Water-Resources Summary 

for Southern California, 1958 

Water-Resources Summary 

for Southern California, 1958 

By William C. Peterson 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 416 

Washington, D. C. 1959 
United States Department of the Interior 

FRED A. SEATON, SECRETARY 

Geological Survey 

THOMAS B. NOLAN, DIRECTOR. 

Free on application to the U. S. Geological Survey, Washington 25, D. C. 
CONTENTS 

Page 

Abstract............................................ 1 

In tro due tion • • . . • . • • • • . • • • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • 1 

Water resources for the water year 

1957-58......................................... 2 

Precipitation.................................. 2 

Runoff........................................... 5 

Runoff for the water year 1957-58... 8 

Current dry period....................... 8 

Peak discharge............................ 9 

Surface storage.............................. 9 

Ground water................................. 10 

Western San Diego County............. 11 

Riverside County......................... 11 

San Bernardino Valley.................. 11 

Water resources for the water year 

19 5·7-58--Continued 

Ground water-Continued 

San Gabriel Valley •••••••.••.••••.•••••• 

Coastal plain .•••.••••••••••••••••.•••••••• 

Oxnard plain .............................. . 

Santa Maria Valley ••.••..•••.•••..••.•• 

Antelope Valley •••••••••.•••.....••••••.• 

Artificial recharge of ground 

water ................................... . 

Imported water ................................ . 

Runoff for the water year 1956-57 ....•.. 

Areal distribution •........................ 

Unit runoff •.•........•.......•••............• 

!!LUSTRA TIONS 

Page 

13 

13 

14 

14 

14 

15 

15 

16 

16 

16 

Page 

Figure 1. Map showing area covered by summary...................................................... 2 

2. Location of selected precipitation stations, gaging stations, and observation 

wells........................................... . . . . .....•.. •.. ..•.•. .. ........ .•...... .. .. .. .. . . .. .. 3 

3. Cumulative departure of annual precipitation, 18S0-1958 .................•.••.......... 4 

4. Annual runoff distribution, 1895-1958. .•. •. . . . •. . • .. .. . . . . .. . . .. •.•.•.•. •. ... . .• . . •• . . •. . • . . . • 6 

5. Mean annual runoff for different periods, 1895-1958 ...................................... 7 

6. Water-level fluctuations at selected observation wells.................................. 12 

7. Water imported into southern California..................................................... 15 

8. Areal distribution of runoff for the water year 1956-57 •••.••...••••.••••. .••••••••••••• 17 

TABLES 

Page 

Table 1. Precipitation for the climatological year 1957-58, and the average annual 

precipitation for the dry period 1944-58 at selected precipitation stations..... 5 

2. Runoff and peak discharge for the water year 1957-58, and average annual 

runoff for the dry period 1944-58 at selected gaging stations...................... 8 

3. Storage in selected surface reservoirs....................................................... 10 

4. Runoff for the water year 1956-57 .•........•....••.....•••.•.•..•••.•••.....•••..••..••.••••• ,.. 18 

III 

Water-Resources Summary forSouthern California 

1958 

By William C.. Peterson 

ABSTRACT 

Current water requirements for southern California are 

more than 2 million acre-feet per year. These requirements are being met by supplementing limited local 

water resources with imported water. 

The average annual precipitation ranges from about 2 

inches in parts of the desert to about 50 inches in the 

higher mountains, and there is a great variation in annual precipitation at any one place. The annual variation is not entirely random, in that the annual precipitation tends to follow a cyclic pattern made up of 

sequences of wet and dry periods. Records of the 

climatological year (July 1, 1957-june 30, 1958) indicate that precipitation was considerably above average, 

but the relative wetness does not necessarily forecast 

the abatement of the current dry period which began 

in 1944. 

Runoff follows the same pattern of wet and dry periods 

that is shown by precipitation, but with even greater 

variability. Runoff for the 1957-58 water year at 15 selected gaging stations ranged from 0.42 to 24.0 inches, 

with departures from the average annual runoff for the 

35-year base period. 1920-55, ranging from minus 76 to 

plus 290 percent. The average runoff of this group .of 

gaging stations for the 1957-58 water year was 9.12 

inches, a departure of plus 127 percent from the base 

mean and more than six times the average runoff for the 

1956-57 water year. Average annual runoff for the 14-

years dry period that began in 1944 ranged from 0.34 to 

8.1 inches with an average departure of minus 32 ~rcent 

from the base mean. 

As a result of the current dry period that began in 

1944, most of the reservoirs storing natural runoff were 

only partly full, and some were practically empty. The 

combined content of 12 representative reservoirs in 

September, 1958, was 42 percent of capacity. 

The accelerated trend in ground-water depletion that 

also began in 1944 continued during the year in the 

desert areas. ·Elsewhere the above-average precipitation 

and runoff, together with the use of imported water in 

some areas, served to recharge ground-water basins 

sufficiently to stem the drastic decline of water levels 

observed· in most observation wells during the curr.ent 

dry period. 

The rapid increase in water requirements has accelerated the importation of water from the Colorado River 

from 20,000 acre-feet in 1944 to 597,000 acre-feet in 

1957; about 535,000 acre-feet was imported from this 

source in 1958. During the same period, water imported 

from Owens Valley was almost equal to aqueduct capacity; about 335,000 acre-feet was imported from this 

source during 1958. 

Runoff data for the 1956-57 water year from all currently published gaging-station records establish that 

year as one of the driest in recent years in southern 

California. 

INTRODUCTION 

This edition of water-resources summary 

for southern California is the 16th in a series 

issued annually since June 1944. Its main 

purpose is to present a brief analysis of those 

phases of local water supply associated with 

the work of the Geological Survey in southern 

California. 

The first part of this summary deals with 

water resources for the water year ending 

September 30, 1958. It contains a brief analysis of annual precipitation, annual runoff 

(provisional) at selected gaging stations, 

water reserves in both surface and underground reservoirs, and imported water. 

The second part gives, in detail, runoff for 

the preceding water year ending September 

30, 1957. A period of about a year, beginning 

at the end of the water year, is usually required to complete computations of daily 

discharge for all the gaging stations. An 

additional 6 months to a year is required to 

process and present the data in published 

form in the annual Geological Survey watersupply papers. Consequently, this report 

represents the first opportunity to release 

data on magnitude of runoff for all gaging 

stations operated in southern California during the water year 1956-57. 

Some information presented in this summary was included in previous editions. The 

repetition is made so that each edition will be 

complete and independent of the previous 

editions. 

For the purpose of the summary, southern 

California is considered to be that part of the 

State extending southward from the Arroyo 

Grande basin, the Tehachapi Mountains, and 

the lnyo County line to the boundary with 

Mexico and extending inland from the Pacific 

1 
2 WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 1958 

Coast to the Colorado River and the Nevada 

State line. The inland part of' this 47,000-

square-mile area is predominantly a desert, 

consequently, most of the population centers 

and agricultural areas of the region are concentrated in long narrow strip of coastal land. 

The chief exceptions are Antelope Valley in 

the Mojave Desert and Coachella and Imperial 

Valleys in the Colorado Desert. The area 

covered in this summary is shown in figure 1, 

and the detailed location of selected installations where data are collected is shown in 

figure 2. 

Because of many desirable climatic and 

economic factors, the population growth of 

southern California has been phenomenal, 

probably the greatest in the United States. A 

population of about 300,000 in 1900 increased 

to ~bout 5. 7 million by 1950. About 80 percent of the population increase occurred in 

the three decades since 1920. Since 1950 the 

population growth has continued, and it is 

estimated that the present population of 

southern California is about 8. 5 million. 

Such a vast increase in population greatly 

intensifies the water problems in these arid 

and semiarid regions of limited water resources. It has been estimated that the 

100 0 100 Miles 

Figure 1. -Map showing area covered by this summary. 

water requirements for urban and agricultural purposes in the coastal areas were about 

1.8 million acre-feet in 1950 and have been 

steadily increasing at a rate of about 40,000 

acre-feet per year. As a result, providing 

water has been changed from a relatively 

simple problem to an extremely critical situation in many areas. Just how critical the 

situation is for any community depends largely upon the magnitude of the local groundwater reserves and the ability of the community to import water from outside the basin. 

Southern California is forced to obtain its 

water supply from distant sources because 

its local water reserves are limited; as a result, it pays more for its water than any other 

area of comparable size in the United States. 

WATER RESOURCES FOR THE WATER YEAR 

1957-58 

PRECIPITATION 

Very few areas in. the United States have 

ranges in average annual precipitation that 

are as wide as those observed in southern 

California. Because of the effect of local 

physiographic features on the circulation of 

atmospheric moisture, the observed average 

annual precipitation ranges from about 2 

inches at Bagdad in the Mojave Desert to 

more than 50 inches at Morse near Squirrel 

Inn in the San Bernardino Mountains. 

The average annual precipitation of southern California, about 9. 5 inches, is only about 

one-third of the national average of 30 inches; 

for not more than 2 percent of the area is 

equal to or larger than the national average. 

And more than 50 percent of southern California is arid, with an average annual precipitation of 5 inches or less. 

Not only is there a great range in average 

annual precipitation, from place to place, but 

there is often an even greater variation in 

the annual precipitatior) at any one place. 

For example, the annual precipitation at Los 

Angeles for the climatological year, July 1 to 

June 30, has ranged from 5. 59 inches, in 

1898-99, to 38.18 inches, in 1883-84, the 

average being 15.07 inches for the 81-year 

period of record ending in 1958. At Indio, in 

the desert area of southern California, the 

annual precipitation has ranged from 0.40 

inch in 1879-80, to 11.50 inches in 1939-40, 
9-U-9 

0 Observation well 

(' 

/ ~ 

/ 

(' 

~ 

0~ -

821 

Stream-gaging • 

station 

~ 

EXPLANATION 

Ozena ~ 

Precipitation 

station 

0 

c ~ 

<l 

[]L]-

Mountains and 

foo-thills 

-4 IV 

~ 

Valley 

~ floors and 

Coastal plains 

w o ~ ~ oo~~ 

Figure 2. -Location of selected precipitation stations, stream-gaging statioas, and observation welJs. 

..J 

:lf 

a: 

~ 

E X c 0 

~ .; 

~ 

::tl 

~ 

8 

::tl 

() 

~ ..., 

0 

::tl 

~ -< !: 

::tl 

...... 

co 

en 

-a 

I 

en 

00 

"" 
4 WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOU'IHERN CALIFORNIA, 1958 

Figure 3. -clDllulative departure of annual precipitation, 1850-1958. 

and averaged 3.18 inches for an 80-year period of record ending in 1958. 

The variation in annual precipitation is not 

entirely random as it occurs in extended 

sequences of wet and dry years that tend to 

define an irregular cyclic pattern-a series 

of wet years alternating with a series of dry 

years-in the time distribution of the precipitation. This distribution in time is most 

pronounced on the coastal side of the mountains and least defined in the arid desert 

regions. 

Possibly the longest existing record of 

these wet and dry periods is to be found in 

the relative widths of annual tree rihgs in 

ce'rtain types of trees growing in the mountains of southern California. Schulman:t has 

been able to measure the annual tree-ring 

growth in big-cone spruce for the 560-year 

period of 1385 to 1944. These records indicate a definite cyclic pattern of wet and dry 

periods, with the average length of dry periods being 14.5 years and wet periods, 12.5 

years, making an average cyclic period of 27 

years. Not all the individual years within a 

1 Schulman. Edmund, 1947, Tree-ring hydrology in southern 

California: Univ. Ariz., Lab. of Tree-ring Research, Bull. 4. 

wet period are wet, but the wet years predominate; conversely, not all the individual years 

within a dry period are dry, but the dry years 

predominate. 

One of the methods used for determining 

wet and dry periods is that of cumulative departures. Figure 3 shows the cumulative departures of annual precipitation at Santa 

Barbara, Los Angeles, and San Diego in percent from the average annual precipitation. 

Each of the three average annual values is for 

the period of record up to and including the 

climatological year 1957-58. Consequently, 

upward trends on this graph represent wet 

periods and downward trends represent dry 

periods. 

The observed annual precipitation for 1958 

(climatological year, July 1 to June 30!)at these 

stations is given in table 1, together with that 

for 7 other selected sites that measure the 

precipitation in the major physiographic features of the area. Many of the longest and 

most complete records in the region have 

been collected at these stations, and they are 

intended to serve as general indices of precipitation throughout southern California. 
WATER RESOURCES FOR THE YEAR 1957-58 5 

Table 1, -Precipitation for the climatological year July 1, 1957-June 30, 1958, and the average annual precipitation for the dry period 

1944-58 at selected precipitation stations. 

Period of record Precipitation for 1957-58 Average annual precipitation 

for 1844-58 dry period 

Physiographic type and station Average Departure Departure 

Length annual Inches from Inches from 

(years) precipitation average average 

(inches) (percent) (percent) 

Coastal and Plain: 

San Diego WB Airport •••..••••••••••..•.•.••••• 108 

Los Angeles WB City •••.•.•••.••••••••••••••••• 81 

Santa Barbara ••••.••••••.•..•••.••.•••.•••••••••• 91 

Santa Maria ...................................... ~8 

Valley: 

Riverside Fire Station 3 ....................... 77 

Mountain: 

Cuyamaca ........................................ 71 

Big Bear Lake Dam ............................. 75 

Mount Wilson FC 338 B ........................ 54 

Ozena .............................................. 54 

Desert: 

Indio U. S, Date Garden •••••••••••••••••••••• 80 

During the year., 1957-58, the 14th year of a 

predominantly dry period that began in 1944, 

the annual precipitation at all 10 stations was 

above the average for the period of record. 

The average departure for this group of stations was plus 48 percent, only a few percent 

less than the average departure at the same 

group of stations for the wet year 1952. 

RUNOFF 

The precipitation, after first satisfying the 

soil-moisture deficiencies in the root zone of 

the native vegetation in mountain and foothill 

areas and of the agricultural crops in the 

valley-floor areas, recharges the groundwater reservoirs or drains into the stream 

channels as runoff. That part of the precipitation appearing as runoff follows the same 

cyclic pattern shown by the total precipitation 

as plotted in figure 3. However, the cyclic 

pattern defined by runoff is often more pronounced because the annual runoff may represent only a very small part of annual precipitation. For example, the annual runoff 

for San Gabriel River basin, as measured 

near Azusa, has ranged from as little as 0. 86 

inch for the water year ending September 30, 

1899, to a maximum of 36.4 inches for the 

water year ending September 30, 1922, with 

an average of 9.9 inches for a 63-year period 

of record. 

This range in annual runoff, together with 

its time sequence of wet and dry periods, is 

9.98 13,90 +39 9,06 -9 

15,07 21.13 +40 12,58 -17 

18,07 31,94 +77 16,23 -10 

13,96 24,21 +73 11,55 -17 

11,16 15,00 +34 ' 9,48 -15 

38,47 48,18 +25 34,10 -11 

37,88 57,88 +53 35,90 -5 

33,10 45,42 +37 28,86 -13 

13,38 24,86 +86 10,76 -20 

3,18 4,53 +42 2,54 -20 

shown in figure 4 for the gaging station on 

San Gabriel River near Azusa and the gaging 

station on Santa Ana River near Mentone. 

Records for both stations reflect the runoff 

from rugged mountain basins within the San 

Bernardino and the Angeles National Forests, 

and the runoff at these two stations is assumed 

to be typical of the mountain runoff in those 

areas where the basinwide average annual 

precipitation ranges from 30 to 40 inches. 

Both records show the same cyclic patterns 

as those of the annual precipitation. To accentuate this distribution, the graphs have 

been separated into the generally accepted 

divisions for wet and dry periods of the region, with the average annual runoff for each 

of these periods shown by the crosshatched 

area. 

It is evident from an inspection of figure 5 

that both records cc_:mtain 3 dry and 2 wet periods and consequently each mean for the 

period of record tends to be affected by the 

greater number of dry years. On the basis of 

the records for San Gabriel River near Azusa, 

the 49-year period of 1895-1944 and the 54-

year period of 1904-58 represent the least 

affected records because each contains 2 wet 

and 2 dry periods. For Santa Ana River near 

Mentone, the least affected records are those 

for the 47-year period 1896-1943 and for the 

53-year period 1905-58. As there are but a 

few gaging stations in southern California 

where records are of sufficient length to 

contain these 'I J.imm. 
6 WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR sarniERN CALIFORNIA. 1958 

San Gabriel River near Azusa, Calif 

400r-----------~-----------r------------~-

300 t-----------------+--------1 1--t---

t;:j 

LL.I 

LL. 

w 

a: 

~200 r-----------~-----

LL. 

0 

en 

c 

~100 en ::l' 

0 

::r: 

1-

~ 0 LL.-

LL. 

0 

z 

:::::> 

~300 <( 

:::::> 

z 

z 

<( 

200 

1900 

EXPLANATION 

Mean------. 

Mean for period of record 

Medi~--::::-

Median for period of record 

WllllJl 

·Average for wet or dry period 

(!)-@ 

10 driest years in relative 

Figure 4. -Annual runoff distribution, 1895-1958. 

necessary to consider the use of shorter pe- place in the beginning and end of wet and dry· 

riods, each containing a single wet and dry periods and lack of clear definition of the 

sequence. The beginning and the ending of lengths of these periods. But, aside from this 

each of these periods, together with the mean deficiency, base means, when properly interannual runoff for each period, are included in preted, have considerable significance in 

figure 5. many parts of southern California. 

The obvious variability of the data for 

short periods suggests that it is doubtful that 

the 'longtime mean can be used as a direct 

measure of dependable runoff for any randomly selected period. Consequently the 

longtime mean annual runoff becomes merely 

an indirect measure of the relative runoff 

among basins rather than a measure of surface water that is usable or available during 

extended critical periods. 

Despite the inadequacy of the longtime base 

mean for use in reference to most water 

problems in southern California, the use of 

mean values as a measure of central tendency is desirable for convenience. Furthermore, mean values based on a common time 

period (and designated base means) are of 

more use for direct comparisons between 

basins than are longtime means based on time 

periods of different length. Admittedly, selection of a common time period must be arbitrar· r because of differences from Jlace to 

For the water-resources summary, the 30-

year period beginning October 1920 and ending September 1950 was initially selected for 

a base period, and was used through the 1956 

edition of the summary (Circular 399). October 1920 was chosen as the beginning date so 

that the base period would conform closely to 

that of the standard period October 1920 to 

September 1945 for which median monthly 

discharge is computed -and U\Sed for national 

coverage in the Water Resources Review of 

the U. S. Geological Survey and the Canadian 

Water Resources Division. The choice of the 

beginning data also enable the inclusion, in 

data for the base period, of many records for 

shorter periods of runoff that could be extended back to October 1920 with a minimum 

loss of accuracy. 

For this edition of the summary, as with 

the preceding edition (Circular 404), the 35-

year period from October 1920 to September 

1955 is used for corr.t ·mtirv base means. It is 
1-

z 

LL.I 

(.) 

a:: 

400 

~ 

~-200 

L.L 

u... 

0 

z 

:J 

a:: 

-2001-----

1890 1900 

WATER RESOURCES FOR THE YFAR 1957-58 7 

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 

WATER YEARS 

Figure 5. -Mean annual runoff for different periods, 1895-1958. 
8 WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 1958 

contemplated that the 35-year period will be 

used through the 1960 edition of the summary. The base mean for the 35-year period 

are a few percent lower than those for the 30-

year period, which should be borne in mind 

when comparing percentage departures in this 

edition of the summary with those in Circular 

399 and earlier editions. 

RUNOFF FOR THE WATER YEAR 1957-58 

Runoff for the water year 1957-58 at the 15 

gaging stations shown on figure 2 is briefly 

summarized in table 2 and compared with the 

average annual runoff for the 35-year base 

period of 1920-55. The purpose of table 2 is 

to provide a general index of the surface 

runoff throughout southern California for the 

water year ending September 30, 1958. Typical of the region is the wide range of the 

1957-58 runoff, 0.42 to 24.0 inches, which is 

due largely to the areal distribution of precipitation. 

Departure of the 1957-58 runoff from the 

35-yearbase mean atall but two stations reflect the relatively wet year prevalent in all 

except the southern-most parts of southern 

California. The average runoff for the 1957-

58 water year was 9.12 inches over the 1,464 

square miles of area drained by streams 

listed in table 2, or about 2.25 times the 35-

year base mean annual runoff. 

In contrast, the average annual runoff for 

this group of basins during the relatively wet 

year 1951-52 was 6.87 inches, or about 1. 70 

times the 35-year base runoff. During the 

1956-57 water year the average annual runoff was 1.41 inches, or about one-sixth that 

of 1957-58. 

CURRENT DRY PERIOD 

The typical southern California runoff distribution shown in figure 4 indicates that the 

water year ending September 30, 1958, was 

Table 2. -Runoff and peak discharge for the water year 1957-58, and average annual runoff for the dry period 1944-58 at selected gaging 

stations. 

1957-58 runoff Average annual runoff Peak discharge 

1920-55 for 1944-58 dry period (cubic feet per second) 

Drain- base-mear Departure Departure Station age annual from from and reference number area runoff Acre- base-mean Acre- base-mean Water-year Period of on figure 2. (square Inches Inches 

mile) (acre- feet annual feet annual 1957-58 record 

feet) runoff runoff 

(percent) (percent) 

Pacific slope basins 

Cottonwood Creek at 

Morena Dam (799) •.••.••. 120 11,250 2,680 0.42 -76 2,950 0.46 -74 ................ ··············· Santa Ysabel Creek at 

Sutherland Dam (304) •••. 58 12,340 14,540 4.7 +18 5,130 1.7 -58 ................ ............... Murrieta Creek at 

Temecula (721) ••••••••••• 220 9,380 14,220 1.2 +52 4,160 .35 -56 5,730 17,500 

Santa Ana River near 

Mentone (102) .•..•••••••••.. 202 55,680 67,230 6.2 +21 39,030 3.6 -30 2,170 52,300 

Cucamonga Creek near 

Upland (616) ••••.••.•••••.•. 10.1 5, 710 12,370 23.0 +117 4,340 8.1 -24 410 10,300 

East Fork San Gabriel River 

near Camp Bonita (765) •. Arroyo Seco near 88.2 48,910 112,700 24.0 +130 37,200 7.9 -24 2,720 46,000 

Pasadena ( 4) •.•••.••••••••• , 16.4 6,270 11,270 12.9 +80 3,710 4.2 -41 719 8,620 

Santa Anita Creek near 

Sierra Madre (377) ......... Sespe Creek near 10.5 4,360 11,480 20.5 +163 3,220 5.8 -26 867 5,200 

Fillmore (182) .............. 254 70,980 226,200 16.7 +219 50,240 3.7 -29 28,400 56,000 

San Jose Creek near 

Goleta (845) ................ 1 

Huasna River near Santa . 5. 5~ ............ 4,830 16.4 ............... 1,120 3.8 . ............. 790 1,960 

Maria (638) ................. i 119 12,540 48,940 7.7 +290 9,190 1.4 -27 4,230 11,400 Arroyo Grande at Arroyo 

Grande (821) ................ 106 14,940 46,750 8.3 +213 11,420 2.0 -24 4,030 5,370 

The Great Basin 

Palm Canyon Creek near 

Palm Springs (647) ........ ; 94.0 4,390 7,290 1.5 +66 1,690 0.34 -62 1,130 3,850 

Deep Creek near 

Hesperia (666) .............. ; 137 44,270 106,000 14.5 

Big Rock Creek near +139 31,710 4.3 -28 12,400 46,600 

Valyermo (499) ............. 23.0 12,100 25,020 20.4 +107 8,870 7.2 -27 399 8,300 
WATER RESOURCES FOR THE YFAR 1957-58 9 

another relatively wet year in a predominantly 

dry period that has persisted since October 

1944. Whether or not the above-average runoff during 1957-58 forecasts the abatement of 

this dry period is unknown. What is known, 

however, is that dry periods o~ more than 14 

years have occurred in south~rn California. 

Tree-growth studies by Schulman !suggest 

that southern California may have had dry periods of more than 40 years duration. 

A measure of the relative dryness of the 

dry periods of record is afforded by numbering the 10 driest years. for each of the 2 stations shown in figure 4, in their order of dryness. Of these 20 years for both stations 9 

occurred in the very dry 9-year period ending 

September 30, 1904. The current dry period 

is next in order with 8 dry years, and the 14-

year period ending September 30, 1936, had 

the least number of dry years, containing 

only 3 of the 20 years. 

The average annual runoff for the current 

dry period and its departure from the base 

mean is included in table 2. For most of the 

stations the influence of the 1957-58 runoff on 

the average annual runoff for the 1944-58 dry 

period has reduced the departure from the 

35-year base mean. The average departure 

during the current 14-year dry period for the 

basins listed is minus 32 percent in contrast 

with a departure of minus 44 percent for the 

13-year dry period 1944-57. 

PEAK DISCHARGE 

Of more than usual interest, in a year that 

has above-average precipitation and runoff, 

is the magnitude of the peak discharges. 

Table 2 shows the peak discharge at each of 

several index gaging stations during the water 

year 1957-58 and also the peak discharge for 

the period of record to facilitate a rough comparison of the relative intensities of the individual storm events. Except those for the 

gaging stations on Murrieta Creek, San Jose 

Creek, Arroyo Grande, and Palm Canyon 

Creek, all period-of-record peak discharges 

are those which occurred during the flood of 

March 1938. 

Peak discharges in 1958 at all stations except Big Rock Creek near Valyermo occurred 

during the storms of April 1-3., a period in 

which the peak discharge of Sespe Creek near 

Fillmore reached a magnitude of 50 percent 

of the 1938 maximum. During 1952 water 

year, the only other relatively wet year in the 

current dry period, peak discharges at these 

same stations were generally less (except on 

Murrieta Creek and Palm Canyon Creek) than 

those of the 1958 water year; the 1952 peak 

discharge at Sespe Creek near Filmore was 

only 41 percent of 1938 maximum. 

SURFACE STORAGE 

Currently there is about 1. 5 million acrefeet of surface storage capacity in southern 

California for municipal, domestic, and irrigational uses. Most of this storage capacity 

has been obtained by building dams across 

mountain stream channels. However, bec_ause 

of the many adverse topographic features, 

such as steepness of the stream channels 

and narrowness of the canyons, construction 

costs are high and reservoir capacities small. 

Only 5 reservoirs of 115 built have a capacity 

in excess of 100,000 acre-feet. Because of 

the relatively small capacity, it is impossible 

for many reservoirs to store the excessive 

flood runoff occurring during wet periods for 

use in the following dry periods. Furthermore, some of these reservoirs were not 

built to store local flood runoff but to store 

and distribute imported waters from· Owens 

Valley and the Colorado River. 

Additional storage capacity of more than 

400,000 acre-feet has been obtained through 

the utilization of reservoirs constructed to 

provide flood control in the valley-floor 

areas. Although these flood-control reservoirs are primarily for retarding the flood 

runoff, a certain amount of water is con-

_served because provision is made, when possible, to control release of flood water to 

recharge ground-water basins. 

Data on the operation of 12 reservoirs during the current dry period are given in table 3. 

These reservoirs, built to store water for 

domestic, municipal, or irrigational uses, 

have a combined capacity of about 55 percent 

of the present total reservoir capacity in 

southern California. Except for a small 

amount of Colorado River water delivered to 

Lake Hodges, El Capitan, and Santiago reservoirs, the only source of inflow to each 

reservoir during 1958 was from local runoff. 

The Morena and Barrett Reservoirs in the 

Tia Juana River basin are the most southerly 
10 WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 1958 

Table 3. -Storage in selected surface reservoirs 

Average Present Storage Change Stor~ge on 

Sept. 30, 1944 

annual capacity Storage 

Reservoir inflow at spill- ratio Sept. 30, 1957 

1920-55 way level (years) 

(acre-feet) (acre-feet) Percent 

Acre-feet of 

capacity 

Morena and 

Barrett .••.•.• 24,800 94,970 3,8 1,270 1,3 

El Capitan ••••• 38,600 112,810 2.9 2,540 2,2 

Lake Hodges .• 33,280 33,550 1.0 8 3,460 10 

Lake Henshaw 24,410 194,300 8,0 b1,080 ,6 

Vail Lake ••...• 9,810 49,370 5,0 560 1,1 

Big Bear Lake. .............. 72,200 1,950 2,7 

Santiago ....... 11,220 25,000 .. .... 2:'2" 3,700 15 

Matilija .••••.•. 20,910 7,020 .34 5,250 75 

Jameson Lake. 3,840 6,760 1.8 bJ, 260 19 

Gibraltar ....... 30,540 14,780 ,48 10,340 70 

Cachuma ...... 60,700 204,900 3.4 30,150 14 

Total ••.••.•. C268, 000 815,660 

a Mostly Colorado River water, 

b Approximately. 

c Includes estimate for Big Bear Lake, 

3,0 61,560 

of these 12 reservoirs. At the end of the preceding dry year, September 30, 1957, both 

reservoirs were almost empty. At the end of 

the 1958 water year, which was relatively dry 

in that region, the reservoirs were still almost empty. Farther north, however, at 

Cachuma reservoir, the storage at the end of 

the 1957 water year amounted to 14 percent 

of capacity, and at the end of the 1958 water 

year was within a few percent of spillway capacity. This relatively large retention reflects the above-average precipitation occurring in this area during the very wet 1958 

water year, a year that produced in the contributing area a volume of runoff equivalent 

to about 3.4 times the mean-annual inflow to 

the reservoir. 

Column 4 of table 3 gives storage ratio, 

which is defined as the ratio of usable capacity to average annual inflow. It is expressed 

in years and is the time required, assuming 

average inflow, to impound a volume of water 

equal to the usable capacity of the reservoir. 

GROUND WATER 

Over a large part of southern California, 

the most readily available and best distributed water reserve is the water stored in the 

deep alluvial deposits of the valley-floor 

areas. A major part of the water requirements of the region has been and is being 

supplied by pumping from these sources. The 

magnitude of these water reserves is difficult 

7,5 

in Change in 

Sept. 30, 1958 storage Percent storage 

1957-58 Acre-feet of 1944-58 

Percent (acre- capacity (acre-feet) 

Acre-feet of feet) 

capacity 

1,960 2,1 +690 89,900 86 -87,940 

43,560 39 +41,020 79,700 68 -36,140 

7,000 21 +3,540 31,100 93 -24,100 

b20,400 10 +19,320 144,000 74 -123,600 

6,860 14 +6,300 ............ j. ........... ............... 21,290 29 +19,340 47,600 66 -26,310 

19,900 80 +16,200 20,400 82 -500 

7,000 100 +1,750 ........... ............... 6,160 91 +4,900 6,050 89 +110 

13,220 89 +2,880 6,120 38 +7,100 

196,890 96 +166,740 ............. ........... ............... 344,240 42 +282,680 424,870 78 -291,380 

to measure; however, they have been estimated by Eckis 2 to be about·? .5 million acrefeet in the alluvial deposits in the basins of the 

Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana 

Rivers in a zone 100 feet thick extending from 

50 feet above to 50 feet below the water levels 

of January 1933. 

The rapid industrial and urban growth has 

overtaxed these local ground water reserves. 

As a consequence the current rate of extraction often exceeds the average rate of recharge, creating an overdraft. Currently, 

many ground-water basins in southern California now have, or are threatened by, overdrafts. 

The usefulness of a ground-water reser- voir, like a surface-water reservoir, is dependent upon its size, the magnitude of the 

annual increments of recharge, and the annual rate of withdrawal. Also, like a surface 

reservoir, the ground-water reservoir must 

capture its water in the wet periods and retain 

it in storage to meet the needs of the following dry periods. 

The valleys oj southern California contain 

a large number of ground-water basins, many 

having complex geologic and hydrologic features, Changes in water levels differ considerably from basin to basin, depending upon 

Z£ckis, Rollin, 19341 Geology and ground-water storage capacity of valley fill (South Coastal Basin Investigation): CalifOI'nia Dept, Public Works, Div, Water Resources, Bull, 45, 
WATER RESOURCES FOR THE YEAR 1957-58 11 

the relationship between natural recharge and 

pumping draft. Consequently it has been neeessary to confine the detailed analysis of the 

changes in water levels to the few observation 

wells indicated on figure 2. 

The records of change in water level in six 

selected observation wells for their period of 

record are shown on figure 6. The division 

into wet and dry periods is arbitrary and 

based on figure 5. A light dashed line indicates the rate of decline during each dry period and is based chiefly on the driest years 

during that period. Assuming that groundwater recharge during all dry periods is 

small and of about the same magnitude, an 

increase in the rate of decline becomes a 

measure of the increase in ground-water 

withdrawals. 

At the end of the 1957 water year, almost 

all water levels were the lowest for the period 

of record-a reflection of the great increase 

in regional water requirements and the excess of withdrawals over the small increments of recharge during the preceding 13-

year dry period. At the end of the 1958 water 

year, water levels generally reflected the 

above-average precipitation over much of the 

region and the continued use of either imported water or stored storm runoff for artificial recharge of the ground-water basins. 

WESTERN SAN Dl EGO COUNTY 

Ground-water levels in most of the coastal 

alluvial valleys of western San Diego County 

rose slightly during the 1958 water year, reversing the downward trend which, since 1940 

had brought many wells to the lowest levels 

of the entire period of record. However, in 

parts of the Tia Juana and San Dieguito basins 

the downward trend continued. At the present 

time, areas of known or threatened sea-water 

intrusion exist in the basins of the Tia Juana, 

Otay, San Diego, and San Luis Rey Rivers. 

RIVERSIDE COUNTY 

The ground-water levels in the arid and 

semiarid San Jacinto basin have declined 

steadily since the first observations of 1904. 

The Riverside County Flood Control and Water 

Conservation District reports that the water 

level in observation well4S/ 1 W -35R1 near the 

city of San Jacinto, was about 190 feet below 

land surface in September 1958; this well was 

flowing in 1917. Similarly the water level in 

a second well 4S/3W-33R1, near the city of 

Perris, was about 186 feet below the land surface during September 1958 in an area where 

the water level was about 20 feet below the 

land surface during March 1904. Both areas 

now are using a limited amount of Colorado 

River water--at double the cost of water pumped in the area in an effort to supplement the 

depleted water reserves. 

At the end of the 1958 water year, groundwater levels in many areas of the county had 

risen an average of about 3 feet, a reflection 

of the decrease in pumping as a result of 

heavy rains of the 1958 season and the increased use of imported Colorado River 

water. Imported water now is equal to about 

one -third of the water obtained from local 

sources in western Riverside County. 

SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY 

The San Bernardino Valley is a relatively 

deep alluvial valley in the upper Santa Ana 

River basin, east of metropolitan Los Angeles. 

The water needs of the valley's agricultural 

and urban developments are supplied from 

local surface and ground-water sources. 

The longest available record of changes in 

ground-water levels is that for the Williams 

well (1S/3W-17C1). This record (fig. 6) began 

in 1892 and indicates the response to seasonal 

changes caused by pumping and recharge and 

to the long-term changes associated with wet 

and dry periods. These changes tend to give 

the water-level fluctuation a general cyclic 

distribution in time that coincides closely with 

that of the wet and dry periods shown on 

figure 5. 

The rate of decline during the first and 

second dry periods was about 4.2 feet per -

year. However, during the current dry period 

the rate of decline increased to about 10 feet 

per year. This increase in rate of decline 

reflects an increase in ground-water use that, 

when contrasted with the average rate and 

duration of recharge during wet periods of 

record, forecasts a condition of overdraft in 

the near future. 

The San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District reports that, owing to the 

above-average precipitation and duration of 
12 WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 1958 

140 

120 

100 

80 

2340 

2320 

Dry Wet Dry 

I 2280 I 

I 2260 

I 

I 2240 

I 

I 2220 

I 

I 

Figure 6. -Water-level fluctuations at selected observation wells. 
WATER RESOURCES FOR THE YEAR 1957-58 13 

runoff during the 1958 water year~ a great 

number of irrigation wells in the valley were 

not used for several months. At the end of the 

water year ground-water levels had risen 

from 2 to 30 feet above the record-low levels 

established in 1957, and the water level in the 

vicinity of the Williams well, which went dry 

in July 1956, began to recover in April 1958~ 

as shown by water-level records obtained 

since March 1957 from a companion well 

(1S/3W-17C3) drilled to replace the Williams 

well. 

SAN GABRIEL VALLEY 

The San Gabriel Valley is a deep alluvial 

valley in the San Gabriel River basin along the 

toe of the San Gabriel Mountains. The groundwater-storage capacity of these deposits is 

believed to be about 1.2 million acre-feet in a 

zone 100 feet thick, ranging from 50 feet 

above to 50 feet below the January 1933 water 

level.3 The once extensive agricultural acreage in this valley is rapidly being converted 

into an urban area. Most of the water requirements of the valley are met by local 

ground-water reserves. 

The record obtained at the Baldwin Park 

observation well 1S/10-18 (fig. 6) is assumed 

to represent ground-water conditions throughout the valley. The average rate of waterlevel decline, which was about 3.9 feet per 

year during the dry period 1922-36, increased 

to 8.8 feet per year during the current dry 

period. During the last few years, this rate of 

decline has moderate, owing partly to the wet 

year 1951-52 and partly to the increased use 

of imported Colorado River water in the area. 

The Los Angeles County Flood Control 

District reports that ground-water levels 

over most of the San Gabriel main and tributary basins were higher in the fall of 19 58 than 

in the fall of 1957. This is the first time since 

1952 that an annual recovery in water levels 

occurred in the main basin. There were a few 

wells in the vicinity of Alhambra in which 

water levels were 3 or 4 feet lower at the end 

of the water year than levels recorded late in 

1957, but in the main basin water levels rose 

. 5 to 10 feet near Whittier Narrows, and toward 

the eastern extremity of the basin near Covina 

the level in one well rose 40 feet during 1958. 

3 See footnote page 10. 

COASTAL PLAIN 

The coastal plain is the broad, flat area extending southeastward along the coast from 

Santa Monica to Newport Beach and inland to 

the Santa Monica and Santa Ana Mountains, the 

Puente and San Jose Hills, and lesser foothills. Three major streams, the Santa Ana, 

San Gabriel., and Los Angeles Rivers., cross 

the plain to discharge into the ocean. The 

rich agricultural lands of the plain have been 

converted gradually into extensive urban and 

suburban areas. Currently, the coastal plain 

is the most densely populated and industrialized section of southern California. 

The water-bearing deposits underlying the 

plain are composed of marine and alluvial 

material that locally are 2~ 500 feet or more 

thick. Less than 20 years ago the water stored 

in these deposits was still the principal source 

of water for the area. Because of the rapid 

increase in water needs during recent years, 

it has been necessary to import a substantial 

part of the water requirements from Owens 

Valley and the Colorado River. Even with 

these imported waters, the ground-water reserves have been so depleted that sea water 

has intruded these deposits along many sections of the coast. 

Systematic observations of change in 

ground-water level in the coastal plain have 

been noted at the Neff well (4S/10-22L2) and 

its companion wells near Anaheim since 1898. 

These records (fig. 6) have been used as an 

index of changes in the water level of the 

coastal plain. During the 59-year period of 

record at this site, a net decline of 132 feet 

(from 112 feet above sea level to 20 feet below 

sea level) was observed. This d~cline~ which 

has not been uniform, occurred largely during the three dry periods. An average rate of 

decline of 3.9 feet per year in the first dry 

period increased to 4.6 feet per year during 

the second dry period and to 7.6 feet per year 

in the current dry period. During the last few 

years, this rate of decline has decreased, 

owing partly to recharge during the wet year 

1951-52 and partly to greater use of imported 

waters. 

The Orange County Water District reports 

an average rise in ground-water levels of 

about 5 feet in wells throughout the eastern 

part of the coastal plain during 1958, and at 

the end of the 1958 water year the average 
14 WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA, 1958 

elevation of these ground-water levels was 

10.5 feet below sea level. About 83,000 acrefeet of Colorado River water was spread to 

replenish the underground basin, and an additional 36,000 acre-feet of Colorado River 

water was purchased by cities and other 

water users for direct use in areas previously 

supplied solely from local sources. 

Near Montebello, in the northern forebay 

area of the plain, the Los Angeles County Flood 

Control District reports that water levels 

rose an average of about 40 feet during the 

1958 water year in contrast to an average 

5-foot decline during r957. The rise was 

attributed to the recharge from local runoff 

and impo.rted water totalling about 170,000 

acre-feet to the forebay area during the year. 

Changes in water levels in the central part of 

the plain ranged from an average rise of 5 

feet in the vicinity of Lakewood to a decline 

of 5 feet in the vicin~ty of Southgate during 

the year. 

OXNARD PLAIN 

The Oxnard plain is a broad coastal plain 

that is one of the most important agricultural 

and urban areas in Ventura County. Waterlevel observations made by the Ventura County 

Water Resources Division at well 9- U-9 in 

the city of Oxnard (fig. 6) are assumed to represent changes in the ground-water reserves 

of the plain. Since 1943 the water level at this 

site has declined almost continuously. Between 1943 and 1951 the average rate of decline was about 7.4 feet per year. This trend 

was reversed temporarily by recharge during 

the wet year 1952. However, since 1953 the 

decline in water level has continued at a rate 

somewhat less than that before 1952. 

The Ventura County Water Resources Division reports that water levels of the Oxnard 

plain rose about 19 feet during the year to an 

elevation of 6 feet below sea level in the fall 

of 1958. At the same time water levels in 

Pleasant Valley, an eastward extension of the 

Oxnard plain, were about 60 feet below sea 

level. 

There is evidence of sea-water intrusion in 

wells near the ocean, and, according to the 

United Water Conservation District, the present area of salt-water contamination extends 

as much as 1 mile inland. 

SANTA MARIA VALLEY 

Changes in water level in well 10/34-14E2 

(fig. 6) near the center of the Santa Maria 

Valley, in the northern part of Santa Barbara 

County, generally reflect the amount of 

ground water in storage for a large part of 

the valley. The records from this well show 

a continuous and almost uniform decline in 

water level at a rate of 4.0 feet per year during 

the dry years 1917-36. As a result of the 

large ground-water recharge during the wet 

period extending through 1944, the water level 

in this well rose about 35 feet. During the 

current dry period, the water level declined 

at an average rate of 7.4 feet per year to the 

lowest level on record, indicating a substantial increased draft on the ground-water 

reserves. 

Ground-water levels in the Santa Maria, 

Cuyama, San Antonio, Carpinteria, and Goleta 

basins have risen significantly during the 1958 

water year, owing to above-average precipitation. Also, water levels in the Santa Ynez 

River basin proper have risen slightly, but 

water levels in the upland areas of this basin 

have continued to decline. 

ANTELOPE VALLEY 

Antelope Valley, in Los Angeles and Kern. 

Counties, is in the extreme west end of the 

Mojave Desert. Parts of this arid valley have 

been farmed successfully for more than 60 

years. However, the steadily increasing 

water needs for agricultural and other uses 

have crea.ied a critical overdraft in the valley. 

The bottom graph of figure 6 shows the 

changes in water level in a well near Lancaster; they are assumed to be an index of 

changes (water levels) in the large, heavily 

pumped part of the valley. During "the last 

27 -year period the water level in this and 

nearby wells has declined about 146 feet. 

This decline, which persisted even during the 

wet years, clearly indicates that withdrawals 

exceeded the recharge. The rate of decline, 

which was about 3.4 feet per year during the 

1922-36 dry period, has increased to 8.1 feet 

per year during the current dry period. 

The Los Angeles County Flood Control 

District reports that ground-water levels in 

the Lancaster basin of this valley have 
IMPORTFD WATER 15 

declined only about 2 or 3 feet during the 1958 

water year as contrasted with a decline of 

about 5 feet during 1957. 

ARTIFICAL RECHARGE OF GROUND WATER 

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern 

California reported that it sold about 188,000 

acre-feet of Colorado River water at a cost 

of more than $2.2 million to the people of Los 

Angeles and Orange Counties during the 1958 

water year chiefly to retard the rapid rate of 

decline in ground-water levels. This water 

was permitted either to infiltrate into the 

stream-channel deposits or to spread into 

highly permeable, specially prepared basins 

. overlying the main ground-water bodies. 

An additional 91,160 acre-feet of local 

storm runoff from the mountain and foothill 

areas during the 1958 water year was diverted 

from natural stream channels into the specially prepared basins for the purpose of recharging the ground-water reservoirs in Los 

Angeles County. 

About 4,300 acre-feet of Colorado River 

water was put into injection wells along the 

coast in the vicinity of Manhattan Beach to 

maintain a fresh-water barrier against seawater intrusion. Farther north, in the Santa 

Clara Valley, about 60,000 acre-feet of local 

storm runoff was released from Piru Lake to 

the Saticoy and El Rio spreading grounds in 

an effort to provide a barrier against seawater intrusion in the Oxnard plain. 

IMPORTED WATER 

Southern California is a predominantly arid 

region which has less than 2 percent of the 

State's natural water supplies. Consequently, 

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

General cliinotic distribution 

tJ 

UJ 

LL 

w 

a:: 

(.) 

c( 

----Wet-----~~----

BOO 1---------+-

LL 

060QI---------+-

(/) 

0 

z 

I 

Dry ~L= Wet 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

(75 

::::> 

0 

:I: 

..... 

Annual diversion from the Colorado River by 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern 

~ 

~.o..· 

LL 

~400 

::::> 

a:: 

....J 

c( 

::::> 

z 

z 

c( 

200 1-------__!_-

1910 1920 

I 

1930 1940 

JE 

I Dry 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1950 

Figure 7. -Water imported into southern California. 

1960 
16 WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 1958 

to satisfy the ever-increasing water requirements of the area, water must be imported 

from distant sources. 

Since 1913 the city of Los Angeles has used 

water imported from the Owens Valley, east 

of the Sierra Nevada and some 250 miles to 

the north. During the 1958 water year the Los 

Angeles aqueduct. operating at full capacity 

as in previous years, delivered 335,000 acrefeet from Owens Valley to the Los Angeles 

area. 

By means ofa 1,617-foot pumping lift and 

a 242-mile aqueduct the Metropolitan Water 

District of Southern California delivered 

535,000 acre-feet from the Colorado River, 

to the greater Los Angeles and San Diego 

areas during the 1958 water year. 

As indicated on figure 7 these annual imports have increased from 329,000 acre-feet 

in 1945 to 928,000 acre-feet in 1957-a net 

increase of 182 percent. About 45 percent of 

the annual water requirements in the coastal 

areas are now met by imported water. 

RUNOFF FOR THE WATER YEAR 1956-57 

Runoff data for the water year ending September 30, 1957, for all southern California 

gaging-station records currently published 

by the Geological Survey, are presented in 

table 4. The mean and median values of the 

annual runoff for the period of record and the 

relation of the annual runoff to the base mean 

are included for the stations with a record 

of sufficient length. 

AREAL DISTRIBUTION 

The normal tracks of storms moving over 

southern California are such that the precipitation along the coast generally decreases 

from north to south. The eastward movement 

of the storms is blocked by the high mountains 

whose barrier effect causes the greatest precipitation in the region to occur on their 

windward sides. Across the mountains the 

precipitation decreases rapidly to near zero 

in the desert areas. 

A generalized areal distribution of the annual 

runoff for the water year ending on September 

30, 1957, is shown on figure 8. The runoff 

quantities used to define this distribution were 

obtained from table 4; the quantities are relative as they express. the departure, in percent, of the runoff for the 1957 water year 

from the mean of the 35-year period 1921-55. 

The 1957 water year was very dry-the 13th 

year in a series of dry years-and 'the runoff 

from many valley streams in the agricultural 

areas was zero or nearly zero, representing 

departures ~s much as 100 percent below the 

35-year base mean. 

In sharp contrast, and reflecting precipitation on roofs of buildings and paved streets, 

runoff in the many highly urbanized valleyfloor areas in or near Los Angeles was only 

39 percent below the base mean. Departures 

of this magnitude are quite comparable to the 

departures experienced in the higher mountain 

areas fronting on the valley floors. 

UNIT RUNOFF 

Unit rates of runoff generally decrease rapidly as the streams cross the valley-floor 

areas and discharge into the ocean. In the 

predominantly agricultural areas, the 1957 

runoff into the ocean was almost zero from 

the basins of the Tia Juana, San Luis Rey, and 

Santa Margarita Rivers. In contrast, the highly 

urbanized areas tributary to the Los Angeles 

River discharged into the ocean the equivalent 

of 59 acre-feet per square mile, or 1.1 inches 

of water over the basin. The street drainage 

in the Beverly Hills and Hollywood areas 

produced a 1957 runoff of 251 acre-feet per 

square mile, or 4. 7 inches over the Ballona 

Creek basin. 
(' 

/ 

,1:' 

/ 

~ 

(' 

0~ = 

EXPLANATION 

Departure from 1920-55 mean annual runoff, in percent 

D 

-25 to -50 

D 

-51 to -75 

[£] 

-76 to -100 

w 0 w ~~fi 

~ 

K 

0 

c 

() 

/···---···/ _;: .. .___ 

\ ... .../ 

r--· __.# .. 

E/.. R N 

~ 

-4 

tv 

~· 

~ 

J 

/ 

Figure 8. -Areal distribution of runoff for the water year 1956-5'7. 

S A N B E R N A R __ 9 I N 0 

~ol 

Ell 

Bagdad 

/ :-,\ 

Big Bear Lake Dam ·y. 

·--ta_:c::;> ) ------··-~/ BIG BEAR LAK~ ... -..:..,. :_: 

E X c 0 

I 

§I 

-I 

'C( 

ii 

., 

~ 

!3 

I 

~ 

tzt 

~ n 

~ 

I 

~ .., 

g 

§ 

~ ~ 

Ea 

0 

J 

s 

c:n 

co 

..... 

.... 
18 WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 1958 

Table 4. --Runoff for the water year 1956-57. 

1956-57 runoff 

DeparDrain- Acre- ture 

age feet from 

Basin and stream area Acre- per base 

(square feet square mean 

miles) mile (percent) 

PACIFIC SLOPE BASINS 

Tia Juana River basin: 

Cottonwood Creek at Morena Dam a •• •••••• 120 265 2. 21 -98 

Cottonwood Creek at Barrett Dam, 

near Dulzura ........................ 250 543 2.17 . ... Cottonwood Creek above Tecate Creek 

near Dulzura ......•..•.........•..... 316 100 . 32 . ... Campo Creek near Campo •............•.. 84,0 0 0 . . .. Tia Juana River near Dulzura ....•....... 478 115 . 24 . ... Tia Juana River near Nestor .. ...... .. . .. 1,668 36 . 02 . ... 

Otay River basin: 

Jamul Creek near Jamul ................. 72 160 2.22 . ... Otay River at Savage Dam ........•..•.•.• 98 636 6. 49 .... 

Sweetwater River basin: 

Sweetwater River near Descanso .....•...• 43.7 276 6.32 . ... Sweetwater River at Loveland Dam, 

near Alpine b ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 100 448 4. 48 .... Sweetwater River at Sweetwater Damb .... , 181 959 5.30 .... 

San Diego River basin: 

Boulder Creek at Cuyamaca Reservoir, 

near Julian c .••••••••••••••••••••••••• 12.0 526 43.8 -88 

San Diego River at El Capitan Dam a ••••••• 190 2,930 15.4 ... . San Diego River near Santee .•..•..•...... 380 653 1. 72 -97 

San Dieguito River basin: 

Santa Ysabel Creek at Sutherland Dam, ..•• 57 938 16.5 -92 

Santa Ysabel Creek near Ramona .••..•.•• 110 300 2,73 .... Santa Ysabel Creek near San Pasqual ..•... 128 255 1. 99 .... Guejito Creek near San Pasquel. ••.•.•.•.• 24 120 5.00 .... Santa Maria Creek near Ramona .•.....•.. 58 1.2 . 02 .... San Dieguitb River near San Pasqual ..•..• 250 0 0 .... San Dieguito River at Lake Hodges~ •.••••• 303 -389 -1. 28 . ... 

San Luis Rey River basin: 

West Fork San Luis Rey River near 

Warner Springs ..•..•••••.••..••..••• 25.6 . . . . . . . ..... . ... San Luis Rey River at Lake Hensbaw. 

near Mesa Grande It •••.•••••••••••••••• 209 1,660 7.94 -93 

San Luis Rey River at Monserate Narrows, 

near Pala ...............••..•.••...•• 383 0 0 .... San Luis Rey River near Bonsall .........• 514 0 0 -100 

San Luis Rey River at Oceanside .•...•...• 557 0 0 . ... 

Santa Margarita River basin: I 

Temecula Creek at Vail Dam, near 

Temecula ....•..••.••..........•.••.• 319 925 2.90 -90 

Murrieta Creek at Temecula ...•..•.••..• 220 997 4,53 -89 

Santa Margarita River near Temecula ..••. 592 3,470 5.86 -82 

Santa Margarita River near Fallbrook ..•.. . ...... 1,880 ..... -92 

De Luz Creek near Fallbrook ...••.•...•.. 47.9 I 65 1. 36 ... . Santa Margarita River at Ysidora ....•.... 740 0 0 -100 

Period of record Base period 

Mean Median Mean 

annual annual annual 

Length runoff runoff runoff 

(years) (acre- (acre- 1920-55 

feet) feet) (acre-feet) 

21 10,400 5,800 11,250 

12 8,520 3,000 . ..... 

21 7,380 1,380 •• 0 ••• 

21 2,190 1,160 ...... 21 11,950 3,910 ...... 22 36,560 8,690 ...... 

17 ...... . ..... ...... 21 ''" .... ...... ...... 

23 10 780 5,760 ...... 

13 4,020 1,650 ...... 70 ...... . ..... ...... 

13 1,970 870 4,360 

12 10,300 4,000 ...... 42 20,420 3,330 20,410 

36 15,170 -. 8, 400 12,340 

24 .. .... ...... ...... 7 ········ ...... ...... 10 676 360 ...... 18 3,840 510 ...... 1 ...... ...... ...... 41 ...... ...... ...... 

3 ...... ...... ······ 

35 21,430 12,100 24,410 

14 7,820 2,320 ...... 28 17,880 6,590 21,970 

25 15,350 1,010 ...... 

-· 

34 8,670 4,780 9,810 

27 7,460 1,950 9,380 

34 17,080 7,050 19,030 

32 21,520 8,190 23,090 

6 5,760 ... ... ...... 33 24,620 8,400 27,450 
WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 1958 19 

Table 4. --Runoff for the water year 1956-57--Continued. 

1956-57 runoff Period of record Base period 

DeparDrain- Acre- ture Mean Median Mean 

age feet from annual annual annual 

Basin and stream area Acre- per base Length runoff runoff runoff 

(square feet square mean (years) (acre- (acre- 1920-55) 

miles) mile (per- feet) feet) (acre -feet) 

cent) 

San Juan Creek basin: 

San Juan Creek near San Juan Capistrano •• 110 1,750 15.9 .... 29 ....... . ..... . ...... Arroyo Trabuco near San Juan Capistrano e , 36.5 117 3.21 -97 27 3,610 510 3,530 

Aliso Creek basin: 

Aliso Creek at El Toro e ·················· 8.5 0.4 . 05 -100 27 528 220 514 

Peters Canyon Wash basin: 

San Diego Creek near Irvine, ..... ,.,., ... ........ 321 . ..... . ... 8 1, 110 . ..... ······· Santa Ana River basin: 

Santa Ana River near Mentone., .•. ,,., .. , 202 25,760 128 -54 61 61,170 51,100 55,680 

Mill Creek near Yucaipa, , ...... , • , .. , ... 42.9 10,550 246 -57 29 23,460 16,700 24,500 

Mill Creek near Mentone •...•• , .••.•.. , .. 51. 7 365 7.06 .... 18 1,890 510 ....... Plunge Creek near East Highlands ••.••... 16,6 3,240 195 .... 38 ....... ...... . ...... Santa Ana River near San Bernardino •..... 302 1,580 5,23 .... 12 6,020 1,090 ······· Little San Gorgonio Creek near Beaumont .. 2.61 3.6 1. 38 .... 9 58 ...... . ...... San Timoteo Creek near Redlands, .•..••• , 123 66 .54 -95 31 1,060 360 1,300 

San Timoteo Creek near Lorna Linda ...••• ........ 698 ...... .... 3 ······. ...... ······· East Twin Creek near Arrowhead Springs .• 8. 6 1,680 195 -51 37 3,340 2,460 3,420 

Waterman Canyon Creek near Arrowhead 

Springs ......•..•.•...•.•..••...••... 4,55 1,010 222 -47 39 1,950 1,380 1,900 

City Creek near Highland .••••.•.•...•.•. , 19.8 4,870 246 -35 38 7,380 5,430 7,530 

Devil Canyon Creek near San Bernardino , • 6.16 1,600 260 -32 38 2,310 1,660 2,340 

Lytle Creek near Fontana .......••••.•• ,, 46.9 12,060 257 -59 53 31,200 25,700 29,730 

Cajon Creek near Keenbrook ..•..•.•••••• 40.9 3,450 84.4 -49 37 6,440 4,200 6,720 

Lone Pine Creek near Keenbrook ..•. , ..•• 15.0 267 17. 8 -77 26 934 360 1,160 

Warm Creek near Colton .•..•..•.•.••.••• 259 8,960 34.6 .... 37 ....... ...... ······· Santa Ana River at Riverside Narrows, 

near Arlington •.•• , .. , ..••.•••••• , • , • 858 24,800 28.9 -54 27 40,070 29,300 53,860 

Day Creek near Etiwanda ..••...•.•.•..•• 4.58 1,270 277 -68 28 3,830 2,720 3,950 

Cucamonga Creek near Upland. , .•..•..... 10. 1 1,840 182 -68 28 5,410 3,910 5, 710 

San Jacinto River near San Jacinto .••.••.• 140 5,260 3·7. 6 -79 37 23,500 13,200 24,550 

Bautista Creek near Hemet .....•.•..•••••• 39.4 3,4 • 86 .... 10 362 7 . ...... San Jacinto River near Elsinore .. , •.••..• 717 706 • 98 .... 41 . ...... ...... . ...... Temescal Creek near Corona, • , .•. , ••..•• ........ 5,8 ...... .... 28 2, 7-10 29 . ...... San Antonio Creek near Claremont •...• , .• 16,9 7,610 450 -53 40 15,570 10,900 16,120 

Santa Ana River below Prado Dam, .. , .•.. 1,462 46,950 32. 1 .... 17 ······· ...... ....... Santa Ana River at county line, below 

Prado Dam ..•.... , •...... , ..•.. ,,, .. ........ 45,390 . ..... .... 38 . ...... ...... . ...... Santiago Creek at Santiago Dam, near 

Villa Park .. , .. , .........•...••..•..• 63.2 2,510 39.7 -78 26 12,570 7,500 11, 220 

Santiago Creek near Villa Park ... , ...•••. 83.8 61 . 73 .... 37 . ...... ...... ....... Santiago Creek at Santa Ana ... , .. , , . , , ..• 96,6 157 1. 63 -67 28 3,830 580 4,750 

Santa Ana River at Santa Ana .. , •....•..•. 1,625 137 • 08 -99 34 14,330 1,990 19,300 

San Gabriel River basin: 

East Fork San Gabriel River near Camp 

Bonita f. ...... , ....................• 88.2 23,630 268 -52 24 50,320 33,300 48,910 

West Fork San Gabriel River at Camp 

Rincon/ ••. , .. , .• , ...•...•.. , ...•..• 102 13,350 131 -73 30 45,750 23,900 49,640 

San Gabriel River near Azusa , , ..•..• , •. 211 37,140 176 -64 62 109,300 76,700 104,200 

Rogers Creek near Azusa . , ...•... , , , •.. 6, 4 440 68.8 -80 40 2,090 1,100 2,240 

Fish Creek near Duarte ....•..•••• , .•.• , 6.5 674 104 -78 40 2,810 1,700 3,010 

San Gabriel River below Santa Fe Dam, 

near Baldwin Park .•..• ,., .••..•..•. , 231 0 0 .... 15 . ...... ······ ....... San Dimas Creek below San Dimas Dam f. 16.2 436 26,9 .... 1 ....... ...... ...... , . Dalton Creek near Glendora .• , •. , ..••.•. 7.5 16 2.13 .... 37 ...... ....... Little Dalton Creek near Glendora! ....•.. 2. 7 67 24,8 .... 19 471 220 ....... 
20 WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 1958 

Table 4. --Runoff for the water year 1956-57--Continued. 

1956-57 runoff Period of record 

DeparDrain- Acre- ture Mean Median 

age feet from annual annual 

Basin and stream area Acre- per base Length runoff runoff 

(square) feet square mean (years) (acre- (acremiles) mile (per- feet) feet) 

cent) 

San Gabriel River basin- -Continued 

San 9"abriel River above Whittier Narrows 

Dam ..••.•..•.••••••..•••••••.•••••• ........ g2,090 ...... . ... 2 ·········· . ..... San Jose Creek near Whittier! ••••.••••••• 85.2 1,740 20.4 -70 28 5,890 3,620 

San Gabriel River at Pico f . .............. 206 h 3, 480 16.9 -90 29 31,130 13,400 

San Gabriel River at Spring Street, near 

Los Alamitos. •••..••••..•.••.•••••••• 216 896 4.15 .... 30 18,410 1,770 

Brea Creek below Brea Dam, near 

Fullerton ••.••..•••••••.••••••.•.•••• 23.4 2. € .11 .... 15 463 140 

Brea Creek at Fullerton e ••••••••••••••••• 26.2 44 1. 68 .... 27 819 330 

Fullerton Creek below Fullerton Dam, 

near Brea ••••••••••.••.•••.•••.•••.• 3.05 266 87.2 .... 16 ....... ...... Fullerton Creek at Fullertone •.•••••••••• 6. 2 1,100 177 .... 22 521 220 

Coyote Creek near Artesia~ ••.•••••.••••• 110 1,200 10,9 -79 28 5,680 2,960 

Carbon Creek near Yorba Linda .••••••••• 20.4 6.2 . 30 .... 8 167 ...... 

Los Angeles River basin: 

Los Angeles River at Sepulveda Dam •••.•• 155 i9, 900 63.9 . .. . 14 12,570 9,480 

Pacoima Creek near San Fernando f . ...... 28.2 774 27.4 -89 40 6,500 3,040 

Tujunga Creek below Mill Creek, near 

Colby Ranch f . ..•...........•........ 64.9 1,470 22.7 . ... 9 3,720 . ..... Tujunga Creek near Sunland f • •••••••••••• 106 2,290 21. 6 -89 40 19,840 10,900 

Haines Creek near Tujunga ••.••.••••••••. 1.2 24 20.0 .... 25 280 140 

Little Tujunga Creek near San Fertiando f •. 21.0 35 1. 6'1 -98 29 1,800 510 

Tujunga Creek below Hansen Dam •••••••• 148 22 .15 .... 17 14,140 2,070 

Los Angeles River at Los Angeles f . .•.••. 510 24,890 48.8 -39 28 41,190 24,600 

Arroyo Seco near Pasadena .••..••••••••• 16.4 1,170 71. 3 -81 43 6,530 3,500 

Los Angeles River near Downey! •••.••••• 614 38,460 62.6 .... 29 68,780 44,200 

Sawpit Creek near Monrovia ..•..••..••••• 5.3 723 136 -62 40 1,790 1, 300 

Santa Anita Creek near Sierra Madre •••.•. 10.5 1,570 150 -67 41 4, 080 2,600 

Little Santa Anita Creek near Sierra Madre •• 1.9 249 131 -63 40 623 360 

Eaton Creek near Pasadena .••.••••.•••.. 6.5 624 96.0 -78 39 2,640 1, 650 

Rio Hondo above Whittier Narrows Dam ••• ········ 9,890 ····· .... 1 

······· ······ Rio Hondo near Montebello f .............. 115 16,840 146 -57 29 37,280 26, 100 

Mission Creek near Montebello! .••••••••• 6 1,840 307 . ... 27 11,220 11, 600 

Mission Creek below Whittier Narrows Dam. .... .... 1,240 ... ... ... . 1 ....... ...... Rio Hondo near Downey f . .........•..•... 140 4,640 33 .... 29 19,040 7,960 

Los Angeles River at Long Beach f~ ••••••• .... .... 48,750 ...... -45 28 100,600 66,600 

Ballona Creek basin: 

Ballona Creek near Culver City f. ......... 88. 6. 22,240 251 .... 29 ....... ...... 

Topanga Creek basin: 

Topanga Creek near Topanga Beach! ••••.• 17.9 374 209 -90 26 3,790 1,300 

Malibu Creek basin: 

Malibu Creek at Crater Camp, near 

Calabasas f . •........................ 103 444 4.31 -97 26 13,460 4,560 

Santa Clara River basin: 

Santa Clara River at Los Angeles - Ventura 

county line j ••.•.••••••••.••••.•••••.• 651 3,280 5.04 ... . 5 5,720 ...... Piru Creek above Lake Piru ••••••••.•••.• 371 9,610 25.9 .... 2 ....... ...... Piru Creek below Santa Felicia Dam .•...• 420 11, 590 27.6 .... 2 ....... ...... Hopper Creek near Piru j •••••••••••••••• 23.0 1,230 53.5 .... 25 3,380 1, 600 

Sespe Creek near Wheeler Springs .••••••• 50 2,200 44.0 ... . 9 3,320 ...... Sespe Creek near Fillmore •••••••••.•••.• 254 23,780 93.6 -66 30 69,070 39,100 

Santa Paula Creek near Santa Paula •••••.• 40.0 3,530 88.2 -74 30 12,960 6,810 

Base period 

Mean 

annual 

runoff 

1920-55 

(acre -feet) 

-

. ...... 

5,860 

34,270 

....... 

. ...... 

....... 

. ...... 

. ...... 

5,620 

. ...... 

....... 6,920 

....... 

21,190 

....... 2,020 

....... 

40,790 

6,270 

....... 1, 880 

4,360 

665 

2,820 

....... 

39,240 

....... 

. ...... 

....... 

88,040 

....... 

3,690 

12,760 

. ...... 

. ...... 

....... 

....... 

······· 70,980 

13,330 
WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHERN CAIJFORNIA, 1958 

Table 4. --Runoff for the water year 1956-57--Continued. 

1956-57 runoff Period of record 

DeparDrain- Acre- ture Mean Median 

Basin and stream age feet from annual annual 

area Acre- per base Length runoff runoff 

(square feet square mean (years) (acre- (acremiles) mile (per- feet) feet) 

cent) 

Ventura River basin: 

Matilija Creek above reservoir, near 

Matilija Hot Springs ...••.••..•••.•..•• 51 4,900 96.1 .... 9 9,050 . ..... Matilija Creek at Matilija Hot Springs ••••• 55 4,570 83.1 -78 30 20,360 9,630 

North Fork Matilija Creek at Matilija Hot 

Springs .•...•••.••..•.••••••.•••.••.. 15.5 1,840 119 -69 28 5,990 2,900 

San Antonio Creek at Casitas Springs 3, •••• . ....... 217 ...... . ... 8 2,160 ·- .... Coyote Creek near Ventura ....•.•.••.•..• 41. 1 1,080 26,3 -87 29 8,690 3,400 

Ventura River near Ventura ..•.••.•••.••• 187 6,100 32.6 -87 30 51,470 23,900 

Carpinteria Creek basin: 

Carpinteria Creek near Carpinteria •••.••• 13.8 90 6.52 .... 16 1, 010 290 

Atascadero Creek basin: 

Atascadero Creek near Goleta ...•.••.••.. 18.3 567 31.0 .... 16 1,460 652 

San Jose Creek basin: 

San Jose Creek near Goleta .•..••.•.••••• 5,54 784 142 .... 16 977 650 

Santa Ynez River basin: 

Santa Ynez River at Jameson Lake, near 

Montecitok, •..••••••..•...•.•••..•.•• 13. 8 533 38.6 -86 26 4,180 1,860 

Santa Ynez River above Gibralter Dam, 

near Santa Barbara m, •••••••••••• , •••• 216 3,890 18.0 -87 37 29,330 9,660 

Santa Ynez River below Gibralter Dam, 

near Santa Barbara m, ••••••••••••••••• 216 71 ...... . ... 37 25,120 7,240 

Santa Ynez River below Los Laureles 

Canyon, near Santa Ynez ••..••••.•.••• 277 1,890 6.82 .... 10 15,850 1,300 

Santa Cruz Creek near Santa Ynez .•..•••• , 73.8 2,100 28.5 .... 15 7,020 4,340 

Cachuma Creek near Santa Ynez •.•••..••. 20.5 357 17.4 .... 7 1,950 

Santa Ynez River near Santa Ynez •.•••••.• 422 2,890 I 6.85 .... 27 61,160 12,760 

Santa Agueda Creek near Santa Ynez •••.•• 55,9 172 3,08 .... 16 1,590 650 

Zanja Cota near Santa Ynez .•.•.•••.••••• 13.4 965 72.0 .... 3 . ..... ...... Santa Ynez River at Grand Avenue, near 

Santa Ynez ...••...•••...•.....•••.•.• 513 2,780 5.42 .... 3 ...... ...... Santa Ynez River at Solvang ..••.••••••••• 579 3,350 5, 79 .... 19 29,750 8,550 

Santa Ynez River at Buellton .••.•••.••..• 594 1, 590 2.68 ... . 3 . ..... ...... La Zaca Creek at Buellton ..••..•....•••• 39.5 3,0 • 08 .... 16 174 22 

Santa Ynez River near Beullton •••.•..•••• 668 1,730 2.59 .... 5 8,390 ...... Santa Ynez River at Santa Rosa Damsite, 

near Buellton ••.•.•...•..•••..•.....• 748 1,280 1.71 .... 3 . ..... ...... Santa Ynez River at Cooper 1s Reef, near 

Lompoc •.••.••.•.•••.••...•...•..•.• 755 1,130 1. 50 .... 3 ...... ...... Santa Ynez River below Santa Rita Creek, 

near Lompoc ..•..••••••.•••......••.. 781 920 1. 18 .... 3 ...... . ..... Salsipuedes Creek near Lompoc .••..••••• 47.0 1,250 26.6 .... 16 5,050 2,030 

Santa Ynez River at narrows, near La mpoc . 790 1, 460 1. 85 .... 5 11, 720 

Santa Ynez River near Lompoc ....••••••• 790 1,110 1. 41 .... 32 83,330 29: 4io I 

Santa Ynez Riverat HStreet, nearLompoc. 816 37 . 05 .... 10 30,590 1,200 

Santa Ynez River at 13thStreet, near 

Lompoc. .••.•••••••.••..••••••.••.••• 820 3,6 0 .... 3 ...... ...... Santa Ynez River at barrier, near Surf .••• 895 118 . 13 .... 10 34,550 1,320 

San Antonio Creek basin: 

San Antonio Creek near Casmalia •••.•••.. ........ 1,690 ..... , .... 2 . ..... ...... 

21 

Base period 

Mean 

annual 

runoff 

1920-55 

(acre-feet) 

. ..... 

20,910 

5,860 

. ..... 

8,620 

46,590 

. ..... 

. ..... 

. ..... 

3,840 

30,540 

. ..... 

. ..... 

...... 

······· 

. ..... 

. ..... 

...... 

. ..... 

...... 

. ..... 

. ..... 

. ..... ... . ..... 

······ 

. ..... 

...... 

. ..... 

. ..... 

. ..... 

. ..... 

...... 

...... 
22 WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUJtTHERN CALIFORNIA, 1958 

Table 4. --Runoff for the water year 1956-57--Continued 

1956-57 runoff Period of record Base period 

DeparDrain- Acre- ture Mean Me,dian Mean 

age feet from annual annual annual 

Basin and stream area Acre- per base Length runoff runoff runoff 

(square feet square mean (years) (acre- (acre- 1920-55 

miles) mile (per- feet) feet) (acre-feet) 

cent) 

Santa Maria River basin: 

Cuyama River near Ventucopa ••••••••••.. 90.0 2,500 27.8 .... 12 3,740 2,320 . ..... Cuyama River near Santa Maria ..•••••.•• 912 701 • 77 -95 27 14,260 7,020 13,970 

Alamo Creek near Santa Maria ••.•••.••.• 87.7 923 10.5 .... 14 3,050 1, 450 . ..... Huasna River near Santa Maria.~ •••••.•.• 119 689 5.79 -95 27 13,390 5,210 12,540 

Sisquoc River near Sisquoc ••••••••••••..• 290 3,420 11.8 .... 14 16,220 9,410 . ..... La Brea Creek near Sisquoc ............. 86.7 0 0 . ... 14 2, 610 430 . ..... Tepusquet Creek near Sisquoc ••..•••••.•. 28.9 197 6.82 .... 14 724 430 ······ Sisquoc River near Garey •.••••.••.••.... ........ 95 . ...... . ... 16 15,420 5,360 . ..... Santa Maria River at Guadalupe .••.•.•.••• 1,763 0 0 .... 16 13,250 1,880 . ..... 

Arroyo Grande basin: 

Arroyo Grande at Arroyo Grande ••.••••.. 106 3,320 31.3 -78 17 15,350 7,240 14,940 

THE GREAT BASIN 

Salton Sea basin: 

Coyote Creek near Borrego Springs ..••.•• 144 1,440 10 .... 7 1,860 . ..... . ..... Palm Canyon Creek near Borrego Springs. • 21. 7 155 7.14 .... 7 362 ........ Whitewater ······ River at White Water ...•••.... 57.4 5,030 87.6 .... 8 7,530 ...... . ..... Tahquitz Creek near Palm Springs ...••••• 16.7 1,120 67.1 .... 10 1, 710 1,160 . ..... Palm Canyon Creek near Palm Springs ..•. 94,0 9.2 . 98 -100 22 3,330 860 4,390 

Andreas Creek near Palm Springs ........ 8.78 997 114 . ... 9 1,400 . ..... . ..... 

Mojave River basin: 

Deep Creek near Hesperia ..•••...•••••.. 137 20,430 149 -54 44 .54,330 40,710 44,270 

West Fork Mojave River near Hesperia •... 74.8 3,120 41. 7 -87 45 31,010 19,640 24,510 

Mojave River at lower narrows, near 

Victorville ......••..•.•.....•••.••.•. 530 20,560 38.8 -65 32 55,450 32,390 58,270 

Mojave River at Barstow ..•...•.•..•....• ........ 0 0 -100 27 20,630 72 25,690 

Mojave River at Afton ..•...•••••...•••.• ........ 753 ...... . ... 7 1,920 . ..... . ..... 

Antelope Valley: 

Big Rock Creek near Valyermo •...•.••..• 23.0 4,420 192 -63 34 10,890 6,540 12,100 

Little Rock Creek near Little Rock! ••••••• 49.0 4,560 93.1 -66 25 12,380 6,590 13,500 

Basic data furnished by: (a) city of San Diego; (b) California Water and Telephone Co.; (c) Helix Irrigation District; 

(d) Vista Irrigation District; (k) Montecito County Water District; (m) city of Santa Barbara. 

Reco.-«s furnished by: (e) Orange County Flood Control District; (f) Los Angeles County Flood Control District; 

(j} Ventura County Water Resources Division. 

Imported water: (g) adjusted for 39,350 acre-ft of Colorado River water; (h) adjusted for 14,540 acre-ft of Colorado 

River water; ( i) adjusted for 1, 600 acre ft of Owens River water. 

I1IT .DUP. ,D.C.59-6 3 8 JO