 

17.38 

2,640.00 

116.00 

Sodium sulphate ........ _ .. _____________________________ . ___ I 38. 25 

Sodium carbonate ......... __ . __________________________ . ___ .I 10. 13 

Total solids in suspension ..... _______________________________ I 1, 7 49. 50 

Total solids in solution. ____________________________________ . 67.64 

Solid matter deposited in 30 hours, 7.3 per cent by volume; solid matter deposited in 

3 days, 7.3 per cent by volume. 

Analysis No.7, water from Mono Greek near dam site. 

[Collected by W. B. Clapp, November, 1902; analyst, Laird J. Stabler. First fiood.] 

Grains per Parts per gallon. 100,000. 

------~~----------------1-----------------

Sodium chloride. ______ .......... _ .... ____ .... _ . _ . __________ _ 

Sodium sulphate .... ____________________________ . __________ _ 

Sodium carbonate .. __ ..... ____________ . __ .. _. ______________ _ 

I Total solids in suspension .. _____ .. _ .. _____ . __ . _______________ i 

Total solids in solution. _____________________________ . ________ I 

2.3 

33. 11 

9.51 

342.80 

57. 15 

3.94 

56.80 

16.32 

931.00 

98.00 

Solid matter deposited in 30 hours, 4 pPr cent by volunw; solid matter deposited in 

3 days, 4.1 per cent hy volume. 

Analysis No. 7, water }rom Mono Greek. 

[Collected January 24, Hl03, at low stage; analyst, James A. Dodge.] 

Grains per gallon. 

Suspended siliceous mattPr, separatPd by filtration_ ........... _ .. __ 1. 46 

Sodium chloride ..... _ . __ . __ .... _ . _ ... _ ........ __ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. 49 

Sodium carbonate .. __ . ____ . _ .. ____ .... __ . __ ..... _. _. _.......... 3. 73 

Sodium sulphate_._. __ .. _ ...................................... 13. 14 

Magnesium sulphate. _________ ._._ ..... _ ... _._ .. __ .............. 22.43 

Calcium sulphate ..... _ ....... __ .. _ .............. _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. 34 

Calcium carbonate .. _. ___ . _. ___ . __ . _ ....... _ ... _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16. 99 

Aluminum sulphate_ .. __ .. _____ . _ . _ . _ .......... _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 17 

Iron salts ............. __ . __ ..... ___ ........................... Trace. 

Potassium salts ... _ ..... ______ . _ .. _ ............. _ .............. Trace. 

Organic matter_. _____ ... _ . __ . _ ....... _. _ .. _ .. __ ......... _ .. _ .. Trace. 

Total dissolved suhstanePs ................................ 73.29 

The following analyses of waters from Mono Creek and Santa 

Ynez River were taken from the low stage of the stream subsequent 
LIPPTXCOTT.] QUALITY OF WATER. 59 

to the first flood, hut it is believed that they still eontained abnorInally high quantities of solids in solution: 

ATWlysis iVo. 8' wata from Santa r nez River at cable station. 

[Collected by H. Rankin, January :.'D. Jf!m; analyRt, Laird J. Sta.hler. Low sta.ge.] 

Grains per Pa.rts pPr 

ga.llon. 100,000. 

Chlorides as sodium chlori<k- _______________________________ _ 

Carhonatl's us Rodium carbonatP. ____________________________ _ 

Sulphat(•s as sodium sulphatP _______________________________ _ 

Total solids in solution _____________________________________ _ 

Total solids in suspension (0.02 per ct•nt) ____________________ _ 

2.0-! 

1-1. -!.5 

18.49 

3-±. 99 

11. 66 

Analysis No.9, water from Mono Creek at cable station. 

[Collected by II. Rankin, January 29, I!lm; analyRt, L . .T. Stabler.] 

3 .. 5 

2-!.8 

31. 72 

60.00 

20.00 

Grains per Parts per gallon 100,000. 

------------ -----1 

ChloridPs as sodiu~n chloridl' __________________________________ ! 

Carbonates as sodmm earbonat.P ______________________________ _ 

Sulphatcs as sodium sulphate _________________________________ i 

Total solids in suspension (0.02 pPr <'f'nt) __________________ -- -- _, 

Total solids in solution _____________________________________ _ 

3.67 

10.99 

37.00 

13.99 

56.20 

.. 1nalysi.~ No. HI, u•nter from Santa YnPz Ri1-er at cable station. 

[Collected hy H. Rankin, January :10, lfH~'l; a.nalyRt, L. J. l'tahler.] 

--------------------------------

6.3 

18.86 

63.44 

24.00 

97.2 

Grains pE'r Parts per gallon. 100,000. 

Chlorides as sodium c hloridP _________________________________ _ 

Carbonate.s as sodium carbonat(' _____________________________ _ 

Sulphatrs as sodium sulphat(• _________________________________ _ 

Solids in solution ___________________________________________ _ 

2.04 

16.31 

18.64 

44.51 

Arwlysis ;Yo. I 1, 1/'0ter from 1lfono ('reek at cable station. 

[ColleC>tcd by IT. Rankin, .Tnnunry :m, Hlm; analyst, L. J. Stabler.] 

I 

Grains per I 

3.5 

27.98 

31.96 

69.2 

Parts pE'r 

100,000. 

I 

gallon. 

-------------------------- --------~ 1-

ChloridPs as sodium ehloridP _________________________________ _ 

Carbonates as sodium carhonatP _______________________________ i 

Snlphat.Ps as sodium sulphat.P ________________________________ _ 

Solids in solution ___________________________________________ _ 

3. (i7 I 

14.60 

44. 10 

n.5.42 

6.3 

2.5. 01 

75.6-! 

112. 0 
GO WATER PRORLEMR OF RANTA BARBARA. CAL. [No. ll!i. 

Analy8i8 No. 72, 1mtrr from Jl[ono r'Nrk. 

[Colleeterl hy li. Ha.nkin, January:!.-.. J\lm; unalyHt, Jamt•c: .\. l>odgf•. Flood water.] 

Grains per gallon. 

Sodium chloridt• _______ .. __ . __________ . __ .. __ . _ . _ . _ ... _ . ___ . . . . 0. 99 

Sodium carbonate ____ . _____________________ . ___ .. ____ . _ . __ .. __ . 1. 05 

Sodium sulphate _________________ .. __________ . __ . _____ .. _ . __ .. _ 

~fagnesium sulphatP __________ . _________ . _______ . _______ .. _ . ___ _ 

Calcium sulphate __________________________________________ . __ . _ 

Calcium carbonatP ________ . ______________ . _________________ . _. _ 

Iron carbonate ... ______ . ___ . _____ . _______ . ___ . ___ . ___________ . _ 

7 .. 59 

3.52 

6.07 

7.83 

.88 

Potassium salts _________________________________________ .. _ .. __ Trace. 

Organic matter._ . ________________________ . ____________ ... _ . ___ Trace. 

TotaL ________ . _. _ .. __________ .. _____ . _______ . _____ .... _ 27. 93 

This water contained silt, suspended and subsided, consisting mainly of clay, but containing some fragments of vegdablC' matter, and amounting to 3~ per cent by weight of the 

total watPr. This silt subsided with moderate quickness and left the water clear in somewhat less than three days. 

Analysis No. 13, water from ·Mono Creek·. 

ICollectd by II. Rankin, February 21), 190:3; disch:trge, 4.50 second-feet; analyst, L. J. Stabler.] 

I 

Grains per I Parts per 

s.KJ:,:hlo<~=-----: ___ : __ ~ __ : _________________ --1 

gallon. 100,000. 

-~--

4.01 6.87 

~:~~::::: ::~;~:~t_P __ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I 2.00 3. 43 

14.85 25.46 

Potassium sulphate. _______________________________________ . -1 

Calcium sulphate. ___ .. _ . ____ . __ . __________________ . _____ . __ _ 

Calchnn ca<bonat.. ___________________________________________ : 

Magnesium carbonatP __ .-- -. - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - -- -- - - -- -- -- -

1 

1. 02 1. 72 

30.45 .52.22 

3.82 6.56 

8.42 14.43 

TotaL __________ . _ . __ . __ . ____ . - _ . - _ . - - __ - -. _ - -. _ - - _ - - -! 64 .. 57 110.69 I 

The mineral matter is rather excessive for domestic purpose::~. The alkali salts an"\ not 

beyond the limit for irrigation, hut amount preRent would be large for some soils. The 

water would fom1 considerable hard scale in boilers. As this is a low-water sample, it 

shows more mineral salts than flood-water samples. 

Analysis No. 14, water from Mono Creek. 

[Collected hy II. Rankin, Fehrnary 26, 19m; discharge, 4.5 second-feet; analyst, James A. Dodge.] 

Grains per gallon. 

Sodium chloride_. ___ . ___ .. __ . _. _. ____ .. __ . _ .. ________ .. __ . _ _ _ _ 3. 97 

Sodium rnrbonatP. ____ . __ . ____ . ______ . ___ . _ ... ___ . ___ . __ . _ _ _ _ _ _ 3. fl1 

Sodium sulphate ________ . ____________________ . _________ . __ . ____ 13. 8~ 

Magnesium sulphatP __ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 21. fif) 

Cakium sulphate. ___________________ . ______________________ . _ _ _ S. 37 

Calcium carhonat,p ______ . ______________________________________ 22. 02 

I ron carbonatP ___ . _______ . __ . ________ . _________________________ TracP. 

Aluminum snlphatP ___ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 .. 52 

Potftssium salts ______ . __________ . ________ . _____________________ TracP. 

Silica ____ . ___ . ___________________________________________ . __ . _ 0. 41 

TotaL ___________________ . ____ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7 -L .59 

Suspend1:1d matt.Pr ___________________________ . ___ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0. 29 
l:IPPINCOTT.] {~{T ALITY OJ<' WATER. ()1 

Analysis No. 15, from Santa Ynez Ri1•er at Gibraltar. 

[Collreted hy L. M. 1Iy<le, .May:?, IH04; disehargc, Hi.\Ji second-feet; analyst, James A. Dodge.] 

1. Gem·ml eharadl•r of the water. 

Clear, colorless, fn•e from odor, of good ta:,;te; showing a slight sedinwnt in the bottle, 

not sufficient for quantitative determination. Reaction slightly alkaline. 

2. Organic matter. 

A microscopie examination of the yery ::;mali amount of matter separated by filtering, 

including the above-mentioned sediment, :,;bowed some plant fibers and parts of yegetahle 

organisms; also a fe'v infusoria in a state of activity. These are usually present in river 

and lake watL•r:-;. 

3. Chemical analysis of the mineral mattl>r in solution. 

l'arts per Clrains per HMl,OOO. F. S. gallon. 

I 

-------~~ 

Calcium earbonate ___________________ . _________ - _- __ --------· 3-1.98 20.393 

Calcium sulphate __________________________________________ _ -!. 03 2. 3.)0 

~~~::~.~i•:::;,:~~;,:mte : :: :: :: :: :::: :: :: :: :: • ::: :: :: • :• : ••• : :: • 25. 78 15.030 

12.S7 7.328 

Sodium chloride ___________________________________________ _ 3.64 2. 122 

Potassium carl>onate _______________________________________ _ 1. OS O.G12 

Lithium salts _____________________________________________ _ Trace. Trace. 

Iron salts _________________________________________________ _ Trace. Trace. 

~it rates _________________________ .. ___ .. -. - _ . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Trace. Trace. 

Silica __________ ------------------------------------------- Trace. Traee. 

'l'otal __________________________ .. ___ . ______________ _ 82.05 -!7.835 

The foregoing substances are to be ulllll'rstuod as in the anhydrous state. 

Degrees. 

Total hardness _ . ________________________ . ____ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 37 

Permanent hardnl'ss ___ . _______________ .. ______ . ___ . ______ . _ _ _ _ _ _ 20 

Temporary hardness. _______ . _. ____ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 17 

The total and the permanent hardness were determined hy the use of a standardized 

soap solution. The temporary hardness i:-; found by subtracting the permanent from the 

total. 

The U.S. gallon of 231 cubic inches is the basis of these results, not the imperial gnllon, 

as formerly customary. 

This analysis shmvs that tlw water is of good quality for domestic usc and for irrigation. 

For table use, like the water of all strl'ams in this vicinity, it would be improved by boiling and settling. This process rerno\'es a considerable part of the mineral matter and 

destroys infusoria and other living organisms. For use in steam boilers it would be advisaule to suumit this watl'r to a softening treatment before taking it into the boilers. 

DISCUSSION OF ANALYSES. 

Up to January 28, 1903, this season was not productive of floods, 

the precipitation having been largely in the fonn of snow in the 

higher Inountains, and the high water occurring later in the spring. 

For this reason all of the san1ples except Nos. 6, 7, and 1 ~ wen' taken 
62 WATER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBAI~A, CAL. [No. ll6. 

when the strea1n was at low stage. The water that runs off the 

surface of the ground in floods 'vill not contain as n1uch 1nineral 

n1atter as that which seeps through the soil into the stream during 

its low stage. San1ples Nos. 12 and 13 show this to be true. It is 

probable that over 80 per cent of the total annual discharge of the 

Mono will be in freshets. This being the case, we' n1ay expect the 

water that is stored in reservoirs to be nwre nearly like the floodwater than the low-water sa1nples analyzed. If the low-water flow 

tends to deteriorate the whole impounded in the reservoir, it 1nay 

be carried around the reservoir in a conduit. 

The first flood that is flushed over the surface of a drainage basin 

after a drought will absorb nwre mineral 1natter than later floods 

will find. Thus sa1nple No. 12 shows better water than No. 7. 

San1ple No. 12, frmn the second flood water of the Mono, shows a 

water practically the same as that now being used by the city of 

Santa Barbara frmn 11ission Creek and the c.ity tunnel. The 10\v..:. 

water sarnples contain a high per cent of rnineral, but even they are 

pronounced harmless by ::\fr. Dodge. The water of the Santa Ynez 

above the .Mono is better than the .Mono water. The water stored 

at the Gibraltar site would be a blended water, grading between the 

two; and in view of the fact that this is the only source of supply 

open to the city for an adequate amount of water, it i3 believed that 

it should be accepted. 

Prof. James A. Dodge, a chemist of n1arked and recognized ability, 

residing at Santa Barbara, who rnade a nun1ber of the foregoing 

analyses, gives the following state1nent about the quality of this 

supply: 

On the supposition that the proposed reservoir on ~Iono Creek will be filled with the 

flood water of the creek, but that the water running in the creek during its low stages will 

also pass into the reservoir, the water as supplied to this city from that source will in its 

composition come bet"leen the samples analyzed hy me and reported on the 16th and 

21st of February [No. 12] and the 4th of ~larch [No. 14], and might under certain conditions approximate to the first of these samples. 

Considering, therefore, this low-water sample, I call attention to the fact that the principal mineral ingredients~that is, those present in greatest quantity~are the familiar 

calcium and magnesium salts of our bard waters. A person drinking a quart of this 

water would take into his stomach from 12 to 13 grains of these salts. He would at the 

same time take about 5 grains of sodium salts, equally common in our natural waters as 

used for domestic purposes, together with a very small amount of other harmless mineral 

substances. 

In my opinion, these quantitiPs of all these substances, taken in water, would nut be 

sufficient to produce any deleterious or unpleasant effects upon a person in good health, 

properly supplied with food. Nor would the habitual use ~f the water bring about any 

bad consequences. In the case of some persons in delicate health, or of persons fasting, 

the same substances in the same quantity contained in the water ·would probably hnve 

the medicinal action of an aperient. This opinion is based on actual experience in the use 

of such water by myself and by others in the same company. 
LIPPINCOTT.] QUALITY OE' WATER. 63 

I will add that this water by being boiled would be caused to deposit a part of the calcium 

and magnesium salts, in the form of carbonates, and would thereby be improved. Furthermore, aside from the removal of a part of the mineral matter, aU water taken from 

streams and lakes, in view of the possibility of its contamination by disease germs, needs 

boiling to make it perfectly safe for domestic use. After being boiled and decanted from 

the precipitated substances, the water, if placed in a suitable receptacle, will keep as long 

as may be desired and will be quite potable from first to last. ' 

As regards the use of the Mono Creek water for cooking purposes, in my opinion the 

quantity of mineral substances introduced into the articles cooked with it would not be 

sufficient to produce any noticeable effects. 

For washing this is a hard water. It ''muld, with ordinary soaps, be somewhat more 

troublesome than the waters now supplied to the people of this city. 

In the irrigation of trees, shrubs, and other plants, this water would not produce any 

injurious effects, unless applied in extraordinary quantity or on soil with little or no 

drainage. 

It must be ad1nitted that these waters are not of high grade for 

domestic use because of the large quantities of n1ineral n1atter in 

solution, but it is not believed that they will be injurious to health, 

nor will they be hannful to vegetation. The sulphate of sodium 

is not harmful, and the sulphate of lin1e tends to neutralize the carbonates. All stream waters contain more or less mineral n1atter. 

Chemically pure water is neither pleasant to drink nor healthful. 

The question of soils becoming alkaline frmn irrigation with salty 

water is largely dependent upon the slope and drainage that the 

soil itself has. In a hill country water containing unusual quantities of alkali may be used with in1punity, while in a flat country 

a water of much better grade could not be applied in irrigation 

without producing bad effects. No organic in1purities, which are 

most to be feared, will be found in these waters in dangerous quantities. 

It should be stated that the sa1nples Nos. 4 to 11, given Professor 

Stabler, were not large enough in volun1e to permit of cmnplete 

analysis. 

Mr. Thomas H. Means,a of the Bureau of Soils of the Department 

of Agriculture, makes the following comn1ent upon the quality of 

the water as indicated by the foregoing analyses: 

I have examined the analyses given in your report to the city water commissioners of 

Santa Barbara, Cal., with a view to determining whether these waters would be considered favorable for city use or not. I have considered the sources as free from contamination through animals and consequently have confined my attention to the mineral 

ingredients whieh the water carries. 

As I understand the situation, the water which you propose to carry through the mountains by a tunnel is to be stored in a reservoir on Santa Y nez River and comes in something 

like equnl parts from Santott Ynez River and Mono Creek. The analyses in your report are 

a Mr. Means has since been appointed engineer of soils of the H.eclamation Service. 
64 WATER PIWBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. [~o. 116. 

from ;;amples taken from both stret~;lls. The •following table is a recapitulation of the 

analyses, showing only tiw total solids in 100,000 partt> of water: 

Comparison of analysfs of Santa }~nez and .Mono water. 

1 'ate. 

l!J03. 

:Stage of Santa Ynez River. 

Jan. 4 Low stage before 

floods. 

Nov. a - First flood _________ _ 

Jan. 29 Low stage _________ _ 

30 ____ .do. ___________ _ 

Part~> per 100,000. 

73.60 

116.00 

60.00 

.69.20 

II 

!I 

Date. 

1~1903. ,

1 

Jan. 4 

Stage of Mono Creek. 

Low stage 

floods. 

before 

First flood __________ _ I NovJtI Jan. 29 Low I stage ___________ , 

I 30 _____ do.L ___________ _ 

28 Flood _____ . ________ _ 

26 Low water. _________ _ 

Parts per 100,000. 

140.00 

9S.OO 

97.20 

112.00 

48.30 

110.69 

26 _____ do_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 129. 00 

'' Hl02. 

All of these samples, with OJH' exception, arc collected at low stage of the strpam, when 

tlw amount, of soluble mattt•r is usually higlwst, or at first flood after the dry season, when 

the neeumulationt> of saline matter from tlw surface of the soil are swept into the stream. 

So these analyst'S pFobably represent the ;vorst condition of the water. The only flood 

sample is that from the ~[ono Creek ('ollected January 28, 1903, and its analysis shows 

considerably less than half the solublP matter found in the low-stage flow of the stream. 

I presume if flood samples were collected from the Santa Ynez a similar falling off in 

amount of soluble matter would be noted. The importance between this difference in lowwater and flood stagcs is Yery great, espeeially where the floods enn he stored and where 

it may be possible to di,,ert the low-water flow and earry it around the reservoir. 

The waters of ·~Jono Creek seem to earry mueh more soluble matter than do those of the 

Santa Ynez. The an'ragc of the analyses ginn under the first four dates in the table shmvs 

Mono Creek to earry nearly 49 pt'r cent more soluble matter than dot's Santa Ynez River. 

If tlw sanw ratio holds during tht' flood season the mixture of waters in the two streams 

should earry lt'ss than 40 parts per 100,000 parts of water, or a water, as will be shown later, 

which, nceording to the most rigid standards in eastern cities and in Europe, would be elassPd 

as "good" for domestic use. On the other hand, if the low-water discharge alone is considered the average of a mixture of the two wa~t·rs would be about 1H parts per 100,000. 

Later I will show that according to accepted standards this amount of soluble matter is 

;veil within the limit of western American sanitary engineers. 

The standard most generali~T accPpted in pastern (TnitPd States and Europe allows 50 

parts per 100,000 parts of watt'!'. More than that quantity sen'es to condemn a water or 

class it as a water only" fair" for donwstic use, while waters carrying less than 50 parts a1e 

elassed generally as good. E. W. Ililgard, of the CniYCrsity of California, places the limit 

for domestic use at .JO grains pPr gallon (68.() parts per 100,000). J. K. Haywood, chief 

of the water laboratory of the Bureau of Chemistry in the United States Department of 

Agriculture, in an article on Analysis of Waters and IntNpretation of Results, published 

in the Department of Agriculture Yearbook for 1902, makes the following statement: 

"Some water analyzers ;vould cast aside all doubt by declaring that waters containing 

aboYP 68G parts per million (68.() parts per 100,000) are to he condemned, hut such is not 

the casP, as there an' many instances, especially in the \Vest, of water containing 1,200 parts 

pN million (120 parts pel' 100,000) and oYer being used without apparent ev1l results." 

As a matter of precedent, I might say that there are a number of small western towns 
i.IPPINCUTT.] tllT ALITY 011' WATER. 65 

using water carrying more than 100 part,; soluble matter per 100,000 parts of water, and that 

the city of Phoenix, Ariz., supplies about 15,000 people with water carrying from 102 to 

136 part:s, without apparent inconvenience or harmful effect. ~umerous domestic supplies 

for familie::; have been ob::;crved by my:o;df carrying from 400 to .500 parts per 100,000, all 

without evil efl'ect. and with no ineom't\nience except that the waters were unpalatable at 

first. The inhabitants of some parts of the Southwest have become so used to the saline 

waters that I have seen pure water saltl:'d at table to bring back the familiar taste 

I find it very difficult to draw any definite conclusions from the character of the salts in 

the water, for I am not familiar with the methods employ('d by the chemists in calculating 

these analyses. However, it seems that the most important constituents are salts of lime. 

These scrn\ to make the water hard, will cause considerable losses in soap used, and will 

give trouble in boiler use by forming scale. I can not say how much of this hardness is 

"temporary" and how much'' permanent." The two analyses, Nos. 13 and 14, are eYidently made from duplicate samples by· two chemists working independently. One of 

them, No. 13, would be classed as a hard water \Vith nearly all the hardness permanent, or, 

in other words, it could not be removed by boiling. On the other hand, when we consider 

analysis No. H, nearly one-half of the hardness is temporary, or could be removed by 

simply boiling and allowing the sediment to settle. If a new set of analyses were made I 

would suggest they be made by some accepted standard of water analyses and both "temporary" and "permanent" hardness be determined. 

Of the other :.;alts present only the sodium sulphate and magnesium sulphate are present 

in sufficient quantity to warrant consideration. Both these salts are laxative, but only 

the mo:.;t ddicatl• constitutions would be affected by the small amounts taken in this 

watl•r. ~ewcomers to the locality might notice the effect of the water for a few days, 

but I am sure no evil effects can possibly come from the constant use of such \Vater. 

The small amounts of sodium carbonate would either neutralize the efTects of part of the 

caleium sulphate or would react with some of the magnesium salts to lower the amount of 

"permanent" hardness. The amount of sodium chloride is so small as to be negligible in 

considering the Yalue of the water. 

In summing up tlw matter I will say that I think the flood flow of the united Santa 

Ynez and ~fono will proYe to be \n•ll within the limits set dmvn by the most rigid 

eastern standards, and that from the aYailable analyses eYen the low-stage flow will be 

found to be well within the limits allowable for western cities and much lower in salt eontents than many waters which have been in use for a long time without deleterious effects. 

If further analyses are made I would suggest that both ''temporary " and " permanent" 

hardness be determined and that some attempt be made to collect flood samples as well as 

the normal and low stage from both streams. 

In respect to the amount of solid n1atter in the strea1n, it will 

be seen that there was less silt in the first flood water frmn the Mono 

than frmn the Santa Ynez; the reverse may be expected under ordinary conditions. Both of these analyses show the percentage of wet 

silt by volu1ne at the expiration of a short period of settlement. This 

determination of solid 1natter by vohnne gives an exaggerated idea of 

the way in which the silt n1ight be expected to destroy the storage 

capacity of the reservoir, for it will con1pact as it settles in the reservoir and as other silt is deposited upon it. In this manner it will 

solidify into soil oecupying frmn one-half to one-quarter of the space 

indicated by its volumetric determination. Later floods have shown 

less than one-tenth of 1 per cent of silt. 

The way to Ineet the silt problen1 in the future will be by building 

IRR 116-05--5 
66 WATER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. [NO. 116. 

the dam~ higher when their storage capacity is impaired. The elevation of the bed of the creek at the Mono reservoir ::;ite is 1,440 feet; 

the eapacity to the 1 ,.5aO-foot elevation is 6,509 aere-feet. If the 

water level is raised 10 feet, or to the 1 ,540-foot elevation, the eapaeity 

will be increased 2,2.54 aere-feet, or 34.6 per cent. If we eonsider 

that the reservoir will lose as 1nuch as 2 per cent of its eapacity annually 

by silting, or 34 per cent in seventeen years, the original capaeity 

could be restored by raising this dam 10 feet in height at the end of 

that period of time. In a similar manner the eapaeity of the Gibraltar reservoir 1nay be inereasecl about ao per cent by raising the crest 

10 feet above the 155-foot elevation. 

FOREST COVER. 

The true and pennanent solution of this silting problem lies in the 

proteetion and develop1nent of the forest and brush cover of this 

reserve. A valuable brush cover is shown in Pl. III, B. Under existing 

conditions the Los Prietos Y N ajal~yegua grant is wedged in between 

the Pine ~fountain and Zaea Lake Forest Reserve and the Santa Ynez 

Forest Reserve, along the canyon of Santa Ynez River. This private 

grant is not only pastured to sheep and goats, but is· also subject to 

attaeks from fires originating thereon which can not be properly 

restrained. Sheep have been described as the hoofed locusts of the 

mountains. Their small feet cut up and pulverize the soil, destroying 

t'1e plants and roots that n1ight otherwise eseape the1n. They are a 

menace almost equal to that of fire to every drainage basin in southern California whieh they enter. Arrangmnents, if possible, should 

be 1nade looking toward the eondemnation of this property in son1e 

way and its addition to the forest reserves above referred to. The 

board of water eommissioners of Santa Barbara very wisely and 

properly have urged this matter with the Departments at Washington, and the forestry experts 'vho have examined the region have 

favorably reported upon the aetion suggested.'1 

With a natural inerease of vegetation and protection frmn the fires 

whieh have ragt>cl through this district for years past it is believed 

that the silt danger would be largely mitigated. This is a subject 

which should be followed up as one of vital importance, and but one 

solution should be permitted, to wit, the expulsion of the. sheep from 

the drainage basin of the Santa Y nez and the proteetion of the 

forest and brush cover from fire. Otherwise the drainage basin is 

satisfactory. There are praetically no human habitations within its 

borders above the proposed reservoir sites, and probably will be none 

in the near .future, as the country is too mountainous and too inhospi-

"In Drccmber. 1903, after the a !Jove had lwen written. an Executive order included this grant in 

the forest reserve, an exchange of holdings having been arranged with the owner. and now the entire 

reservation, including the whole basin of the upper Santa Ynez, is known as the Santa Barbara Forest Reserve. 
LIPPINCOTT.] RESERVOIR SITES. 67 

table to admit of agricultural pursuits. The greater portion of the 

basin is now included in forest reserves. 

RESERVOIR SITES. 

JUNt:AL SI1'E. 

Mr. George Wright 1nade surveys of the Juncal reservoir site and 

detennined the following capacities: 

TABLE 14.-0apacities of the Juncal reservoir site for various heights of dam. 

Height of Million gal- Acre-feet. i dam in feet. Ions. 

------ -----

50 350 1,074 

75 705 2, 164 

100 1,050 3,222 

125 1,437 4, 410 

150 1,877 5,760 

175 2, 3.52 7,218 

200 .J,OOO 12,276 

It will be noted that with a dan1 100 feet high the capacity of the 

Juncal reservoir is 3,222 acre-feet; with a 100-foot da1n on the Mono 

reservoir site the capacity is 8,763 acre-feet. The Mono site, therefore, has 2. 72 times the capacity of the Juncal, with the sa1ne height of 

da1n. The Gibraltar dam, 100 feet high above strea1n bed, will hold 

6,480 acre-feet. It is believed that the Juncal reservoir site alone will 

not furnish an adequate water supply to the city, but when used in 

connection with other reservoir sites having greater drainage areas 

above then1 it 1nay be of value. The drainage area above the Juncal 

is but 13.4 square n1iles, not 23~ square n1iles as reported upon previously by other engineers. The length of a da1n 200 feet high at the 

Juncal would be 550 feet on top, and a 100-foot dam would be 272 feet. 

Mr. Purslow estimated that the cost of building a 100-foot dan1 and 

a riveted-steel pipe line (which latter n1ust be considered as temporary 

construction) to Santa Barbara would be $282,450. He also states 

that the run-off frmn the drainage basin of the Juncal was 1neasured 

in the winter of 1895-96 and that it a1nounted to 2,455 acre-feet. On 

the other hand, it is esti1nated in this report (seep. 53) that the runoff of the ,Juncal in 1895-96 was only 520 acre-feet frmn 13 square 

miles-a figure, therefore, apparently overconservative. However, 

there probably was a flood in January, 1896, as the rainfall for that 

month was 6.8·1 inches at Santa Barbara and probably 9 inches in the 

drainage basin of the Juncal. This 1nay have produced a rather' 

ubnormal flood condition. As .Mr. Purslow gives no details of his 
()8 WATER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. [xo. 116. 

work, not even the length of tirne of his observations, his results 

can not be accepted as conclusive . 

. Mr. Wright states that the rock at this dam site, which is quite 

similar to the forn1ation prevailing throughout this region, weighs 149 

pounds per cubic foot. In this estimate this rock has been considered 

as weighing 150 pounds per cubic foot, as determined at various points 

along the Coast Range by geologists. l\iasonry work made therefrorn 

is taken to weigh 143 pounds per cubic foot. 

:U.l~ RIYER SITE. 

The Main River reseevoir site was investigated by lVIr. Purslow. 

This also was surveyed by W. B. Clapp for the Geological Survey. 

We find that a darn 65 feet in height would have a st')rage capacity 

of 1,311,000 gallons, or 4,02:3 acre-feet, to the 65-foot flow line. Figs. 

"----~~.....:'=ooo"--~-ca_'e_.::.::.20::.::,DO ____ ~.Pofeet 

Contour interval 20 reet 

FIG. 2.-Main River reservoir site. 

2 and 3 show the reservoir and dam sites. The :Mono reservoir 

site with water held to the 75-foot level would have a capacity of 

3,968 acre-feet. The ~lain River darn, however, would contain very 

much n1ore rnasonry and be nwre expensive than the Gibraltar or 

the Mono dam. A dam 7 5 feet high at the Main River site would 

be 592 feet long on top and 427 feet long on the base. At the lVIono 

dan1 site a darn 7.5 feet high would be 277.5 feet long on top and 

150 feet long at the bottom. The Gibraltar is still more favorable. 

With an 8.5-foot rock-fill dan1 at the l\Iono the cost per acre-foot 

of capacity is $36, while at the l\fain River site with a 65-foot concrete darn the cost is about $154 per acre-foot of capacity, dependipg on depth of bed rock. 
LIPPINCOTT.) MAIN RIVER RESERVOIR SITE. 69 

Mr. Purslow states that it would require a tunnel 1.1,500 feet long 

to pass through the Santa Ynez Range to the eoast side and that 

the estimated eost of developing this. work would be $.557,000. It 

is believed that a shorter loeation ean be found. The width of 

canyon covered by debris at the :Main River dam site is so great 

and the depth to bed roek so uncertain that it is in1possible to give 

even an approximate estin1ate of the cost of this dan1. It n1ust be 

of n1asonry, as it will have to be an overflow ·weir. If bed rock is 

taken as 25 feet below the bed of the creek, it may cost $620,000 

for the dan1 alone. 

YNEz RIVER 

Scale 

..._~ ............ '=90~-~zp:-'-:o :--:--"""'Jo.o feet Contour Jnterva/10 Feet. 

FIG. 3.-.Main Hiver dam site. 

/ 

~/" 

The effort has not been made in this report to go into the details 

of these estimates of cost for the :Main River and ~Juncal reservoir 

sites. The reservoir sites are owned by the Santa Barbara City 

Water Company. It is beljeved, hmvever, that if the city of Santa 

Barbara constructs a tunnel through the Coast Range, in order to 

lead the water frmn the lower reservoir sites to the city, the construction by some one of the Juncal or :Main River reservoir sites 

1nay ultimately follow. This tunnel is a very large element in the 

cost of the work, and will require by far the greater length of time 

to construct. It must be so located as to permit the water from 

all the ·sites to be led through it by gravity to the coast, and its 

capacity must be sufficient to acconunodate all of the water. 
70 W ATRR PROBLEMS OF RANTA RARBARA~ CAL. 

TABLE 15.-Area and contents of Main RiPer tescrl'oir. 

[Burvcy_ by W. B. Clapp.] 

-------

Contour. l Aeres. 

-I 

Aere-fect be- Total aere-feet Cap~eity in tween eon- to contour. ,, nullwns of 

-----l--t-o-ur_s_. _ -----~ gallons. 

1,460 0.33 

1,470 2.68 15. 0.5 1.5. 0.5 .5 

1,480 14.38 85.30 100.35 33 

1,490 30.45 224.15 324.50 lOG 

1,500 71.59 510.20 834. 70 272 

1, .510 120. 19 9.58.90 1,793.60 .581 

1, .520 1.54.69 1,374.40 3,168.00 1,032 

1,530 187.66 1, 711. 75 4,879. 75 1, 590 

2,048.60 6,928.35 2,357 

I 

I 

I ___ ~: 540 _ -r- __ -2~-06 _ -! 6,928.35 1---------~-~~~-1 75-foot ftow-linP eapaeity=.5,904.05 aere-ft>d. 

Depth of bed rock unknown. 

0 s,~3~e zooo feet. 

Contourinterva120Feet 

FIG. 4.-Mono reservoir site. 

lNO. 116 
LIPPINCOTT.] RESERVOIR SITES 71 

HLm; t:ANYON SITE. 

The Blue Canyon reservoir site is sitt1<.1ted in what is known as 

Blue Canyon, which discharges into the Santa Ynez a short distance above the l\lain River reservoir site. It is a good reservoir 

site, but as the drainage basin is only 8 square 1niles it is not considered feasible to fill it fron1 its tributary natural-water supply. 

The Blue Canyon reservoir site is between Santa Ynez River and 

the crest of Santa Ynez l\Iountains. The length of tunnel fron1 this 

reservoir site to the coast side \vould be 10,.500 feet. To fill it from 

Santa Ynez River, in addition to building this long tunnel, would 

be too expensive a proposition to justify the construction. 

:UONO SITE. 

A detailed and careful survey was 1nade of the l\Iono reservoir 

and dam site by :Mr. W. B. Clapp, of the hydrographic braneh of 

the Geological Survey. Fig. 4: shows the results of these surveys, and Pl. IV, B, is a vie\v of the site. The following table gives 

the capacity: 

TABLE 16.-Area and contents of the .Mono reservoir s-ite. 

[Survey by W. B. Clapp.) 

Contour. 

1, 4-10.0 

1,450.0 

1,460.0 

1, 461. 2 

1,470.0 

1,480.0 

1,490.0 

1,500.0 

1,.510.0 

1,520.0 

1, .530. 0 

1, .540. 0 

Area in acre~. 

0 

1.2 

10.6 

---------

31. 2 

49.9 

71.3 

98. 1 

125.4 

164.0 

199.5 

2.51. 4 

CapnC'ity in ( . acre-feet he- Totnl capaeity 'apaeity 111 

twren con- in acre-fert. millions of tours. gallon-;. 

--~~- ---~~--

........................ ------------ ----------

........................ ft-94. 0 ----------

59.0 ------------ ----------

209.0 00.0 ----------

------------ 17-±. 0 57 

40G.O 580.0 189 

60G.O 1,186.0 386 

847.0 2,033.0 662 

1, 117. ,1) 3, V'iO. 5 1,026 

1,447.0 4, ,1597 .. 5 1,498 

1,817.5 6,415.0 2,090 

2,2.54 .. 5 8,61H. 5 2,82.5 

"Below outlet. 

'rotal capacity in acre-ft'et .... _________________________________ ........... 8, 763. fi 

Capacity below outlet_ ____________________________________ .. __ ... __ ... ___ 94.0 

Capacity, above outlet _______ . ________ . _________________________ .. __ .. ___ 8, 669. 5 

Elevation of creek hed __________________ . _______________________ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1, 440. 0 

· Elev:',tion of outlPt. ____________________ . _______________ ~ ___ .. ___ .... _____ 1, 461. 2 

Depth of bPd rock unknown. 
72 WATER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. (NO. 116. 

This reservoir site has tributary to it a drainage area of 119 square 

n1iles. The creek passes first through a large flat and then through 

a narrow gorge. It is an unusmtlly good reservoir site for southern 

California, but the "dan1 site is poor. If the tunnel which the city 

is now running is continued at a grade of one-tenth of a foot rise to 

100 feet horizontal, the elevation of the north portal of the tunnel 

on the datun1 plane that has been used will be 1,4.57.2 feet.a 'Ve 

may assun1e that a conduit leading frmn the reservoir site to the 

portal of the tunnel would descend approxin1ately 4 feet in grade, 

giving an approxin1ate elevation of the outlet fron1 the reservoir 

as 1,461.2 feet, or 21.2 above the bed of the strean1 at the reservoir 

site. This is not of material consequence, as it is usually the case 

with reservoir sites that the first 20 or 30 feet above the bed of the 

stream at the darn site has very lin1ited storage capacity. Thus 

the total storage capacity to the 100-foot flow line at the Mono 

reservoir site is 8, 763.5 acre-feet and the capacity below the outlet 

is but 94 acre-feet, so that the net capacity above this outlet with a 

100-foot dam would be 8,669.5 acre-feet, or 99 per cent of the total. 

DISCHARGE. 

Measurernents of the flow of the :Mono during the winter of 1902-3 

were n1ade daily, and the discharge for the season was found to be 

as follows: 

TABLE 17.-Estimated monthly discharge of Mono Creel..· at the rlam site for season of 1902-3. 

[From daily measurements.] 

I 

1902. r Acre-feet. 1 1!103. 

July ...... -------- ............ . 0 January .. _ ......... _ ... _ . __ .. 

August. ....................... . 0 February .............. _. ____ -! 

September ..................... . 0 March _ ... __ ... _ .......... _ .. _ 

October ....................... . 0 April ________________________ _ 

Noven1ber ................. _. __ . 173 May __ ........... ____ ... : __ . _ 

December. .. ____ ....... ___ . ___ . _ 12 June _. __ ...... _ ... _ ..... _ ... _ 

Acre-feet. 

G76 

389 

1, 8-!.5 

4,820 

799 

220 

Season __ ............ _ ..... _ . _ 8,934 

The mean rainfall at Santa Barbara is 16.78 inches; for the last 

season it was 20.45 inches. Although the precipitation was in 

excess of the n1ean, the rainfall was not delivered in such manner 

as to produce large stream discharge and in the opinion of local 

residents the streams were below normal. The five preceding years 

were all below the mean in precipitation, so that a larger portion of 

the water than usual \vas absorbed by the ground. These measure-

"For more dPtailec\ statement, see l'· ~0. 
LIPPINCOTT.) MONO RESERVOIR SITE. 73 

ments of the streams should be continued so that the height of dan1 

rnay he intelligently proportioned to the probable water supply. 

(See table 12, p. 5:3, shmving e:;timated volumes of flmv annually.) 

CONTENTS AND COST OF DAMS. 

Two types of dam for the 1fono site have been considered. The 

rock on the sides of the canyon at this dam site is sandstone and 

shale, the stratification being practically vertical and the strike at 

right angles to the direction of the stream_ flow. Pl. IV, A, shows 

the character of this rock at the left abutment, which is the best. 

It weighs approxin1ately 150 pounds to the cubic foot, and could be 

quarried in sizes and forms suitable for the work on the dam. The 

abutrnents are rnuch better at the :Mono dan1 site than at the -Main 

River darn site, but not so good as at the Gibraltar. Spillway 

opportunities occur at the right abut1nent for the acconunodation 

of flood discharges when the reservoir 1nay happen to be full. The 

da1n is considered in each instance to be 10 feet above the elevation 

of its spillway, so as to prevent the water overtopping the structure. 

The depth to bed rock is not kno,vn. The 1nost serious iten1 in 

connection with the construction of the da1n is probably the transportation of supplies and rnaterials to the site. In case the da1n 

should be a cement, 1nasonry, or concrete structure there would be 

a large a1nount of ce1nent, which is tt heavy 1naterial, to be hauled 

to the reservoir site. The 1nasonry da1n is believed to be the better 

fonn of construction, but because of considerations of econmny the 

cost of the roek-fill type of da1n has been eomputed. 

These supplies for a rock-fill da1n \vould probably be hauled by 

team_s up Santa Ynez River from the end of the railroad at Ballard, 

a distanee of -10 n1iles, or possibly through the tunnel when it is completed. The wagon road would be poor for the last 10 rniles, but 

the grades easy. In the original esti1nate for this dam 1nade for 

the eity of Santa Barbara all rnaterial was considered as hauled 

by wagon to the da1n site for both forms of strueture. Sinee then 

(January 1, 190:3) the n1anufacture of native emnents has reduced 

the price of this constituent n1aterially. 

The rock-fill n1ay be the better type for this point because of its 

greater econon1y. As the volume of 1naterial that \vould have to 

be brought in for construction purposes would be relatively s1nall 

as compared with a n1asonry dam, it probably \Vould not be advisable 

to provide for transportation through the tunnel for it, as would 

be necessary if a n1asonry cla1n were built. The esti1nates are therefore 1nade upon this assumption. Fig .. 5 shows a plan for a 110-foot 

rock-fill da1n and fig. 6 a plan for a subsidiary earthen d:un. 
74 WATER l~RORLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. [No.ll6. 

Scale 0 100 200 300feet ~~~~~~------~--------~ 

Contour interval 10 reet 

FIG. 5.-Mono dam site, showing llO-foot loose-rock dam. 

FIG. 6.-Mono clam site, showing plan of subsidiary earth <lam for 110-foot loose-rock-fill dam. 
LIPPINCOTT.) MONO RESERVOIR SITE. 75 

All engineers connected with these investigations have declared 

that it is quite necessary, befon• preparing an accurate report and 

estin1ate on the reservoir sites, to know the position of bed rock 

at the place where the structure is to rest, and have reconunended 

that these explorations should be carried out in connection with 

this present investigation. It has been found impossible, however, 

at this writing, to supply the funds to n1ake this exa1nination, and 

consequently the estimate must lw taken with latitude in this regard. 

0 100 

Scale 200 

Contour interval 5 feet 

300 

FIG. 7.-Mono dam site, showing plan for 110-foot concrete dam. 

In the case of the rock-fill dan1, it could rest properly and safely 

upon the present bowlder-covered bed of the canyon, but it would 

be necessary to carry down to bed rock on the upper slope an apron 

wall to cut off the underflow beneath the dan1. This wall would 

be connected with a portion of the apron of the dan1 above ground 

in order to n1ake it cmnpletely tight. It should be 8 feet thick at 

its base and 4 feet thick on top at the ground surface, so that for a 

looRe-rock da1n there would not be a great quantity of 1naterial to 
76 WATER PROBLEMA OF RANTA BARBARA, CAL. (No. 116. 

he re1noved from the bed rock, and the amount of cement used would 

he small 

In the case of a concrete or 1nasonry dam, however, the whole 

structure would have to go down to the bed-rock foundation, which 

would have to be exposed and thoroughly cleaned. In estimating 

on the concrete dan1 it has been assun1ed that bed rock for the 

~ntire width of the canyon is 20 feet beneath the surface of the 

ground. At a point some 200 or 300 feet below the dam site a ledge 

of 1naterial projecting well out into the canyon, over which the stream 

flows, has the appearance of being bed rock or ledge Inatter in place. 

It is not known, however, whether it extends completely across the 

stream. 

An 8.5-foot rock-fill dam at the .Mono reservoir site would contain 

7 5,480 cubic yards of loose rock, which, it is considered, could be 

quarried fr01n eliffs that are favorably situated for $1 per cubic 

yard. · Each yard, so thrown into the fill, would nmke 1 i yards of 

fill; consequently a figure of 60 cents per cubic yard has been 

accepted. A dry-laid wall 2 feet in thickness on the upper face of 

the dam is provided for, upon \vhich the asphalt-concrete apron will 

be laid. The upper toe wall is carried down to bed rock in the 

bed of the strean1, 4 feet thick on top, 8 feet at base, and 20 feet high. 

On the sides of the da1n this \Vall is also estimated upon to seal the 

asphalt-concrete to the abutn1ents. The asphalted concrete will 

be put on 1 ~ feet thick, of broken stone, gravel, sand, and asphalt, 

the latter being brought fr01n quarries on the lmver Santa Ynez. 

The section of this da1n will be 20 feet wide on top, with a very 

flat slope of 1 ~ feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical on the upper face 

and 1 t feet to 1 foot on the lower face. This flat slope is given to 

the upper face so that there will be no movement in the asphalt 

apron. The asphalt also \vould be rannned into the crevices of the 

dry-laid wall on which it rests. 

The spillway provisions are of vital in1portance in a rock-fill dam. 

The 1naximun1 flood that was ever n1easured on Sweetwater River 

since the dan1 was constructed there, son1e fifteen years ago, was 98 

cubic feet per second for each square mile of the drainage basin. A 

flood discharge of Piru Creek was measured at Henderson's ranch on 

December 18, 1894, of 43 cubic feet per second per square mile of drainage area. On Arroyo Seco, a tributary of the Salinas in .Monterey 

County, on November 21, 1900, a flood of 140 second-feet per square 

n1ile was observed. The rainfall, however, in the drainage basin 

of Arroyo Seco is exceedingly heavy. For the purposes of this report 

we have assumed a flood of 130 second-feet per square mile of drainage area, or a total flood discharge of 15,4 70 second-feet, filling the 

spilhvay to within 3 feet of the top of the da:m. Before the spillway 

would be filled to the top of the dan1 the flood would have reached 
LIPPINCOTT.] MONO RESERVOIR SITE. 77 

26,420 cubic feet per second, or 222 second-feet per square 1nile of 

drainage basin. The spillway would be 251 feet long and the bottmn 

of it 'vould be 10 feet below the crest of the da1n. It would be 

excavated frmn the rock at the right abutrnent of the dan1. 

A 20-inch pipe has been esti1nated upon, leading frmn the ~1ono 

reservoir site to the intake of the long tunnel through Santa Ynez 

Range of nwuntains. The aggregate cost of reservoir and pipe line 

to long tunnel is $140,700, or $36 per acre-foot of capacity. 

In esti1nating upon the length of tunnel line through the Coast 

Range to this reservoir site we have accepted the present tunnel site 

and assu1ned that the tunnel is to be cmnpleted on an angle line, 

or in such 1nanner as to avoid the property of all owners other than 

the city of Santa Barbara. On this basis there would still be 15,006 

linear feet of tunnel to run, at an estin1ated cost of $12 per linear 

foot. 

Estimate for 85-foot rock-fill dam at Mono reservoir site. 

[Capacity 3,&>0 acre-feet.) 

DAM. 

7.1),480 cubie yards of loose rock, at 60 cents pl'r yard. _____________ _ 

2,500 cubic yards of dry-laid wall (upper face), at $1 (extra). ______ _ 

Upper toe and side wall to bed rock. ____________________________ _ 

Asphalt-concrete face 1! feet thick, 1,861.2 cubic yards, at $8 . _____ _ 

Outlet tunnel, gates, and tmver. ________________________________ _ 

Spillway ______ .. ______ .......... - .... -- - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - -- -- -

Clearing reservoir _____________________________________________ _ 

20-inch pipe line to long tunnd 7,000 feet from rescrYoir, capacity 189 inehes. _________________________________________________ _ 

Engineering, 5 per cent. _______________________________________ _ 

Contingencies, 10 per cent. _____________________________________ _ 

$45,288 

2,500 

16, l500 

14,890 

10,000 

20,000 

2,460 

10, 710 

6,117 

12,23.5 

Total ($36 per acre-foot) ______________________________________ . ___ $140, 700 

TUNNEL. 

1.15,006 linear feet of tunnel through Santa Yncz Range, via angle line•, 

at $12 per foot. ____________________________________________ . _ $180, 072 

Road up Santa Ynez River._____________________________________ 5, 000 

Engineering, 5 per cent.________________________________________ 9, 254 

Contingencies, 10 pPr cent.______________________________________ 18, 507 

TotaL ____________________________ . ___ . _ .... __ . ___ .. ____ ... _ ... _ . 212, 833 

Grand totaL ... _ ... __ . _ . ___ . __ . _ ... ____ .. ______ .... _. _____ ... _ _ _ _ 353, 533 

An esti1nate is also presented of the cost of building a rock-fill 

dan1 at the .Mono to an elevation of 110 feet above the bed of the 

stream, impounding the water to the 100-foot flow line. The conditions would be the sa1ne for the construction of this clau1 as in 

the case of the 85-foot da1n, except that a second small earthen 

dan1 would have to be built to close another opening; this is referred 
78 WATER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. [NO. llt1. 

to as the subsidiary darn. 'iVith the rock-fill type of darn it would 

be quite feasible to increase the height, raising the darn to such new 

elevation as n1ight be desired. 

Estimate for a 110-foot rock-fill dam at JJf ono resen~oir site. 

[Capacity 8,670 acre-feet, 2ll0 miner's inches constant flow.] 

142,535 cubic yards of loose rock, at 60 cents pcr yard _____________ _ 

3,733 cubic yards of dry-laid wall, at $1 (extra) ___________________ _ 

Upper toe and side walls ________________________________________ _ 

Asphalt-concrete face 1~ feet thick, 2,772 cubic yards, at $8 _________ _ 

Outlet tunnel, gates, and tower. _________________________________ _ 

Spillway. _____________________________________________________ _ 

Clearing reservoir, 257 acres, at $15. _____________________________ _ 

Pipe line to long tunnel, 7,000 linear feet, capacity 366 inches _______ _ 

25,745 cubic yards earth in subsidiary dam ________________________ _ 

Engineering, 5 per cent _________________________________________ _ 

Contingencies, 10 per cent _______________________________________ _ 

$85,521 

3,733 

18,099 

22, 176 

10,000 

20,000 

3,8.55 

12,880 

7,724 

9, 199 

18,399 

Total ($24.40 per acn'-foot) ________________________________________ $211,586 

Tunnel through Santa Ynez Mountains, as above____________________________ 212,833 

Grand totaL_____________________________________________________ 424,419 

An estimate is also given for a rnasonry dan1 8.5 feet high at the 

Mono reservoir site. This darn would be 12 feet wide on top, with a 

slope of 2 to 1 on the lower side and 20 to 1 on the upper side. The 

rnasonry would be made of hydraulic cement, which would be hauled 

through the finished tunnel. The outlet, tower, spilhvay provisions, 

and clearing reservoir would be the same as in the ease of the rock-fill 

darn. The total cost of a clam of this class, including the 20-ineh pipe 

line to the long tunnel, would be $361,690, or $93 per acre-foot of 

storage capacity. It thus will be seen that the masonry dam 85 feet 

high would cost 2.6 times what the loose-rock dam would cost. This 

is because the latter would be built of rnaterial at hand. 

Estimate for 85-foot masonry dam at the Mono re~ervoir site. 

[Capacity, 3,880 acre-feet.] 

6,612 cubic yards masonry below surface of ground, at $15 (ineludes 

excavation) ___ -_______________________________________________ $99, 180 

22,9.55 cubic yards masonry above ground __________________________ 172, 163 

Total for dam proper ______________________________________________ $271,343 

Outlet tunnel, gates, and tower _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 10,000 

Spillway. _________________________________________________________ ~____ 20,000 

Clearing reservoir ______________________________________________________ _ 

7,000 feet of 20-inch conduit, capacity 189 inches. _________________________ _ 

Engincfwing, .5 per cent _________________________________________________ _ 

Contingencies, 10 per cent ______________________________________________ _ 

TotaL ______________________________________ . __ - _ . _ - -- -- -- - - - - -- -

Cost per acre-foot of capacity, $93. 

2,460 

10, 710 

15, 726 

31,451 

361,690 
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER·SUPPLV PAPER NO. 11G PL. VI 

QUICKSILV ER MINE DAM SIT E, R IGHT ABUTMENT, 
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 116 PL. VII 

QUICKSILVER MINE RESERVOIR SITE. 

Vi ew upstream from dam site. 
LIPPI:-<COTT.] RESERVOIR SITES. 79 

QllU:KSUVER MINE SITE. 

A site called the Quicksilver 1nine reservoir site was discovered 

about 4 miles below the mouth of the Mono. At this point the river 

FIG. 8.-Quicksilver mine reservoir site. 

passes through a rather narrow canyon of shale rock, shown in Pl. VI. 

The site itself is shown in Pl. VII. The capacity of this reservoir is 

Scale roo 200 300 400 

Contour interval zo reet 

FIG. 9.-Quicksilver mine dam site. 

large, but the dan1 site is not satisfactory because of the absence of 

suitable building material, and also on account of the character of 

the abutments. Figs. 8 and 9 show the reservoir and da1n sites. 
80 WATER PRUBLEMR OF SANTA RAR.HARA, CAL. [NO. 116. 

Water impounded to a depth of 100 feet in this reservojr would be 

flooded back a short distance into the Mono and up tlle Santa Y nez 

above the rnouth of the :Mono. The following is a table of the capacity 

of this reservoir. 

TABLE 1S.-Oa.pacity of Quicksilver mine reservoir site. 

Contour. Area in 

I aercs. 

-~,300 ~57-11 

1,310 6.83 

1,320 

1,330 

1,340 

1,3.50 

1,360 

1, 370 

1,380 

1,390 

1, 400 

17.28 

35.01 

56.31 

91.73 

132.42 

154.69 

190. 74 

233.56 

277.82 

j Capacity in acre-feet. 

A vcragc ttrea I 

in acres. Between con- Total to con3. 70 

12.05 

26. 15 

45.66 

74.02 

112.07 

143 .. 55 

172.71 

tours. tours. 

37.0 

120.5 

261.5 

456.6 

740.2 

1,120. 7 

1,435.5 

1,727.1 

37.0 

157.5 

419.0 

875.6 

1,615.8 

2, 736.5 

4,172.0 

5,899.1 

212.15 2,121.5 S,020.6 

- - - -~~~·- ~~- . - - -~~ ~~~ ~- -,- -~~·- ~~~ ~ ~- _I 

------------'·---------·-- --

The Quicksilver rnine reservoir site, while of satisfactory capacity, 

is not considered a feasible proposition because of the character of 

the darn site. 

GIBU.UJT.Ut SITE. 

DISCHARGE. 

The Gibraltar reservoir site is situated 6 miles below the mouth of 

:Mono Creek on Santa Ynez lEver. The drainage area tributary to it 

includes all of the .Mono, the n1ain river above the Mono, and 17 

square miles additional. The discharge as estimated from the rainfall for the seasons frmn 1867-68 to 1903-4, inclusive, is shown in 

table 13 (see p. 53), and as measured 11 for 1902-3 in table 13 (see 

p .. 54). From these it appears that the discharge is from 1.8 to 2.4 

ti1nes as great as that of the Mono. 

CONTENTS AND COST OF DAMS. 

The reservoir site, which is shown in fig. 10,lies along a narrow, canyon-like valley with a light grade. The da1n site is a rather peculiar 

and unusual one. An anticlinal fold of sandstone, apparently uplifted 

through the shales, has been cut by the river in a narrow gorge, as 

shmvn in Pl. VIII, A and B. The crest of this fold is ahnost level and 

"Partly estimated. 
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER -SUPPLY PAPER NO. 116 PL. VIII 

A. GIBRALTAR DAM SIT E, LOWER END O F GORGE. 

View upstream. 

H. GIBRALTAR DAM SITE, UPPER END OF GORGE AT PROPOSED AXIS OF DAM. 

V1ew downstream. Stream turns abruptly to the left. The spil lway s;te is over the crest on the left. 
LIPPINCOTT.] GIBRALTAR RESERVOIR SITE. 81 

is approxin1atcl}T 150 feet above the bed of the strean1, so that a dan1 

built slightly higher than the crest, or, say, 15.5 feet, will have the 

advantage of a natural spillway of great length on the side away frmn 

the da.n1 and over solid rock. This is the only darn site that has been 

found in the upper portions of Santa Ynez Hiver where the abutments 

arc of a satisfactory nature and where the building material could be 

gotten out in such sizes and shapes as rnay be desirable for the construction of any type of dan1. 

Scale 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 

Contour interval cO Feet 

FIG. 10.-Clibralta.r rcscrYoir site. 

A detennination of the specific gravity of this rock has been made 

by weighing the rock first in air and then in water, which gave a 

specific gravity of 2.56. Four tests were made, ranging frmn 2.5.5 to 

'2.57. This is equivalent to a \Veight of 160 pounds per cubic foot. 

In rubble rnasonry, one-third of the bulk being mortar and two-thirds 

solid rock, and the mortar being considered as weighing 103 pounds, 

the weight would be ] 40 pounds per cubic foot of masonry in dam. 

The ledges are in such a position as to permit a rnost econmnieal 

handling of material for rnasonry eonstruction. 

IRR 116-05--o 

'-, 
WATER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. 

TABLE 18a.-Oapacity of Gibraltar reservoir site. 

[Elevation of surface of stream bed, 1,215 feet.] 

~----------------

1 

I . I Capacity in acre-feet. 

Contour I Area m A v:erage area - - -----~-- · acres. m acres. Between con- Total to con-

---~---

1,215 

1,220 

1,230 

1,240 

1,250 

1,260 

1,270 

1,280 

1,290 

1,300 

1, 310 

1,320 

1,330 

J' 340 

1,345 

1, 3.50 

1, 35.5 

0 

2.12 

5.74 

13.26 

22.67 

32.37 

50.11 

66.24 

90.06 

119.62 

152. 74 

188.33 

227.13 

271.39 

296.64 

332. 75 

367.07 

tours. tours. 

------------~-----------

3.93 39.3 

9.50 95.0 

17.97 179.7 

27.52 275.2 

41.24 412.4 

58. 17 581.7 

78. 15 

104.84 

13u. 18 

170.53 

207.73 

249.26 

284.01 

314.70 

349.91 

781.5 

1,048.4 

1, 361. 8 

1,705.3 

2,077.3 

2,492.6 

1,420.0 

1,573,5 

1,749.6 

39.3 

134.3 

314.0 

589.2 

1,001. 6 

1, 583.3 

2,364.8 

3,413.2 

4,775.0 

6,480.3 

8,557.6 

11,050.2 

12,470.2 

14 043. 7 

15,793.3 

[No.116. 

Table 19 shows the volun1es of material for a rock-fill dam situated at the Gibraltar reservoir site, the upper slope to be 1! to 1, the 

lower slope 1 t to 1, the width on top 20 feet, and the height of dam 

1.5.5 feet, or 10 feet above the level of the spillway. The top of the 

crest is taken to be at the 1,:360-foot contour. Bed-rock conditions 

are unknown, but for the purpose of this estin1ate are assurned to be 

at 1,205 feet. Repeated efforts were n1ade to provide for an exploration of bed rock at this darn site, but owing to financial condi ions 

and negotiations for the purchase of the property by the city of 

Santa Barban1 it 'vas not possible to arrange for this. The capacity 

'vith this dmn to the 1 ,:350-foot contour in the reservoir would be 

1-1,0-l-l acre-feet. Fig. 11 shows the plan for a 155-foot rock-fill dam. 

In the table 7 ,44-l cubic yards are deducted fron1 the total estiJnatecl volume in the darn, as the rock fill will go down only to the 

1,210-foot contour, except where the toe walls are located, where they 

are assun1ecl to go as low as the 1,205-foot contour. The excavation 

of the spillway is taken at 1 ,2.50 cubic yards, 'vhich of course would 

be used in the construction of the clam. The spilhvay could probably 
LIPPINCOTT.) GIBRALTAR RESERVOIR SITE. 83 

hP made nlliCh wider, if desired, in excavating the material for the 

dan1. In this estimate it is taken as 350 feet in width. 

A dan1 of this type is considered as having 12,083 eubic yards in 

asphalt-concrete face and dry-laid wall, this face to be put on as 

indicated in the drawing and to be covered by the dry-laid wall, to 

0 100 300 

Contourinterva/20feet 

FIG. 11.-Gibraltar dam site, showing plan for 155-foot rock-fill dam. 

protect it fron1 the sun, so as to prevent the movement of the asphalt. 

If this vohune is dedueted frorn the total yardage given in the dam, 

in addition to the deduction 1nentioned above on account of the rockfill da1n not going down to bed rock for its entire length, the net 

volu1ne of rock fill will be 233,724 cubic yards. 
8-! WATER PROBL]~MS OF SAN'l'A BARBARA, CAL. 

TABLE 19.-Volwne ?n rock·fill dam at Gibraltar dam site.a 

[Capacity to 1,350-foot contour, 14,044 acre-feet.] 

Con to ur. 

0.5 

... 10 

b1,2 

1, ') 

1, 

1, 

1,2 

1,') 

220 

230 

40 

... 50 

60 

270 

1,2 

1, 

1, 

1, 

1, 

1, 

280 

290 

300 

310 

Volume be- II tween contours 1 

in cubic yards. 

------------

7,444 

14,713 

·16,6-1-8 

19,805 I 

21,536 I 

22,185 

21,860 

20,925 

19,981 

18, 768 

17, 101 

Volume beContour. tween contours in cubic yards. 

1,320 1.5, 231 

1,330 13,194 

1,340 10,916 

1, 3.50 8,148 

1,360 4, 796 

I 

Total. 1

; 253,2.51 

Deductc __ -1 7,444 

I 245,807 

Deductd __ I 12,083 

Net.. _____ I 233,724 

I ~-~~--------~ 

[NO. 116. 

a Contents of spillway masonry dam ,~J,2ii0 cubic yards. Rplllway dam, 5 feet wide on top; 0. Of) 

to 1 slope on upstream face; 10 fprt down, 7 feet thick; 15 feet down, 9 feet thick; 20 feet down, 13 

feet thick. Spillway is 350 fPPt in width; in excavating for dam it may be made wider, the limit in 

width being the limit of excavations. b Bed rock as estimated, but not determined. a Rock fill goes only to 1,210-foot contour. d Asphalt face and dry-laid wall. 

The hand-laid facing on top of the asphalt-concrete is estimated 

to be 3~ feet thick and the asphalt-concrete 1 ~ feet, covered with 

an impervious layer of asphalt two-tenths of a foot thick. The concrete cut-off wall at the upper toe of the dan1 is esthnated as 90 feet 

long, with a height above asstuned bed rock of .5 feet and a thickness 

on top of 5 feet, downstrean1 vertical, upstrearn with a slope Qf 1 to 5 

and a thickness at hase of 6 feet. 

The outlet systern would consist of a tO\ver reaching fron1 the 

1,220-foot contour to the 1,360-foot contour, a height of 140 feet. 

The internal diarneter of the tower would be 8 feet at top and the 

thickness of wall 2 feet at top and 6 feet at botton1, the tower standing on a solid concrete base 5 feet thick and 21 feet in diameter. 

Following is an estimate of the cost: 

Estimate of cost of 155-foot rock-fill dam at original site of Gibraltar dam. 

Rock fill, 233,724 cuhie yards, at 60 cents ______________________________ _ 

Hand-laid facing, 8,4.58 cuhie yards, at $1.60 ___________________________ _ 

Asphalt and concrete facing, 3,62.5 cubic yards, at $8 ____________________ _ 

Cut-off \valL ___________________________ ..•............•.. __________ _ 

Overflow weir and subsidiary dam, 1 ,2Pi0 cubic yards, at $9 ______________ _ 

Clearing reservoir site, 333 acres, at $25.--.....•... -.---.-------.... ---. 

$140,234.00 

13,533.00 

29,000.00 

1,493.00 

11.250. 00 

8,325.00 
LIPPINCOTT.] GIBRALTAR RESERVOIR SITE. 

Outlet system: 

TmvN, nll cubic yards, at $9.:30.------------------------

Inlet pipes. ______ .... __ . _ . ___ .. _ ... _ ... _ ............ - . 

Valve rods._ .... ______________ .. _ ....... __ .. _ ... _ .... _ 

Outlet valves .... __ .... _ .. _ .. _____ ._ ... _. ___ . __ .. _ .... . 

Outlet tunnel, 1,000 feet, at $5 .. __ .. _ .................. . 

Tower house and bridge __________ . _. __ ... _ ............ . 

$8,472.00 

·160.00 

8GO.OO 

1,000.00 

5,000.00 

500.00 

Totnl of outlet system. ____ . _ . __ . _. __ .. _ ....................... . 

Contingencies, 10 per cent. ___________ .... _ ... __ ... ___ . _ .............. . 

Engineering, .5 per cent. _____ . __ .. _ .. __ ....... _ ... _ ................. _. 

85 

$16,292.00 

220,127.00 

22,012.70 

11.006. 35 

TotaL. _____ . ___ . ______ . __ .................................... 253, 146. 0.5 

The rock-fill darn can be built only to such height as will permit 

c01nplete spillway opportunities around the end of the dam. It 

is, however, feasible to build a n1asonry dan1 that will not be the 

full height, permitting the \Vater to ·waste over the top of the dan1 

during different stages of its construction. For instance, the dmn 

could be built to a height of .50 or 100 feet, and construction stopped 

until the demands or desires of the city should call for its cOinpletion; the final structure could then be built to its ultirnate height 

of approxirnately 155 feet. When the dam \Vas c01npleted to its 

full height the overflow and waste water could then be directed 

through the spillways. 

If such a dam should be built of cyclopean rubble masonry on a 

gravity section and also on a curve, the top would stand at the l,~j60-

foot contour. The estirnate given below is based on bed rock being 

at a depth of 5 feet beneath the present strearn bed, but it is not 

known what the depth actually is, and the final estimates rnight 

be greatly rnodified by these conditions. A determination of this 

point is essential before beginning the construction of the dan1 and 

before the final estirnate on its cost can be n1ade. 

Three estin1ates have been prepared on the assumption that the 

dam will not be built to its full height frorn the sta.rt. These are for 

dams 95 feet high, with a capacity of 3,413 -acre-feet, equivalent 

to a continuous flow of 4. 715 second-feet, or 236 miner's inches per 

annum; 12.5 feet high, with a capacity of 8,.5.58 acre-feet, equivalent 

to a continuous flow of 11.82 second-feet, or 591 miner's inehes per 

annurn; and 15.5 feet high, with a capacity of 15,793 aere-feet, 

equivalent to a continuous flow of 21.81 second-feet, or 1,090 miner's 

inches per annum. 

These estirnates of discharge are on the assumption that the 

reservoir would be filled by the strearn every year. This, hmvever, 

can not be done, for in son1e winters there will be little nwre addition to the reservoir than enough to make up for evaporation. If 

it is assun1ed that the 155-foot darn is built, and that its capacity is 
86 WATER PROBI~EMS OF RANTA BARBARA1 CAL. [NO. 116. 

15,793 acre-feet, and that this will have to furnish the supply of 

water for nineteen nwnths, the yield will be 831 acre-feet n1onthly; 

with the reservoir half full the Inonthly loss by evaporation would 

average about 66 acre-feet, leaving 765 acre-feet monthly for distribution during the dry period, or a continuous flow of 13 secondfeet, equivalent to 650 n1iner's inches, or 8,400,000 gallons daily. 

Putting it another way, the flow will be approxi1nately 900 miner's 

inches in the summer tiine and 400 n1iner' s inches in the winter 

tiine. Fig. 12 shows a plan of a 155-foot n1asonry dam. 

0 100 300 

Contour intervo/20 reet 

FIG. 12.-Gihraltar dam site, ><lwwing plan for l;i;j-foot masonry dam. 

With the lower size dam the surplus water is considered as wasted 

over the top ot the dam, and the dam is made safe on the gravity 

section 'vith 10 feet of 'vater passing over its crest; in addition it 

is to be a curved dam. These sa1ne conditions will obtain with a 

dan1 125 feet high. The 155-foot n1asonry dam is designed to let 

the surplus water pass through a spillway, the water standing within 

5 feet of the top of the dam, and the capacity being 15,793 acre-feet. 

This is a greater capacity than that for the 155-foot rock-fill dam, 

because with the rock-fill dan1 greater safety in spillway capacity 

would be required, and this type would have to be built at least 10 

feet above the level of the spillway. Figs. 13, 14, and 15 give sections of the dan1s considered. In the esti1nates n1asonry weighing 

140 pounds per cubic foot is used. 
LIPPINCOTT.) GIBRALTAR RESERVOIR SITE. 87 

~ .,; ,-------------·-----

'~ RADIUS 60 FT. --- ' 

~' 

Scale 

Ol:::==::::::::llsO """"'""""'""20"===::::::::i30 feet 

113.38 

FIG. l3.-.'3ection ol masonry dam for Gibraltar reservoir based on concrete weighing 130 pounds per 

cubic foot. 
W AT.ER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. (No. 116. 

---.~~T!~§~~~~------

1~' I DEPTH:( FT.) WIDTH I F.T.) 

0 ° 15. 

130 

Beale 

O"===l~O~~=='::l~O==='=>ilO fee~ 

TOt-S 

FIG. H.-Section of masonry overflow weir dam based on masonry weighing HO pounds per cubic foot. 

The following is an estin1ate on three types of cla1ns: 

Estimate of cost of 95-foot masonry oraflow dam located at lower site of Gibraltar dam. 

[Capacity 3, 413 acre-feet.] 

Masonry, 15,331 cubic yards, at $7. ___________ ........ __ ... _____ ...... -

Excavation to bed rock, 1,280 .cubic yards, at $2.50 ..................... . 

Clearing reservoir, 120 acres, at $25 .... __ . __ . ________ .. _. _ ... _________ _ 

Outlet system, tower, gates, tunnel, etc .... _ ...... _ ..... _._._._._ ...... . 

Contingencies, 10 per cent._. __ ..... _ ... _ .............. ___ . ____ .. _____ _ 

Engineering, 5 per cent ... __ ._. ___ ._ .. _ ...... __ . ____ ._ .. _ .. ___ . __ .. __ _ 

TotaL ..... _ .,_ ................................................ . 

Cost per acre-foot of capact ty, $-!l.G 1. 

$107,317.00 

3,200.00 

3,000. 00 

9, 971.00 

123,488.00 

12,348.80 

6,174.40 

142,011.20 
L!Pl'l:\CUTT.) tHBRALTAH RESERVOIR SITE. 

Seale 

0"===5ll'=l ~~=':..~>o'====:,~O feet 

~ l~n ________________ _ CY 34V,14U 

~'<t 

,$> 

<;; 130 398.o30 ______ ------ --~ 

1 

~I 

«_,"! 

'"~~;a----------- ----~8,9/­ ~/ ~·.' 

EU ___________ ________ il/ 5la510 zy/ 

;::;. 

~;;: 

/i~ l'q_ 

- I .r-=---=-=~q~~ .663 

~~-----30b.Z% 

lj.i:J 

J, Q:; n.-,.~ 

- ~Fi=-:;::._-:::..::;.~-~3;1.562 

I ·'<I 

I~~ '?------40o.ooo 

t------------J:d~~ I, if I, 

-~f ______________ J£1~~ 

!/ 

/1 

"~-----------------RJi_,;2 

II~ 

''" I/."-' 

I ·CS -1 1~------------------'l\_,~ 

I' 

/!~ I'>.. 

-/~------------------_!(_1(1_:_~ I •Cl 

! f$ 

/ ·!fi 107.~ 

FIG. F>.-Srrtion of masonry dam bnsrd on ma~onry weighing UO I-•Ounds ]Jer cuhir foot. 

Estimate of co8f of 12u-foot masonry 01YT[lmc dam located at lou•rr site of Ciuraltar dam. 

[Capacity 8,fl:iF. ac·rp-frrt .] 

Masonry, 27,971 cubic yards, at $7 ____________________________________ _ 

Excavation to lwd rock, 1/>79 cubie yards, at $2.!i0 _____________________ _ 

Clearing reservoir, 227 acres, at $25 ___________________________________ _ 

Outlet system, tunnel, gates, tower, ete ________________________________ _ 

$195,797.00 

3,948.00 

5,675.00 

13,000.00 
90 WATER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. 

Contingencies, 10 per cent. _________________________ ••.•••.•. ____ • _. __ _ 

Engineering, 5 per eent. ______________ . _________ . __________ . _ . __ . ____ . 

LNO. 116. 

$21,842.00 

10,921. ()() 

TotaL .. _ .. _________________________ . __ . ______ ....... _______ .. 251, 183. 00 

Cost per acre-foot of capacity, $29.35. 

Estimate of cost of 15u-foot masom'y dam located at lower site of Gibraltar dam. 

Masonry in dam, 42,250 cubic yards; masonry in spillway, 833 cubic yards; 

masonry in protection wall, .56 cubic yards; total masonry, 43,139 cubic 

yards, at $7. _ ... _ ..... _. __ .. _ ..... _. __ .. _ .. _. _ .... ____ ... __ . ______ $301, 973. 00 

Excavation to bed rock, 1,731 cubic yards, at $2.50 ... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4, 328.00 

Clearing reservoir, 350 acres, at $25 .. ____ ... _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 8, 750. 00 

Outlet system, tower, gates, tunnel, etc .. _______ ._._. ___ . ___ . _________ . _ 16, 292. 00 

Contingencies, 10 per cent ................ ____ .. _. _ ................... . 

Engineering, 5 per cent ..... _ ... __ .. _ ... ___ . _ . ___ . _______ ............. . 

331,343.00 

33,134.30 

16,567.15 

TotaL .......... ____ . _________ . _ ... _. _ .. ___ . ____ . __ . __ .. _. __ . . 381,044. 45 

The flood discharge fron1 these drainage basins is considered in the 

discussions of tlw spillway for the :Mono reservoir site. Taking a maximum flood discharge of 130 cubic feet per second per square n1ile from 

the entire 207 square miles that are tributary to the Gibraltar reservoir site, the spillway of 600 feet in length would be running full and 

the water passing 3~ feet deep over the top of the masonry dam. 

This would be a n1ost extraordinary flood, and it is believed that the 

clam, with the gravity section that it has, in addition to its arched 

shape, 'vould stand this. 

In the ease of the 12.5-foot cla1n such a flood would pass over the 

crest of the da1n 9j- feet deep, and the dam is designed to withstand 

with safety an overflow of 10 feet on a gravity section without the aid 

of its curved shape. 

For the 95-foot cla1n under sin1ilar conditions the depth of water 

would be 11 feet. 

TUNNELS TO GIBRALTAR SITE. 

Because of its elevation and location it will not be possible to use 

the old city tunnel in Cold Spring Canyon in reaching the Gibraltar 

reservoir site. The elevation of the surface of the water at the 

Gibraltar, with a dan1 155 feet high, is 1,360 feet above sea level, and 

the estin1ated elevation of the northern end of the old Cold Spring 

Canyon tunnel at its northern portal would be 1,457 feet. The location also is not suitable for the Gibraltar site. Because of these facts, 

a new tunnel location 'vas sought as an outlet for the Gibraltar reservoir site. The triangulation was extended so as to cover the distance intervening between Mission Canyon and the Gibraltar dam 

site, and it was found that a tunnel from Mission Canyon to the Gibraltar 

would be 19,560 feet in length, and from Rattlesnake Canyon to the 
L TPPIXCOTT. j GIBRALTAR RESERVOIR SITE. 91 

Gibraltar it would be 20,763 feet in length. The length necessary to 

complete the old tunnel frmn Cold Spring Canyon through to Santa 

Ynez is 14,901 feet. It 1nust be rmnembered, however, that the old 

tunnel has very irregular grades, that the cross section of it is not 

unifor1n, and that the align1nent is irregular. In addition to that, the 

present heading is 5,000 feet from the portal, so that the total length 

of the Cold Spring Canyon tunnel, if completed, would be 19,901 

feet. Because of these irregularities in the old tun~el and the dis-

,..~r~---- ---3'6"--:- ---------------

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

FIG. !G.-Section of nc\v Santa Barbara tunnel in solid rock. 

tance in from the heading, it has been esti1nated that the cost to cmnplete it \voulcl be at the rate of $12 a foot; the total cost of completing 

it, building roads, engineering, etc., having been previously esti1nated 

at $212,833 (seep. 77). 

The following is an estimate of the cost of building the :Mission or 

the Rattlesnake tunnel. a 

a Since writing the above, contracts have been entered into for tlw constrnction of the Mission ranyon tunnel line at a figure slightly below this estimate (seep. -t:l). Figs. In and 17 show sections of 

this tunnel. 
92 WATER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. 

Excavation per lineal root 

of' tunnel= 1.693 cu.yds. 

I I 

L.. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _J 

·-~; ~-1 

: t~=~=.:---=:===~==ri:: 

FIG. 17.-Section of new Santa Barbara tunnel in loose rock. 

Est~imate of cost of building Mission Canyon tunnel. 

[Length based on triangulation by L. M. Hyde.] 

19,.560 linear feet, at $10 per linear foot __________________________________ _ 

Road up Santa Ynez RiYer. _____________________________________________ _ 

Road up Mission Canyon ________________________________________________ _ 

Engineering, 5 per cent. ________________________________________________ _ 

Contingencies, 10 per cent. ______________________________________________ _ 

Total estimated cost. _____________________________________________ _ 

Estimate of cost of building Rattlesnake Canyon tunnel. 

[Length based on triangulation hy L. M. Hyde.] 

(NO. 116. 

$195,600 

2,500 

2,500 

10,030 

20,060 

230,690 

20,763 linear feet, at $10 per linear foot . __________________________________ $207, 630 

Road up Santa Y nez River._- _______________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2, 500 
LIPPINCOTT.] RESERVOIR SITES. 

Road up Rattlesnake Canyon. __ . ________________________________________ _ 

Engineering, 5 per cent. ________________________________________________ _ 

Contingencies, 10 per cent. ______________________________________________ _ 

93 

$3,-SOO 

lO,{)S2 

21,3G3 

Total estimated cost. ____________________________________ ~ __ . ___ .. _ 245, 675 

U01Ul'AUISON OF <HBRALTAR AND JUONO SITES. 

In order to cmnpare the costs of the combined tunnel and reservoir 

for the Gibraltar site and for the :Mono site, the fo1lm~.ring table is 

~1ven: 

TABLI<> '20.-0omparative estimatl's of dams and tunnel lines at Gibraltar and ~Mono. 

GIBRALTAR. 

95-foot masonry overflow dam (3,413 acre-feet, at $41.()1 ) ... _. ______________ $142,012 

19,.560 feet of tunnel (Mission line)._. ___ . ________________________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 230, G90 

Total. _. _. __ .. __ . ___________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 372, 702 

125-foot masonry overflow dam (8,.5.58 acn•-f(•et, at $29.35) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2.51, 183 

19,560 feet of tunnel (Mission line) ___ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 230, GSO 

Total .. _ .. ____ . ___ . ____________________________ . ____ .___________ 481,873 

15.5-foot masonry dam (1.5,793 acre-feet, a.t $24.13). ___ . ___________________ _ 

19,560 feet of tunnel (Mission line) _________________________________ ~ ____ _ 

381,044 

'2:30, ()90 

Total _ .. ____ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 611, 734 

.155-foot rock-fill dam (15,7fl3 acre-feet, at $16.02 ). _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 253, UG 

19,5130 feet of tunnel (Mission line) ___ ..... _______________________________ 230, G!:O 

Total _____ .. _ . ___ . _____ ... _ . _ .... ____ . _______ .. _____ . _ . ________ . 483, 83G 

MONO. 

85-foot rock-fill dam (3,880 acre-feet, at $36). ________________ . ___________ _ 

1.5,006 feet of tunneL ___ . ___ .. _____ ... __ .. __________________ . __________ _ 

Total ___ . ___________ . _____ .. __ .. ___ .. _____ -. __ - ___ ._._._._ .. ___ -. 

110-foot rock-fill dam (8,670 acre-feet, at $24.40) __ . ___________________ . ___ _ 

15,006 feet of tunnel ... __ . _____ .. _________________ . __ .. ____ _ : __________ _ 

140,700 

212,8:3:3 

3.53, .S3:3 

211, !:Sf5 

212, 8:)3 

Total .. _____ . ___________ .. _ ..... ____________ .___________________ 42.f, -liD 

85-foot masonry dam (3,880 acre-feet, at $93.22)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3Cil, tWO 

15,006 feet of tunneL. _________ . __________________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 212, 833 

Total ... __________ . _____ . __________ .____________________________ 574, 520 

The masonry dam is the better fonn of eonstruetion for a storage 

reservmr. In addition the abutments at the Gibraltar reservoir site 

are n1ueh 1nore secure and satisfaetory than at the :Mono site. The 

water supply is nwre than twice as great at the Gibraltar as at the 

Mono and its quality is better. 

Making the eomparison for masonry dams, it 'vill be seen that the 

cost for the 155-foot 1nasonry dan1 at the Gibraltar site would be 
WATER PROBLEMS OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL. [NO. 116. 

$~4.1:3 ·per acre-foot of water irnpounded, while for the 85-foot 

masonry dan1 at the ~fono site it would be $93.2~ per acre-foot. 

vVith a 12.5-foot Inasonry danl at the Gibraltar, the capacity of the 

reservoir would be 8,558 acre-feet, and the total estimated cost of 

thA dan1 and tunnel would be $481,873. 

A 110-foot rock-fill dan1 at the :Mono would have a capacity of 

8,676 acre-feet, and with the cmnpletion of the Cold Spring tunnel 

would cost $424,419, 'vhich is less than the cost of the Gibraltar 125-

foot dam. The Gibraltar chun, however, 'vould undoubtedly be safer, 

have fully twice the water supply available for dry years, and would 

furnish better water. These things considered, there can be no doubt 

whatever that it is advisable to construct the Gibraltar dan1 with the 

Mission Canyon tunnel, rather than the ~fono site with the completion of the Cold Spring Canyon tunnel. 

The real governing fac-tor in the entire situation is the quantity 

and quality of the 'vater, and on this basis there can not be any 

doubt that the Gibraltar site is far the better. During the winter of 

1902-3 the total discharge of ~Iono Creek at the ~1ono reservoir site 

was 8,934 acre-feet, while at the Gibraltar it was 21,202 acre-feet, or 

2.4 times as inuch. In addition the situation is such at the Gibraltar 

site that the rnasonry dan1 can be gradually built higher as the 

demand of the city for a greater water supply grows, while there 

are distinct limitations to the construction of a higher dan1 at the 

~fono site. 

FllUNt~IAJ, STATEliENT. 

The financial results to be expected from the expenditure of the 

money necessary to build the "\York above referred to are not extensively considered, because it is not so much a question of whether 

these works can be constructed at a commereial profit as it is a 

question of how rnuch it will eost to get an adequate 'vater supply 

for the loeality. It. goes ,vithout saying that if the coast district 

is to continue to grow it n1ust have water, and the only question 

is whether this can be obtained at reasonable cost. 

The output frmn this systern should be 1 ~ rnillion gallons daily 

for 10,000 people. On page 25 it is shown that in order to meet 

the worst-known drought of nineteen rnonths and deliver 150 gallons 

daily for 10,000 persons, plus the evaporation, a storage capaeity of 

3,518 acre-feet is required. This is on the ass tun p tion that all of 

the water rnust emne from the reservoir and none ean be obtained 

fron1 the tunnels or strearns on the south side of the range, a condition which the writer believes never will exist, bnt which he assurnes 

for safety. At the Gibraltar site R dam 95 feet high will practically 

accon1plish this at a cost for darn and tunnel of $:372,702. Assuming 

an interest rate of 4~ per cent on this cost, we shall have an annual 
LIPPINCOTT.) FINANCIAL STATEMENT. 95 

fixed charge of $16,772. The works \Viii all be permanent. Construction and maintenance charges should be very low, say $4,000 

per annun1. Operation should not be over $2,000. This gives a 

total annual charge of $22,772 for 54 7 rnillion gallons, or a n1axirnum 

of 4.1 cents per 1,000 gallons delivered at the intake of the dornestic 

systern. As the darn is increased in height the cost per unit of 

~orage and the proportional charge for the tunnel will rapidly 

cberease with the resulting increased supply. With a dan1 155 

feet high on the above basis the cost per thousand gallons would 

be 1.1 cents. The long tunnel will undoubtedly also itself contribute a n1aterial supply to the city. :Mr. Canfield, the president 

of the Santa Barbara Water Company, states as follmvs: 

\Vater is now sold in Santa Barbara at the rate of about 16 cents per thousand gallons 

to the city for street-sprinkling purposes (at the rat(~ of $35,000 per year for 1 second-foot), 

and to priYate consumers at from 20 cents to 25 cents per thousand gallons, which are 

moderate rates as compared with those realized in some other cities in this State, and it 

is believed that although the deYelopment of the business in the future may justify some 

reduction of rates, an average rate of 1.5 cents per thousand gallons at least ean be calculated 

upon. 

This is certainly a very reasonable charge for water in southern 

California. The lowest rueter rate knmvn in the State (that of the 

city of Los Angeles) is 9 cents per 1,000 gallons delivered to the 

consurner. Of course, there nrust be an intermediate charge for 

distribution systen1 and administration whicl} con1es after the water 

is delivered to the mains. 

Both l\1r. Wright and :Mr. Purslow considered the construction of 

these storage reservoirs as a profitable investrnent frorn a conunercial standpoint. If the \vttter was delivered free at sea level to the 

city, it would cost two-thirds as n1uch for fuel alone (say 2.7 cents), 

with triple-expansion engines, to pump it to the city reservoir as it 

would to obtain it frorn this conte1nplated systern of storage reservoirs. If interest, .depreciation, and services are considered it would 

cost nwre to purnp it. 

There would undoubtedly also be a very considerable ele1nent of 

profit that rnight be derived frorn the \Yater power available frmn 

the supply, since the elevation of the southern portal of the tunnel 

is approxin1ately 1,200 feet and the elevation of the clmnestic reservoirs only 350 feet. 

The result of the construction of the long tunnel probably will 

be the construction of the da1n to the 1naxinnun height conunensurate with the water supply of Santa Ynez River by the city, or 

by other parties who 1night 1nake arrangements \vith the city for 

carrying water through this long tunnel. This should he a conclition that the city would encourage. 11 The water not required by the 

a Since writing the above the city bas entered into a contract with the Santa Barbara Water Company to permit of such a use of the city tunnel by thPc c>orpp1my. 
96 W A'l'ER PROBLEMS O.F SANTA BARBARA, CAL. [NO. 116. 

municipality would be used in developing and irrigating the beautiful coast plain near :\Iontecito or in other adjoining localities. 

The improven1ent of this region would, of course, add to the prosperity of the county and city of Santa Barbara. 

In this report estimates on right of wf:Ly have not been included. 

CONCLCSIO~S. 

In conclusion it 1nay be sbited-

(1) That the only extensive addition that can be n1ade to the 

water supply of the Santa Barbara coastal plain is by the construction of a tunnel from Santa l' nez River to the coast side of the 

n1ountains and the building of an in1pounding reservoir for the 

holding of the winter flood 'vaters of Santa Ynez River. 

(2) That by far the most desirable point on Santa Y nez River 

for this construction is the Gibraltar reservoir site. 

(3) That the water can be delivered at a reasonable cost for both 

irrigation and dmnestie use to Santa Barbara and vicinity fron1 this 

site, and the construction is believed to be entirely justified and 

con1n1ercially feasible. 
INDEX. 

Page. 

A. 

Acre-foot, definition of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 

equivalent of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ::?5 

Alder Creek, water supply of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ::?0 

Aguila Canyon, water supply of . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

Annes Canyon, water supply of . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

Annito Canyon, water supply of . . . . . . . . . . 13 

Arrowhead reservoir, location of . . . . . . . . . . 50 ' 

B. 

Bennett, S. G., work of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 

Beyrle, Robert, contract with . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 

Blue Canyon, reservoir site below moutl1 of. 14, Hl 

reservoir site in, data concerning ...... 1\1, il 

Burro, Arroyo, 'vatcr supply of........... 1-3 

c. 

Canfield, R. B., report on water supply 

by ........................... 21-22, 9.'i 

Capitan, El, Canyon, water supply of . . . . . 1.1 

Carnero, Arroyo, water supply of.......... J:j 

Carpintaria Creek, valley of, water supply 

• for.............................. 1.3 

water supply of........................ 12 

City tunnel, ol<L 8cc Cold Spring Canyon 

tunnel. 

Clapp, \V. B .. work of ............... 40,58,68,71 

Climate, character of . . . . . .. .. . . .. . .. . .. .. . 10 

Coast Range, location and character of.... 10 

rainfall on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 

Cold Spring Canyon, tunnel in, bulkhead 

in .............................. 35-36 

tunnel in, bulkhead in, virw of . . . . . . . . 32 

construction of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 

eost of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 

description of ...................... 33-34 

discharge of ....................... 35-40 

elPvation of ..................... 18,34,41 

extension of ........... lfl, :34,40-41,90-91 

length of ........................ 41,90-91 

rest'rvoir in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 

water of, analysis of ............... 55, !i7 

water supply of .................... 12, 2!i 

Cold Spring Cree~. water of, analyses of .... 'i6-5i 

Corral. Caiiada del, water supply of........ 13 

Coyote Creek, flow of Ventura River at . . . 44 

Cuddy's ranch, rainfall at................. 48 

D. 

De Ia Guerra wells, description of . . . . . . . . . 33 

flow of . . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . . .. . . . . .. . 11, 2.5, 33, 40 

water rights in . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . 17 

Del Corral, Cafiada, 'vater supply of . . . . . . 13 

IRR 116-95--7 

Page. 

Dinsmore Canyon, water supply of......... 12 

Dodge. J. A .. anal)'ses hy ............ 56-.'i8, 60-61 

on quality of Ranta Barbara water..... !i:i-

:)6, 62-63 

Domestic ditch, data concerning . . . . . . . . . . H 

Dos Pueblos Canyon, valley of, water supplyfor......................... 13 

water supply of .... _. _ .. _... . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 

Drainage, character nf ...... _.............. 10 

E. 

El Capitan Canyon, water supply of. .. _ ... 

Evaporation from reservoirs. amount of .. 

F. 

13 

24 

Ficay Creek, water supply of............... 12 

Forests, protection of ..................... 66-67 

Fort Tejon (old), rainfall at................ 48 

Oaging stations, location of. .............. . 

Gates water-supply system, property of... 23 

Geological Survey, r. S., stream measurements by ....................... 12, 15 

work nf .... _. _ ... _ ........... _......... 9, 48 

Gibraltar reservoir site, capacity of ...... _. 2!i, 

55, 67, 82, 9.'i 

cost oi ..... _ ........................ 42,93-96 

dam of .. _ ............. _ .. . . . . .. . .. .. 68, 80-90 

rost nf .......... ___ .......... 84-8.5, 88-90 

diagrams showing ........ 8:~, 86, 87, 88, S9 

diagram of .. . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 81 

drainage area of ....................... 51, 80 

elevation of . .. . . .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. . . .. . 90 

flow at ................ _ .......... 42, .52-55, 80 

location of ......... _ ................... 20,80 

superiority of .................... 42, 9~-94, 96 

tunnels to, construction of . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 

cost of .......................... 43,91-94 

elEvation of ........................ 18,90 

length of ................... _ . . . . . . . 90-91 

views at ........... _ ............ _ . . . . . . 80 

Glassford, Lieutenant, on Santa Ynez rainfall . _... .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 

Gobernador Creek. water supply of........ 12 

Goleta quadrangle. map of, publication oL. 9 

Goleta Yalley, water supply for . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

Guerra, de Ia, wells. See De Ia Guerra wells. 

H. 

Hall. William Hammond, rainfall map by .. 

Hamlin, Homer, work of ............... __ . 

9i 

49 

40 
98 INDEX. 

Page. Page. 

Haywood, J. K., on quality of water . . . . . . 64 Mono reservoir site, drainage area of ....•• 51, 72 

Henderson· s ranch, flow at . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 elevation at ......................... 41, 66,72 

Hilgard, E. W., on quality of water . . . . . . . 64 flow at.................................. 42 

Hot Springs, water of, analysis of ... _...... 5.5 outlet for. ....................... ____ .. _ 19 

Hunt, E. J., contract with .. _.............. 43 tunnel to ................... 19,40-41, 72,90-91 

Hyde, L. M., work of. . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . 61 cost of . . . . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. 77, 91 

.J. length of ........................ 41, 90-91 

view at ................................. 14,22 

Juncal reservoir site, capacity of ....... 14, 20,67 Montecito district, character of............ 18 

cost of ............................... _. 14 water supply for ....................... 13,96 

dam of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Mount Pinos, altitude of .................. 10,48 

drainage area of .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 14-15, 51, 67 Mount Pinos quadrangle, map of, publicainadequacy of ................... _ ..... 16, 19 tion of ......................... . 

location of ............................ _ 14 Moyer, J. L., report of, on water supply... 22 

run-off at. ....................... 20-21, 53,67 Mutau Flat, rainfall at ..................... 48-49 

water supply for ....................... 14,20 N. 

K. Newell, F. H., letter of transmittal by .... . 

Kellogg, F. E., site suggested by ......... . 22 rainfall and run-off curve by ....... ___ _ 50 

50 

48 L. 

Laguna Blanca "\Vater Company, supply of. 13 

Las Varas Canada, water supply of........ 13 

Llaces, Canada, water supply of._.......... 13 

Los Angeles, cost of water at.............. 95 

water consumption of. .... _._ ... _...... 24 

Los Prietos y Najalayequa ranch, acquirement of, by l'"nited States..... 66 

grazing 011. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . 66 

water rights of. . . .. . . . .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . 17 

l\I. 

Main River reservoir site, capacity of ...... 68,70 

dam of. .. .. . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. . . . 6S-69 

diagram showing.---------.----.-.----- m;;, 69 

drainagl' area of ........................ 19, 51 

location of.............................. 19 

rainfall at . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . .. .. 19 

run-off at .............................. . 

underflow at ........................... . 

Manson, Marsden, rainfall ma11 1 lY ........ . 

Maria Y glacia Canyon, water supply of .. _. 

Matilija, flow of Yentura Hiver at. ....... . 

Means, T. H., on quality of Santa Barbara 

53 

20 

49 

13 

water. . .. .. .. . . .. .. . . . . .. . . .. . .. 6:J-6.'i 

Miner's ineh, equivalent of. ..... _____ ... __ . 12 

Mission Canyon, tunnel from ............... 90-94 

tunnel from, eonstruetion of........... 43 

cost of .......................... 4:3,91-94 

diagram of. ........................ 91,92 

Plevation of......................... 18 

water of, analysis of.................... 55 

water right~ on......................... 17 

water supply of. ............... 11, 12,:26-:30,40 

Mission dam, flow of Mission Creek at. .. 27, 28,30 

Mono Creek, flow of ..................... 52-.'"l4, 72 

gaging station on . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. 9 

rainfall on .......................... _. .. 51 

water of. analyses of. ................ 'i7-60, 65 

Mono reservoir si tc, eapacity of. ..... 25, 5.5, 67,71 

cost of .............................. 42, 9:l-94 

dam of ............. __ ............... 68, 72-78 

cost of . . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. 77, 78 

diagrams showing .............. 70, 7 4, 75 

diagram showing . . . .. . . . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . 70 

Newell curve. explanation of .............. . 

Nordhoff, ele,·ation at. .................... . 

o. 

Oil Canyon, water supply of............... 12 

Po 

Parillo Canyon, water supply of........... 12 

Phoenix, Ariz., water of, quality of........ 65 

Pine :Mountain and Zaca Lake Forest Reserve, location of............... 66 

Pipe line, availability of .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. 20 

Piru Creek, flow of ........... __ ............ 76 

rainfall on . .. .. .. . .. . . . . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. 48 

Purslow, E. J. S., on Main River site....... 69 

on rainfall ......................... __ .. . 49 

on Santa Barbara water supply .... 17-22 95 

report of, on Juncal reservoir site ...... 14,67 

Q. 

Quality of water, data concerning .......... 55-66 

Quicksilver reservoir site, capacity of...... 80 

diagrams of . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 79 

location and character of .............. 79-80 

views at. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 

R. 

Rainfall, data concerning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48-49 

relation of run-off and ........ _........ 50 

diagram showing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 

Rankin, H., work of. ....................... 59-60 

Rattlesnake Canyon, tunnel from .......... 90-94 

water supply of ..................... 12,30-33 

Refugio, Canada, water supply of.......... 13 

Rincon Canyon, water supply of . . . . . . . . . . 12 

Rocks, character of . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . . . .. .. . .. 10 

Run-off, diagra1n showing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 

relation of rainfall and. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . 50 

s. 

Salt Springs Valley reservoir, location vf... 50 

San Jose Creek, water supply of . .. . .. .. .. . 13 

San Pedro Creek. water supply of . . . . . . . . . 13 

Santa Barbara, city reservoirs at . . . . . . . . . . 35 

city waterworks of . . . . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. 23 

cooperation of.......................... 9, 48 
INDF.X. 

Page. 

Santa Barbara, investigations by .... 11-17,2::.!-23 

population of. ....... _ .................. 23-2-5 

rainfall at ......... _. _ 16, 20, 44, 48-4\l, .:>1, 53,72 

request of-----------·------------------ 9,48 

underground water at, search for...... 21 

view of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 

water needs of. ..... __ ............... 23-21i, 44 

water of, consumption of ....... _...... 11 

cost of. ........... _ .............. 22, 94-95 

Santa Barbara Forest Reserve, extension 

of ... _ .... __ ..... _ ... __ ...... _ ... 17,66 

Santa Barbara quadrangle, map of, publication of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 

Santa Barbara region, character of . . . . . . . . 9, 10 

drainage of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 

location of.............................. 10 

n1ap of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 

rainfall of . __ ... __ .... __ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 

view in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 

water needs of.._ ................. 11,17-18,22 

water supply of . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 11 

work in, review of ..................... 11-23 

Santa Barbara Water Company, agreement 

with .... _ .......... __ ...... _. 42-43,95 

investigations by. __ ........ __ .......... 17-22 

property of ............................ 19,23 

Santa :Maria quadrangle, map of, publication of .............. __ .... _ ... _. 9 

Santa :Monica Canyon, water supply of . . . . 12 

Santa Ynez Forest Reserve, location of.... 66 

Santa Ynez quadrangle, map of, publication of ........................ . 

Santa Ynez range, elevation of ....... _ .... 10,48 

location and character of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 

reservoir sites on...................... 14 

streams of ............ __ ............... 10 

triangulation over ..................... 40,90 

tunnels in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,33-34 

cost of ....................... 34, 43,91-94 

discharge of ................ , . . . . . . . 35-40 

length of .................. 19,40-41,90-91 

water of .................... _ ...... 12,25 

analysis of .............. __ ..... 55,57 

Santa Ynez River, basin of, elevation of... 48 

basin of, map of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 

rainfall in ...................... _ .... 49,51 

run-off of . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . 52-55 

view in .......... _................. 14 

flood waters of, impounding of ..... 10, 19,96 

flow of ................................. 42,52 

gaging station on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 52 

0 

Page. 

Santa Ynez River, location and character of 10 

rainfall on ......................... _.. . 16 

run-off of ............................ __ l.j-16 

source and course of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 

tunnel from ........................... 1!l, 96 

water supply of ... _ ................ 14,48-96 

analyses of ................... 57-59,61,64 

Seco, Arroyo, flow of----------------·----- 76 

Silt, occurrence of ...................... _ .. 65-66 

Smith, F. J., contract with . ... . . . .. . . . . . . . 43 

Snedden's ranch, rainfall at ............... 48-49 

Springs, occurrence of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 

Stabler, L.·J., analyses by ................. 56-59 

Streams, availability of·------------------ 13 

character of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 10 

flow of. ...... _....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-13,21 

flow of, diagram showing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 

Sutton Creek, water supply of . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 

Sweetwater River, flood on, amount of.... 76 

T. 

Tecolote Canyon, water supply of ........ . 

Tejon Creek, rainfall on_ ................ . 

Tunnels. See-Mission Canyon tunnel; Rattlesnake Canyon tunnel; Cold 

Springs Canyon tunnel. 

v. 

13 

48 

Varas (Las) Canada, water supply of. .... _ 13 

Ventura lliver,flow of..................... 44 

pipe line from .......................... 45-48 

water supply from ..................... 43-48 

Ventura Water, Light, and Power Company, surplus water of .......... 45-46 

Ventura waterworks, power ditch of...... 44 

Verde, Canada, water supply of . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

Veronica, water at, quality of . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 

Water, analyses of ........................ 55-65 

duty of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 

quality of-------------------------·-··· 55-66 

storage of, necessary amount of . . . . . . . 25 

value of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 

Water, flood, impounding of............... 10 

Wright, G. F., on Santa Barbara water suppi v --- ------ ----. ----- --- -. --- - 11-17' 95 

report of, on Juncal reserYoir site ... 14,67-68 

surveys by . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 

LIBRARY CATALOGUE SLIPS. 

[Mount eaeh slip upon a separate card, placing the subject at the top of the 

secoll(l slip. The name of the series should not be repeated on the series 

card, but the additional numbers should be added, as received, to the first 

entry.] 

Lippincott, J [ oseph] B [ arlow] 1864-

... Water probletns of Santa Barbara, California, 

by J. B. Lippincott. Washington, Gov't print. off., 

1905. 

99 p., 11. illus., VIII pl. (incl. map) diagrs. 23cm. (U. S. Geological 

stu\·ey. ~Water-supply and irrigation paper no. 116) 

Subject series: .T, Water storage, 11; M, General hydrographic investigations, 14. 

"Review of earlier ~works by others" : p. 11-23. 

1. Santa Barbara, CaL-Water supply. 

Lippincott, J [ oseph] B [ arlow J 1864-

.... Water problems of Santa Barbara, California, * by J. B. Lippincott. Washington, Gov't print. off., r:L:. = 

99 p., 1 1. ill us., VIII pl. (incl. rnap) diagrs. 23cm. ( U. S. Geological 

survey. Water-supply and irrigation paper no. 116) 

Subject series: J, Water storage, 11; M, General hydrographic investigations, 14. 

"Review of earlier works by others" : p. 11-23. 

1. Santa Barbara, CaL-Water supply. 

U. S. Geological survey. 

Water-supply and irrigation papers. 

no. r r6. Lippincott, J. B. Water problems of Santa 

Barbara, California. 1905. 

U. S. Dept. of the Interior. 

see also 

U. S. Geological survey.