Water-Resources Summary 

for. Southern California, 1959 

Water-Resources Summary 

for Southern California, 1959 

By William C. Peterson 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 429 

Washington, 1960 
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, W aJhington 25, D. C. 
CONTENTS 

Page Page 

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

Introduction...................................... 1 

Water resources for the water year 

19 58-59......................................... 2 

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

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

Runoff for the water year 1958-59... 8 

Current dry period....................... 9 

Surface storage ••• • • • • ••• • •••• •• •• •• •• ••••••• 9 

Ground water ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 10 

Western San Diego County............. 12 

Riverside County ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 12 

San Bernardino Valley.................. 12 

Water resources for the water year 

1958-59--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 1957-58 •••••••• 

Areal distribution •••••••• ••••••••••••• ••••• 

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

ILLUSTRATIONS 

13 

13 

14 

14 

14 

15 

16 

16 

16 

16 

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

Page 

2 

2. Map showing location of selected precipitation stations, gaging stations, and 

observa~ion wells .................................. ................... -...........•.........•....•... 3 

3. Graph showing cumulative departure of annual precipitation from average, 

1850-1959, •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 110IIIoiiOIOOOO 4 

4. Graphs showing annual runoff distribution, 189 5-19 59 •• I I ••• I ••••••••••••• ~·~···~.......... 6 

5. Graphs showing mean annual runoff for different periods, 1895-1959................... 7 

6. Graphs showing water-level fluctuation at selected observation wells................. 11 

7. Graph showing water imported into southern California•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 15 

8. Map showing areal distribution of runoff for the water year 1957-58................... 17 

TABLES 

Page 

Table 1. Precipitation for the climatic year 1958-59 and the average annual 

precipitation for the dry period 1944-59 at selected precipitation stations •••••••• 5 

2. Runoff for the water year 1958-59 and average annual runoff for the dry period 

1944-59 at selected gaging stations •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••• •• ••••••••••••• 8 

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

4. Runoff for the water year 1957-58,•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 18 

III 

Water-Resources Summary for Southern California 

1959 

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 insufficient local water resources with imported water._ 

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 random, but 

tends to follow a cyclic pattern made up of altemat~g wet 

and dry periods. Records of the climatic year Quly 1, 1958-_ 

June 30, 1959) indicate that the precipitation was 47 percent 

below average, thus continuing the current dry period which 

began in 1944. 

Runoff follows the same pattern of wet- and- dry periods 

shown by precipitation, but with even greater variability. 

Runoff for the 1958-59 water year at 15 selected gaging 

statioos ranged from 0.03 to 6.4 inches, with departures 

fran the average annual runoff for the 35-year base period, 

1920-55, ranging from -40 to -97 percent. Average runoff 

of this group of gaging stations for the 1958-59 water year 

was 1.45 inches, a departure of -64 percent from the base mean but yet more than twice the average runoff for the 

very dry 1950-51 water year. Average annual runoff for the 

15-year dry period that began in 1944 ranged from 0.32 to 

7. 7 inches with an average departure of -34 percent from the 

base-period mean. 

Most reservoirs storing natural runoff were only partly full, 

and some were practically empty. The combined content of 

12 representative reservoirs in September 1959 was 33 percent of capacity. Holdover storage, obtained in the wet year 

1958, was reduced 9 percent during the 1958-59 water year. 

The accelerated trend in ground-water depletion that also 

began in 1944 continued during the year in the desert areas. 

Elsewhere, though still reflecting tlie recharge provided during the very wet 1958 water year, most ground-water levels 

were again approaching the lowest of record (1957) despite 

the .use of imported water. 

The rapid increase in water requirements has accelerated 

the importation of water from the Colorado River from 20,000 

acre-feet in 1944 to 647,000 acre-feet in 1959. During the 

same period, water imported from the Owens Valley was almost equal to aqueduct capacity; about 345,000 acre-feet 

was imported from this source during 1959. 

Runoff data for the 1957-58 water year from all currently 

published gaging-station records establish that year as the 

second relatively wet year in a predominantly dry period 

that has persisted since October 1944. 

INTRODUCTION 

This edition of the water-resources summary for southern California is the 17th 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, 1959. 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 wafer. 

The second part gives, in detail, runoff for 

the preceding water year ending September 

30, 1958. 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 earliest release of data on the 

magnitude of runoff for all gaging stations 

operated in southern California during the 

water year 1957-58. 

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 

1 
2 WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHERN CAilFORNIA, 1959 

State extending southward from the Arroyo 

Grande basin, the Tehachapi Mountains, and 

the Inyo County line to the boundary with 

Mexico and extending inland from the Pacific 

Coast to the Colorado River and the Nevada 

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

square-mile area is predominantly desert; 

consequently, most of the population centers 

and agricultural areas of the region are concentrated in a long, narrow strip of coastal 

land. The chief exceptions are parts of Antelope Valley in the Mojave Desert, and the 

Coachella and Imperial Valleys in the Colorado Desert. The area covered by this summary is shown in figure 1, and the detailed 

location of selected installations where hydrologic 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 about 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. 8 million. 

Such a vast increase in population greatly 

intensifies the water problems in these arid 

100 0 100 Miles 

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

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

requirements for urban and agricultural uses 

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. Providing for the increasing water 

requirements has become a serious problem 

in many areas. Just how critical the problem is for any community depends largely 

upon the magnitude of the local ground-water 

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 insufficient. 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 

1958-59 

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 moisutre, 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. 

Not more than 2 percent of the area has an 

average annua.l precipitation equal to, or 

larger than, the national average. 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 precipitation at any one place. For 

example, the annual! precipitation at Los 

Angeles for the climBjbc year, July 1 to June 

30, has ranged from 15.58 inches in 1958-59 

to 38.18 inches in 1883-84, and averaged 14.95 
LUIS 0 B I s ·~tiJ..~\N~ 

R N 

~ 

~ 

_, 

0~ 

C" 

I 

~ 

I 

~ (' 

~ 0 (' EXPLANATION 

1S/1Q-18 1130 0 • 

Observation well Streamt-sasine 

station Mountains and 

foo1ihills 

V~ley 

[~~ floors and ~ oastat t>lains 

f 0 ~ ~ ®M~ 

I I I I 1 ' I 

,:- ~"''"'' ~-~ ~·~ \ ~ ll''\! ~ 

.... - " --r.~ ~... f, ""''"'' '"'if; ' I ''"•" \ t :~"' \'1''"'"";:1':'1!l'- .{.l f,.... ~..... • J 1 

V",./ ' . .' \t 1 ., \ ! 

/ .;.,.. ' 1:,_-......... • J t \ / ' l .,.:~ I ~... '\'··"':; io ~ r"""""" ~0/1 *"'' a~ .. ,... ... 4"' "'.,,~ -;, .. ,.,,.- .~., _,. ~ .... ~ .Al:::il''R'"· 0 ,$1 Nt,m, t ~ i r -

S A •·· ._ R 'Nv>< •• • • 

~ 

N f 'a E -. ... ~' ~ \'''' ~,·~"'·•~ ~ f 

"'~. '""'· 

E ... N 

,,.,.. t, '4 i i 

,.~•u,,,,,.,,,h"""•lllto,.,,lil•o~it;~ 1 .. , .. ~ ""'"'i f~ j %$.." ~ ,:.;.'''\...,,..j ~"¥tu ~ 1""~ 'tJ 0 ,1\1\ '•.rlf•llt, 'II\_ - ~ II "-•· -"' 

.N ,.. ''-'.:: ·~ 'l,,.,lf ~~~~ '······ 

"'~ ,,..~ \ ~ i'''''' Ea • .. ,)6;~< t "\,utm''"' \,, B•adad (, 

.• ,,,,,.,, ''- ··"'~ •• , ~'"'~ "";- -·~·1\~~ ... ,, •• , i"'!: 

~ ! "~ ,. .. ~ ~, ~-·~ .,t, .... ,,,,, .. ,,,~ i ,.~ ·~1\l +,,~ ~ ~ 

- '\ \. ~- . ' .... :~\ ... :> 

c 0 

~~~ll,,,,,t''"''il .•. "'"' ·f 

l,.,, 

Q 

.,J 

.,J 

§ 

.,J 

~ 

~ ~ 

~ 

:xl 

t!j 

(I) 

g 

:xl 

() 

t!j 

(I) 

'"r.l 

0 

:xl 

~ 

~ :xl 

1-' 

co 

C1l 

00 

I 

C1l 

co 

Figure 2. -Map showing location of selected precipitation stations, gaging stations, and observation wells. (A) 
4 WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 1959 

Figure 3. -Graph showing cumulative departure of annual precipitation from average, 1850-1959. Average for each city is based on period 

of record through 1957. 

inches for the 82-year period of record ending 

in 1959. At Indio, in the desert of southern 

California, the annual precipitation has ranged 

from 0.18 inch in 1922-23 to 11.50 inches in 

1939--40, and has averaged 3.14 inches for an 

81-year period of record ending in 1959. 

The variation in annual precipitation is not 

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. 

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 alternating wet and dry periods is to be 

found in the relative widths of annual growth 

rings in certain types of trees growing in the 

mountains of southern California. Schulmanl 

has been able to measure the annual growth 

rings in big-cone spruce for the 560-year 

period 1385-1944. These records indicate a 

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

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

definite cyclic pattern of wet and dry periods, 

the length of the dry periods averaging 14.5 

years and the length of the wet periods averaging 12.5 years, making an average cyclic 

period of 27 years. Not all the individual, 

years within a 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 plotting the 

cumulative departure of annual precipitation 

from the average annual. Figure 3 shows 

the percentage of cumulative departure of 

annual precipitation ljlt Santa Barbara, Los 

Angeles, and San Diego from the average annual precipitation. Each of the three average 

annual values is for the period of record up 

to and including the climatic year 1956--57. 

Upward trends on this graph represent. wet 

periods and downward trends represent dry 

periods. 

The observed precipitation for the climatic 

year July 1, 1958, to June 30, 1959, at the 
WATER RESOURCES FOR THE YEAR 1958-59 5 

stations in Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, and 

San Diego is given in table 1, together with 

that at 7 other selected stations that measure 

precipitation on the major physiographic features of the region. 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. 

During the year 1958-59, the 15th year of 

a predominantly dry period that began in 1944, 

the precipitation at all 10 stations was considerably below the average for the period of 

record. In fact, precipitation at Los Angeles 

and Mount Wilson was the lowest of record. 

Riverside received the second lowest and 

Cuyamaca and Indio received the third l~west precipitation of record. 

The average departure for this group of 

stations was -47 percent, about 4 percent. 

more than the average departure for the same 

group of stations for the very dry year 1951. 

RUNOFF 

The precipitation, after satisfying the soilmoisture deficiencies in· the root zone of the 

native vegetation in the mountains and foothills and of the agricultural crops in the valley floors, recharges the ground-water reservoirs or drains into the stream channels as 

runoff. The part of the precipitation which 

becomes runoff follows the same cyclic pattern as that shown for the total precipitation 

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 near Azusa has 

ranged from as little as 0. 86 inch for the water year ending September 30, 1899, to as 

much as 36.4 inches for the water year ending 

September 30, 1922, with an average of 9.8 

inches for a 64-year period of record. 

This r.ange in annual runoff, together with 

the sequence of wet and dry periods, is shown 

in figure 4 for the gaging station on the 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 Angeles 

and San Bernardino 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 delineate the generally 

accepted division of wet and dry periods for 

the region and the crosshatched pattern shows 

the average annual runoff for each of these 

periods. 

It is evident from an inspection of figure 5 

that both records contain 3 dry and 2 wet periods, and consequently each mean for the 

period of record tends to be biased by the 

~reater number of dry periods. For San 

Table !.-Precipitation for the climatic year July 1, 1958 to June 30, 1959, and the average annual precipitation for the dry period 

1944- 59 at selected precipitation stations 

Period of record Precipitation for 1958-59 Avera~e a_!l~ual precipitation 

for · 944·.~9 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 •••••••••••••••••••• 109 9.931 5.28 -47 8.80 -11 

lDs ~eles WB City 82 14.95 5.58 -63 12.12 -19 

Santa ~bara,~··•••••••••••••••••••••••••• 92 ' 17.97 9.06 -50 15.75 -12 

Santa Maria •• ••••••••••••••••••••••• ...... 69 13.89 9.63 -31 11.42 -18 

Valley: Riverside fire station 3 •••••••••• 78 11.07 4.33' -61 9.13 -18 

MOUJltain: 

Cuyamaca•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 72 38.21 119.501 -49 33.13 -13 

Big Bear Lake Dam • ••••••••••••••••••••• 76 37.73 26.77 -29 35.29 - 6 

Mcnmt Wilson FC 338 B .................... 55 32.75 13.91 -58 27.87 -15 

OJena •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 55 13.29 8.31 -37 10.59 -20 

Desert: Indio U.S. Date Garden. •••••••• 81 3.14 .as -88 2.39 -24 
6 WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHERN CAIJFORNIA, 1959 

t;:j 

LLJ 

LL.. 

w 

c:: 

San Gabriel River near Azusa, Calif. 

~or-----------~-----------+-------------~--

300 1-------------+------____;_-1 1--t----

~ 200 1-------------+------

'LL.. 

0 

en 

0 

~100 en 

:::r 

0 

:::c 

1-

EXPLANATION 

Mean-------.. 

Mean for period of record 

Medi~---:::::--

Median for period of record 

- Average for 

~ 

wet or dry period 

(!)-@ 

0 driest years in relative 

~ 0 - --- '--"---"------JJ....[L_II.___I1....JI....J!L...IL__Il__J,jLJLJL.li_-¥--JIL.JL....ILliL..II......IL..D......ILIL..II.......ILlL..IL..ILli....ILJL...II......IL.J, L..IL..IL..IIL..ILlLJL....IL.JII......L,~L..IL.IL.ll....IL....IIL.I:L...JLJILJLJL.II.....t:l-lL...IL...Jl.....III.-IL...LJ 

~ O~y >i.C Wet ----------1 

LL.. 

u..· ->1~k,__ ___ Dry ---~>!oE:f':,-Wet ------:>~1-co<:--Ory ----- 0 

z 

::::> 

~300.-----------+------------+-----------4------------+------------r---------~----------. <( 

::::> 

z 

z 

<( 

Santa Ana River near Men 

200 I -----------+------------+-----1 

1900 

Figure 4. -Graphs showing annual runoff distribution for the gaging stations on San Gabriel River near Azusa and on Santa Ana River near 

Mentone, 1895-1959. 

Gabriel River near Azusa, the least biased Despite the inadequacy of the long-term 

records are those for the 49-year period mean for use in reference to most water 

1895-1944, and for the 55-year period 1904- problems in southern California, the use of 

59 because each contains 2 wet and 2 dry pe- mean values as a measure of central tendriods. For Santa Ana River near Mentone, ency is desirable for convenience. Furtherthe least biased records are those for the 47- more, mean values based on a common time 

year period 1896-1943 and for the 54-year period (and designated base means) are more 

period 1905-59. As there are but few gaging useful for direct comparison between basins 

stations in southern California where records than are long-term means based on time peare long enough to include 2 wet and 2, dry riods of different length. Admittedly, selecperiods, it is necessary to consider the use tion of a common time period must be arbiof shorter periods, each containing a single trary because of regional differences in the 

wet and dry sequence. The beginning and the beginning and end of wet and dry periods and 

end of each period, together with the mean because the length of these periods is not 

annual runoff for each period, are shown on clearly defined. But, aside from this defifigure 5. ciency, properly interpreted base means have 

The obvious variation in the data for shorter 

periods suggests that the long-term mean can 

not probably be used as a direct measure of 

dependable runoff for any randomly selected 

period. Consequently, the long-term mean 

annual runoff becomes merely an indirect 

measure of the relative runoff among basins 

rather than a measure of runoff that is usable 

or available during extended critical periods. 

considerable significance in many parts of 

southern California. 

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 (U.S. Geol. Survey 

Circ. 399). October 1920 was chosen as the 

beginning date of the base period in order to 
400 

~ I 

~ --:-200 

1-

z 

1.1.1 

(.) 

0:: 

1.1.1 

a. 

:!!:: 

lf-400 

0 

z 

::::> 

0:: 

....J 

~ z 

z 

< 

WATER RESOURCES FOR THE YEAR 1958-59 7 

z-600L-------------L-----------~L-----------~------------~------------~------------~------------~ 

~ 

:E 

~ 

1.1.1 

0:: 

::::> 

1-

Santa Ana River near Mentone, Calif. 

~ 400t--------------t------------~t------­ LI.I 

c 

1.1.1 

> 

~ ::::> 

:::E 

a2oot------------~t-----

-200 t--------

-4001-----

1890 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 

WATER YEARS 

Figure 5. -Graphs showing mean annual runoff for different periods for the gaging stations on San Gabriel River near Azusa and on Santa Ana 

River near Mentone, 1895-1959. 
8 WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 1959 

conform closely to that of the standard period 

October 1920 to September 1945, which is 

used as an index in the "Water Resources 

Review" of the U.S. Geological Survey and the 

Canadian Water Resources Branch. Many 

records of runoff that began later than October 1920, but which could be extended back to 

that date with little loss of accuracy, are included in the runoff data for the base period. 

For this edition of the summary, as with 

the preceding editions (U.S. Geol. Survey 

Circ. 404, 416), the 35-year period from October 1920 to September 1955 is used for computing base means. The base means for the 

3 5-year period are a few percent lower than 

are 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 U.S. Geological Survey Circular 

399 and earlier editions. 

RUNOFF FOR THE WATER YEAR 1958-59 

Runoff for the water year 1958-59 at the 15 

gaging stations shown on figure 2 is briefly 

summarized in table 2 and compared with the 

average annual runoff for the 3 5-year base 

period 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, 1959. Typical of 

the region is the wide range of the 1958-59 

runoff, 0.03 to 6.4 inches, which is due largely 

to the areal distribution of precipitation. 

The departure of the 1958-59 runoff from 

the 35-year base mean reflects the relatively 

dry year prevalent in all parts of the southern California. The average runoff for the 

1958-59 water year was 1.45 inches, or about 

36 percent of the mean annual runoff for the 

base period, over the 1,464 square miles of 

Table 2.-Runoff for the water year 1958-59 and average annual runoff for the dry period 1944-59 at selected gaging stations 

1958-59 runoff Average annual runoff 

1920-55 for '194~-~9 dry period 

Drain- base-mean 

Station Departure and reference age annual Departure 

(s,quare from from number on figure 2. 

miles) runoff Acre- base mean Acre- base mean (acre- feet Inches annual feet Inches annual feet) runoff runoff 

(percent) (percent) 

Pacific slope basins 

Cottonwood Creek at 

Morena Dam -75 (0100) ••••••• 120 11,250 296 0,05 -97 2,770 0,43 Santa Ysabel Creek at 

Southerland Dam (0240) •• Murrieta Creek at Temecula 

58 12,340 783 .25 -.94 4,840 1.6 -61 

(0430) ......................... 220 9,380 687 

Santa Ana River near .06 -93 3,930 .34 -58 

Mentone (0515) ............. 202 55,680 28,070 Cucamonga Creek near 2.6 -50 38,300 3.6 -31 

Upland (0685) ............... 10.1 5,710 3,450 

East Fork San Gabriel River 

6.4 -40 4,280 8.0 -25 

near Camp Bonit2 (0800). 88,2 48,910 21~360 Arroyo Seco near 4,5 -56 ~6,140 7.7 -26 

3,650 4.2 -42 Pasadena (0980) ............ 16,4 6,270 1~610 1.8 -74 

Santa Anita Creek near 

Sierra Madre (1000) ....... 10,5 4,360 .2~ 190 3.9 -50 3,150 5.6 -28 Sespe Creek near 

Fillmore (1130), ..... .......,._ 254 70,980 31,880 San Jose Creek near 2.4 -55 49,020 3.6 -31 

Goleta 1,080 3.7 (1205) ............... 5,54 ···················· 481 1.6 .................. ...................... Huasna River near 

Santa Maria (1380), ....... 119 12,540 1,140 .18 -91 8,650 1.4 -31 Arroyo Grande at 

Arroyo Grande 11,040 2.0 -26 (1415) ..... 106 14,940 5,760 1.0 -61 

The Great Basin 

Palm Canyon Creek near 

1,590 0.32 -64 Palm Springs (2585) ....... 94,0 4,390 170 0,03 -96 Deep Creek near 

Hesperia 30,510 4.3 -31 (2605) ............. 137 44,270 13,650 1.9 -69 Big Rock Creek near 

Valyermo (2635) ............ 23,0 12,100 5,190 4.2 -57 8,620 7.0 -29 
WATER RESOURCES FOR THE YEAR 1958-59 9 

area drained by streams given in table 2. 

This runoff is about equal to the average runoff during the 1956-57 water year, and more 

than twice the average runoff (0.62 inches) 

for this group of basins during the very dry 

year 1950-51. 

CURRENT DRY PERIOD 

The annual runoff distribution shown in 

figure 4 indicates that the water year ending 

September 30, 1959, was among the driest 

years of record. Furthermore, this was the 

15th dry year in a predominantly dry period 

that has persisted since October 1944 and 

that may not end for some time. Tree-growth 

studies by Schulman2 suggest that dry periods 

may have persisted for more than 40 years 

in southern California. 

A measure of the relative severity of the 

dry periods of record is obtained by numbering the 10 driest years, for each of the 2 

stations shown in figure 4, in the order of 

their dryness. Of these 20 driest years for 

both stations 9 occurred in the current dry 

period, 8 occurred in the very dry 9-year 

period ending September 30, 1904, and only 3 

occurred in the 14-year period ending September 30, 1936. 

The average annual runoff for the current 

dry period and its departure from the mean 

for the base period is included in table 2. For 

most of the stations, the influence of the 

1958-59 runoff on the average annual runoff 

for the 1944-59 dry period has increased the 

departure from the 35-year mean. The average departure during the current 15 -year dry 

period for the basins listed is -34 percent in 

contrast with a departure of -32 percent for 

the 14-year dry period 1944-58. 

SURFACE STORAGE 

Currently there is about 2.2 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, because 

of many adverse topographic features, such 

as steepness of the stream channels and narrowness of the canyons, construction costs 

2 See footnote on page 4. 

are high and reservoir capacities are small. 

Of 154 reservoirs, only 7 have a capacity in 

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

relatively small capacity, it is impossible for 

many reservoirs to store all 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 rather to 

store and distribute imported water from the 

Owens Valley and the Colorado River. 

An additional storage capacity of more than 

460,000 acre-feet has been obtained by the 

use of reservoirs constructed to provide flood 

control in the valley floors. Although these 

flood-control reservoirs are primarily for 

retarding the flood runoff, a certain amount 

of water is conserved because provision is 

made, when possible, to recharge groundwater basins by controlling the release of 

flood water. 

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 3 7 percent 

of the present total reservoir capacity in 

southern California. Except for a small amount of water from the Colorado River delivered to Lake Hodges and Santiago Reservoir, the only source of inflow to each reservoir during 1959 was from local runoff. 

Morena and Barrett Reservoirs in the Tia 

Juana River basin are the southernmost of 

these 12 reservoirs. At the end of the 1958 

water year, which was relatively dry in that 

area, both reservoirs were almost empty. At 

the end of the very dry 1959 water year the 

reservoirs were still almost empty. Farther 

north, however, at Cachuma Reservoir, the 

storage on September 30, 1958, was just below spillway level owing to above-average 

runoff during the 1958 water year, which was 

relatively wet in that area. At the end otthe dry 

1959 water year the storage was 91 percent 

of capacity, reflecting necessary use of the 

holdover storage of the reservoir. Morena 

and Barrett Reservoirs, with a comparable 

storage ratio, have not been able to attain 

such a degree of storage since 1944. Storage 

ratio, which is defined as the ratio of usable 

capacity to average annual inflow, is shown in 

table 3. It is expressed in years and is the 

time required, assuming average inflow, to 
10 WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 1959 

Table 3.-Storage in selected surface reservoirs 

Storage on 

Average Present Storage Change Sept. 30, 1944 

annual capacity Storage 

Reservoir inflow at spill- ratio Sept. 30, 1958 

' 1920-55 way level (years) 

(acre-feet) (acre-feet) Percent 

Acre-feet of 

capacity 

Morena and 

Barrett ••••••• 24,800 94,970 

El Capitan ...... 38,600 112.810 

Lake Hodges, •• 33,280 33,550 

Lake Henshaw •• 24,410 194,300 

Vail Lake ....... 9,810 49,370 

Big Bear Lake •• .............. 72,200 

Santiago ......... 11,220 25,000 

Matilija ......... 20,910 7,020 

Jameson Lake .. 3,840 6,760 

Gibraltar ........ 30,540 14,780 

Cachuma ... - •• 60,700 204,900 

Total .......... 3 268,000 815,660 

1 Mostly Colorado River water. z · Approximate. 3 Includes estimate for Big Bear Lake. 

3.8 1,960 

2.9 43,560 

1.0 7,000 

8.0 2 20,400 

5,0 6,860 

. ........ 21,290 

2.2 19,900 

.34 7,000 

1.8 6,160 

.48 13,220 

3.4 196.890 

3.0 344,240 

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 ground water stored 

in the deep alluvial deposits of the valley 

floors. A major part of the water supply of 

the region has been and still is pumped from 

these sources. The magnitude of these water 

reserves is difficult to measure; however, it 

has been estimated by Eckis and Gross 3 to be 

about 7. 5 million acre-feet 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. 

Rapid industrial and urban growth has 

overtaxed these local ground-water reserves. 

Consequently, the current rate of extraction 

generally exceeds the average rate of recharge, creating an overdraft. Currently, 

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

The usefulness of a ground-water reservoir, 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-water 

'Eckis, Rollin, and Gross, P. L. K., South Coastal Basin Investigation, geology and ground-water storage capacity of valley 

fill: California Dept. Public Works, Div. Water Resources Bull. 

45, 273 p. 

2.1 

39 

21 

10 

14 

29 

80 

100 

91 

89 

96 

42 

in Change in 

Sept. 30, 1959 storage Percent storage 

1958-59 Acre-feet of 1944-59 

Percent (acre- capacity (acre-feet) 

Acre-feet of feet) 

capacity 

1,910 2.0 -50 89,900 86 -87,990 

22,880 20 -20,680 79,700 68 -56,820 

1 2,480 7.4 -4,520 31,100 93 -28,620 2 4,140 2.1 -16,260 144,000 74 -139,860 

3,140 6.4 -3,720 ................ ......... iis· ............... 13,250 18 -8,040 47,600 -34,350 

10,230 41 -9,670 20,400 82 -10,170 

6,090 87 -910 ................ ............. --·····:·i:·22·o 4,830 86 -1,330 6,050 89 

9,490 64 -3,730 6,120 38 +3,370 

187,180 91 -9,710 ................ ............. . .............. 265.620 33 -78.620 424..870 78 -355,660 

reservoir, the ground-water reservoir must 

capture water in the wet periods and store it 

to meet the needs of the following dry periods. 

The valleys of southern California contain 

many ground-water basins, a large part of 

them having complex geologic and hydrologic 

features. Changes in water levels differ considerably from basin to basin, depending upon 

the relation between natural recharge and 

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

fluctuation in water level to the few observation wells indicated on figure 2. 

The changes in water level in six selected 

observation wells for their period of record 

are shown in figure.6. The arbitrary division 

into wet and dry periods is based on figure 5. 

A light dashed line indicates the rate of decline based chiefly on the years having the 

least precipitation during each dry period. 

Assuming that ground-water recharge during 

all dry periods is small and of about the same 

magnitude, and increase in the rate of decline 

becomes a measure of the increase in groundwater withdrawals. 

At the end of the 1958 water year, the water 

levels generally reflected the above-average 

precipitation for much of the region and the 

continued use of either imported water or 

stored storm runoff for artificial recharge of 

ground-water basins. At the end of the very 

dry 1959 water year almost all water levels 

were approaching, and in places falling below. 

the record low levels of the fall of 1957. This 
WATER RESOURCES FOR TiiE YEAR 1958-59 11 

....1 

LLJ 0 60 G:i 

....1 

< LLJ 

C/) -20 40 

z 

~ 

:::::E 20 

LLJ 

~ cc 0 < 

~· 

LLJ 

LL.. 

~ 

u.i 

Cl 140 

:::> 

1-

5 120 < 

100 

80 

2340 

2320 

Dry Wet Dry 

2280 

2260 

2240 

2220 

Figure 6. -Graph showing water-level fluctuation at selected observation wells. 
12 WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 1959 

decline in ground-water level6 despite the 

continued use of imported water6 reflects the 

continued increase in regional water requirements and the excess of withdrawals over 

the small increments of recharge during the 

preceding 15-year dry period. 

WESTERN SAN DIEGO COUNTY 

Ground-water levels in most of the coastal 

alluvial valleys of western San Diego County 

declined during the 1959 wateryear6 resuming 

the downward trend which6 since 19406 had 

brought many wells to the lowest level of the 

entire periodof record. At the present time 6 

areas of known or threatened sea-water encroachment exist in the basins of the Tia 

Juana, Otay, San Diego, and San Luis Rey 

Rivers. 

RIVERSIDE COUNTY 

Ground-water levels in the arid and semiarid San Jacinto basin have declined steadily 

since the first observations were made in 

1904. The Riverside County Flood Control 

and Water Conservation District estimated 

that the water level in observation well 

4S/1W-35R1 near the city of San Jacinto was 

about 174 feet below the land surface in September 1959; this well was flowing in 1917. 

Similarly6 the water level in well4S/3W-33R1 

near the city of Perris was about 178 feet below the land surface in September 1959; this 

well is in an area where the water lev.el was 

about 20 feet below the land surface in March 

1904. Both areas now are importing small 

amounts of water from the Colorado River, 

at double the cost of water pumped in the 

area, in an effort to supplement the depleted 

water reserves. 

By the end of the 1959 water year, the 

ground-water levels in almost all the basins 

in the western part of Riverside County had 

dropped to below those of September 1958. 

Water levels declined in the Riverside, Arlington, Chino, and Temescal basins an average of 3.5 feet; at Palm Springs and Desert 

Hot Springs 6 4. 5 feet; and in the Banning 

Canyon wells, which were flowing in 1958, as 

much as 60 feet below the land surface. 

In Elsinore basin6 however, the groundwater level rose an average of 6 feet. The 

rise is generally attributed to the importation 

of water from the Colorado River to the valley of the basin. Also, in some areas of 

Perris Valley, ground-water levels rose 

about 6 feet probably owing partly to a minor 

decrease in pumping activity and a trend to 

more dry-farming operations. 

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. 

Agricultural and urban water needs are supplied from local surface and ground-water 

sources. 

The longest available record of fluctuation 

in ground-water level is that for the Williams 

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

the period 1892-1959, indicates the response 

to seasonal changes caused by pumping and 

recharge and to the long-term changes associated with wet and dry periods. These waterlevel fluctuations indicate 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, which reflects an increase in the 

use of ground-water and which can be contrasted with the average rate and duration of 

recharge during wet periods of record to 

forecast overdraft in the near future. 

The San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District reported that ground-water 

levels appear to have resumed a decline that 

was largely halted temporarily by the very 

wet 1958 water year. Water levels in most 

of the wells in the valley were lower in the 

fall of 1959 than at any time during the entire 

period of record, the decline generally averaging about 100 feet since October 1944-the 

beginning of the current dry period. The 

chief exceptions to this adverse condition are 

the areas near spreading groul).ds, which are 

adjacent to the mountain streams. 

In the vicinity of the Williams well, which 

went dry in July 1956, the water level began 

to rise in April 1958 as a result of aboveaverage precipitation. However, the recovery 
WATER RESOURCES FOR '!HE YEAR 1958-59 13 

was short lived; by December 1958 the Williams well was again dry. Water-level records obtained since March 1957, shown in 

figure 6, are from a companion well (1S/3W17C3) 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 

ground-water storage capacity of t'kese 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.4 The once extensive 

agricultural acreage in this valley is rapidly 

becoming urbanized. Most of the water re:-· 

quirements 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 moderated, owing partly to the 

wet year 1951-52 and partly to the increased 

use of water imported from the Colorado 

River. 

The Los Angeles County Flood Control 

District reported that ground-water levels in 

the San Gabriel Valley continued to be somewhat unstable as ground-water mounds, 

formed by water-spreading operations in 

1958, continued to dissipate. In the central 

and northern parts of the basin, in the vicinity of Baldwin Park and Santa Fe Dam southwest of Azusa, the water levels declined from 

15 to 25 fee.t during 1959. Around the periphery of the b.asin, water levels have not shown 

much fluctuation; although in the tributary 

basins of Monk Hill, Puente, Glendora, Way 

Hill, San Dimas, Live Oak, Lower Claremont, 

and Upper Claremont, ground-water levels 

recorded at the end of the water year were 

generally lower than those recorded late in 

1958. 

4 See footnote p. 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 and 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 area of southern California. 

The water-bearing deposits underlying the 

coastal plain are composed of marine and 

alluvial materials that locally are 2, 500 feet 

or more thick. Prior to 1940 these deposits 

were 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 large quantities of water 

from the Owens Valley and the Colorado 

River. Even with this imported water, the 

ground-water reserves have been so depleted 

that sea water has encroached on these deposits along many parts of the coast. 

Fluctuation in ground-water level in the 

coastal plain has been systematically observed 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 fluctuation in the water level of the 

coastal plain. During the 61-year period of 

record at this site, a net decline of 132 feetfrom 112 feet above sea level to about 20 feet 

below sea level-was observed. This decline, 

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 water. 

The Orange County Water District reported 

a decline in ground-water levels averaging 

about 6 feet in wells throughout the eastern 

part of the coastal plain during 1959. At the 
14 WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHERN CAilFORNIA, 1959 

end of the 1959 water year, the average elevation of these ground-water levels was about 

16 feet below sea level. About 76,000 acrefeet of water from the Colorado River was 

spread to replenish the underground basin, 

and an additional 55,000 acre-feet of water 

from the Colorado River was purchased by 

cities and other water users for direct use 

in areas presently or previously supplied 

from the District basin. 

Near Montebello, in the northern forebay 

of the plain, the Los Angeles County Flood 

Control District reported that water levels 

averaged about 15 feet lower in the fall of 

1959 than in the fall of 1958. Water levels in 

other parts of the central basin were all lower, dropping as much as 10 feet in the Long 

Beach area north of Signal Hill, 3 feet between Clearwater and Norwalk, 4 feet west of 

Compton, 10 feet in the Huntington Park area, 

and from 2 to 4 feet near Vernon. In areas 

of the west coast basin on the coastal plain 

where pumping is curtailed, the decline in 

ground-water levels has averaged less than 

1 foot. 

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 fluctuations recorded by the Ventura 

County Water Resources Division at well 

9-U-9 in the city of Oxnard (fig. 6) reflect 

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, and since 1953 the decline in 

water level has continued at a rate somewhat 

less than that before 1952. 

The Ventura County Water Resources Division reported that the water level of the 

Oxnard plain declined about 4 feet during the 

year to an elevation of 18 feet below sea level 

in the fall of 1959. At the same time the water 

level in Pleasant Valley, an eastward extension of the Oxnard plain, was about 80 feet 

below sea level. In the Fillmore, Santa Paula, 

and Mound basins the water levels were about 

6 feet lower than they were in the fall of 1958. 

The water levels declined an average of 8 feet 

in the Ventura River and Las Posas basins; 

but at Thousand Oaks and in the Ojai area the 

water levels were 40 feet lower than they 

were in the fall of 1958. 

According to the United Water Conservation 

District, the water level in Pleasant Valley 

dropped from 27 to 30 feet within a 30-day 

period just prior to April 11, 1959. There is 

evidence of sea-water encroachment in wells 

near t&e ocean, and the present area of saltwater contamination extends as much as 1 

mile inland. 

SANTA MARIA VALLEY 

The fluctuation in water level in well 

10/34-14E2 (fig. 6) near the center of the 

Santa Maria Valley, in the no.rthern part of 

Santa Barbara County, generally reflects 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 

substantially increased draft on the groundwater reserves. 

Ground-water levels in most wells in the 

Santa Maria, Santa Ynez,Cuyama, Carpinteria, 

Goleta, and San Antonio basins have declined 

owing to below-average precipitation during 

1959. However, water levels in some wells 

showed a rise, which was interpreted as a 

delayed response to the above-average precipitation of the 1958 water year. 

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 

created a critical overdraft in the valley. 

Figure 6 shows graphically the fluctuation 

in water level in a well near Lancaster, which 
WATER RESOURCES FOR THE YEAR 1958-59 15 

is used as an index of fluctuation in water 

level in the large heavily pumped part of the 

valley. During the last 28-year period, the 

water level in this well and in nearby wells 

has declined about 150 feet. This decline, 

which persisted even during the wet years, 

clearly indicates that withdrawal exceeded 

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 reported that the ground-water levels in 

the Lancaster basin have declined an average 

of 4 feet during the 1959 water year, whereas 

they had declined from 2 to 3 feet during 1958. 

ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE OF GROUND WATER 

During the 1959 water year, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 

sold about 195,000 acre-feet of water from 

the Colorado River, at a cost of more than 

$2.3 miUion, to Los Angeles and Orange 

Cou11:ties 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 spr.ead into 

highly permeable, specially prepared basins 

overlying the main ground-water bodies. 

An additional 13,000 acre-feet of local 

storm runoff from the mountains and foothills 

during the 1959 water year was diverted from 

1000.------------,-----------,.-----------~----------~~----------~ 

General climatic distribution 

----Wet--~1~E-<-- Dr~ --~>'E::lE- ~et +Dry--

800 t---------+-1 I I 

8 I I I ~ 1 I I 

~ 600t-----+---l------+-- 1----+---1---+-- ~ I 5 Annual diversion from the Colorado River by 

~ Metropolitan Water District of Southern 

z I LL.. 

~ 400 1--------+---1----·---1-----

; I 

~ I 

I 200~------------~ 

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 

Figure 7. -Graph lhowlng water imported into IOilthern CaUfomia. 

1960 
16 WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHERN CAIJFORNIA, 1959 

natural stream channels into the specially 

prepared basins to recharge the groundwater reservoirs in Los Angeles County. 

Farther north, in Ventura County, about 20,000 

acre-feet of local storm runoff was released 

from Piru Lake to the Saticoy and El Rio 

spreading grounds to recharge the groundwater reservoirs in the Santa Clara Valley. 

About 3,600 acre-feet of water from the 

Colorado River was put into injection wells 

along the coast in the vicinity of Manhattan 

Beach to maintain a fresh-water barrier 

against sea-water encroachment. 

IMPORTED WATER 

Southern California is a predominantly arid 

region which has less than 2 percent of the 

State's natural water supplies. Consequently, 

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 imported water from the Owens Valley, which 

lies east of the Sierra Nevada and some 250 

miles to the north. During the- 1959 water 

year the Los Angeles aqueduct, operating at 

full capacity as in previous years, delivered 

345,000 acre-feet from the Owens Valley to 

the Los Angeles area. 

By means of a 1,617-foot pumping lift and 

a 242-mile aqueduct, the Metropolitan Water 

District of Southern California delivered 

647,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado 

River to the greater Los Angeles and San 

Diego areas during the 1959 water year. 

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

in 1945 to 992,000 acre-feet in 1959-a net 

increase of over 200 percent. More than 45 

peFcent of the annual water requirements in 

the coastal areas are now met by imported 

water. 

RUNOFF FOR THE WATER YEAR 1957-58 

Table 4 presents runoff data for the water 

year ending September 30, 1958, from all 

gaging stations in southern California for 

which records are published currently by the 

U.S. Geological Survey. 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 also given for the stations which have a sufficiently long period of 

record. 

AREAL DISTRIBUTION 

The normal path of storms moving over 

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

southward. 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 the windward sides. Across the mountains, the precipitation decreases rapidly to almost nothing 

in _the desert areas. 

A generalized areal distribution of the annual runoff for the water year ending on 

September 30, 1958, 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 as percentages of the runoff for 

the 1958 water year from the mean of the 35-

year period 192Q-55. 

The departure of the 1957-58 runoff from 

the 35-year base means reflects the relatively 

wet year pr~valent in all except the southernmost parts of southern California. The average departure for the 1958 water year was 

+104 percent. For the 1952 water year, the 

only other relatively wet year in the current 

dry period, the average departure from the 

35-year base mean at these same stations 

was about +77 percent. 

UNIT RUNOFF 

Unit rates of runoff generally decreases 

rapidly as the streams flow cross the valleyfloor areas and discharge into the ocean. In 

the predominantly agricultural areas, the 1958 

runoff into the ocean from the basins of the 

Tia Juana and San Luis Rey Rivers was almost 

negligible. In sharp contrast, and reflecting 

precipitation on roofs of buildings and paved 

streets in the Beverly Hills and Hollywood 

areas, runoff to the ocean from the Ballona 

Creek basin was 486 acre-feet per square 

mile or about 9.1 inches of water over the 

entire basin. 
./ 

/:" 

/ 

~ 

0~ 

EXPLANATION 

Departure of mean annual runoff, 

In Percent 1920- 55 

+ 201 

~ to +340 

¥71 

~ to+200 

~ 

jiiiiii:i::·il ~ 

-eo to +70 

0 ~~~ 

0 

.r··--·--~···-.._ 

K E./ R N 

\.. ....--.... 

\..... ... ................. -- ............. 

I 

i 

i 

i 

§ i .)... 

" "" " 

~-··,··,~·;:::: ....•... ,--=-:---r 

l 

C' ~ 

-4 

<I 

tv 

~ 

~ 

"}.,_ .. --···· .. n .-:-R·( 

) 

I 

S A N 

Figme 8. -Map showing areal distribution of runoff for the water year· 1957-58. 

BERNAR91NO 

Ia 

Bagdad 

.;.;..,...;--:.;;.:~""t'"t----: _________ _ 

E X c 0 

>-

1&1 

-J 

-J 

~ 

-J 

<:( 

ii 

1&1 

! 

~ o-1 

!;] 

~ t'2 

g 

:= 

() 

t'2 

c:n 

~ 

~ ~ '-.:1 

0 

:= 

c:n 

g 

~ ~ 

t;j 

J 

...... 

co 

C11 

co 

..... 

-J 
18 WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHE~N CAilFORNIA, 1959 

Table 4.-Runoff for the water year 1957-58 

1957-58 runoff Period of record Base mean 

DeparDrain- Acre- ture Mean Median Mean 

Stream age Acre- feet from annual annual annual 

area per base Length runoff runoff runoff 

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

mile (per- ft) ft) (acre -ft) 

cent) 

PACIFIC SLOPE BASINS 

Tia Juana River basin 

Cottonwood Creek at Morena Dam1 ___________________ 120 2,680 22.3 -76 22 10,060 5,300 11,2 50 

Cottonwood Creek at Barrett 

Dam, near Dulzura _______ . 250 10,590 42 .. 4 ------ 13 ------ -·- ----- --------- Cottonwood Creek above 

Tecate Creek near Dulzura 316 2,760 8.73 ------ 22 7,190 1,500 --------- Campo Creek near Campo __ 84.0 64 .76 ------ 22 2,100 1,200 --------- Tia Juana River near Dulzura . 478 3,240 6. 78 ------ 22 11,510 3,500 --------- TiaJuana River near Nestor_ 1,668 2,290 1.37 ------ 23 35,040 8,000 ---------

Otay River basin 

Jamul Creek near Jamul ___ - 72 14,180 197 ----·-- 18 ------ ------- --------- Otay River at Savage Dam __ - 98 16,580 169 ------ 22 ------ ------- ---------

Sweetwater River basin 

Sweetwater River near Descanso _________________ 43.7 9,340 214 ------ 24 10,790 6,080 --------- Sweetwater River at Loveland 

Dam, near Alpine2 ________ 100 12 .o 57 121 ------ 14 4,590 1,800 --------- Sweetwater River at 

Sweetwater Dam2 ---------- 181 9,067 50.1 ------ 71 ------ ------- --------- San Diego River basin 

Boulder Creek at Cuyamaca 

Reservoir, near Julian3 ____ 12.0 6,490 541 +49 18 3,870 2,000 4,360 

San Diego River at El 

Capitan Dam1 _____________ 190 42,080 221 ------ 13 ------ ------- --------- San Diego River near Santee __ 380 8,150 21.4 -60 43 20,130 3,600 20,410 

San Dieguito River basin 

Santa Ysabel creek at 

Sutherland Dam---------- 57 14,540 255 +18 37 15,150 8, 700 12,340 

Santa Ysabel Creek near Ramona __________________ 110 12,000 109 ------ 25 ------ ------- --------- Santa Y sahel Creek near San Pasqua! ______________ 128 14,390 112 ------ 6 26,500 ------- Guejito Creek --------- near 

San Pasqual-------------- 24 4,270 178 ------ 11 992 430 --------- See fo0tnotes at end of table. 
WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 1959 19 

Table 4 . Runoff lot the water year 1957 - 58 - Continued 

1957-58 runoff Period of record Base mean 

DeparDrain- Acre- ture Mean Median Mean 

age Acre- feet from Length annual annual annual 

Stream area runoff runoff runoff feet per base (years) (sq mi) square mean (acre- (acre- 1920-55 

mile (per- ft) ft) (acre -ft) 

cent) 

San Dieguito River basin-Continued 

Santa Maria Creek near Ramona __________________ 58 5,540 95.5 ------ 19 3,920 650 --------- San Dieguito River near 

San Pasqual _______________ 250 14,500 58,0 ------ 2 ------ ------- --------- San Dieguito River at Lake Hodges1 __________________ 303 12,610 41.6 ------ 42 ------ ------- ---------

San Luis Rey River basin 

West Fork San Luis Rey River 

near Warner Springs----·-- 25.6 15,620 610 ------ 4 ------ ------- --------- San Luis Rey River at Lake 

Henshaw. near Mesa Grande4 209 24,140 116 -1 36 21,500 13,000 24,410 

San Luis Rey River at 

Monserate Narrows, near Pala _____________________ 383 12,830 33.5 ------ 15 8,180 2,800 --------- San Luis Rey River near Bonsall __________________ 514 5,120 9.96 -78 29 17,450 6,400 21,971> 

San Luis Rey River at 

Oceanside ______________ .. _ 557 2,720 4.88 ------ 26 14,840 1,400 --------- Santa Margarita River basin 

Temecula Creek near 

Aguanga ___ - - ___ - - - - - - - .. - ------ 9,070 ------ ------ 1 ------ ------- --------- Temecula Creek at Vail Darn, 

near Temecula ---------··- 319 11,060 34.7 +13 35 8,740 4,900 9,810 

Murrieta Creek at TemecuhL _ 220 14,220 64.6 +52 28 7,750 2,000 9,380 

Santa Margarita River near 

Temecula ______________ .. _ 592 17,960 30.3 -6 35 17,100 7,.200 19,030 

Santa Margarita River near 

Fallbrook ______________ .. _ ------ 19,200 ------ -17 33 21,460 8,500 23,090 

De Luz Creek near Fallbrook 47.9 20,810 434 ------ 7 5,760 ------- --------- Santa Margarita River at Ysidora __________________ 740 30,370 41.0 +11 34 24,800 9,400 27,450 

San Juan ·Creek basin <'~//:_ 

San Juan Creek near San -~~-__.-

~.-----/----

San Juan Capistrano _______ 110 28_,440 ------259 30 ------ ------- Arroyo --------- Trabuco near - ---

San Juan Capistrano5:.:.·: __ :·: 36.5 12,060 330 +242 28// 3,910 580 3,530 

See footnotes at end of table. 

I 

\ 
20 WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 1959 

Table 4.-Runoff for the water year 1957-58-Continued 

1957-58 runoff Period of record Base mean 

DeparDrain- Acre ture Mean Median Mean 

Stream age Acre- feet from Length annual annual annual 

area feet per base (years) runoff runoff runoff 

(sq mi) square mean (acre- (acre- 1920-55 

mile (per- ft) ft) (acre -ft) 

cent) 

Aliso Creek basin 

Aliso Creek at El Toro-5: ____ _ 514 

Peters Canyon Wash basin 

San Diego Creek near Irvine _ 

Santa Ana River basin 

Santa Ana River near 

Mentone ___________ ------ 202 67 ,23( 333 +21 62 61,260 51,700 55,680 

MillCreeknear Yucaipa---- 42.9 42,26( 985 +72 30 24,110 17,400 24,500 

Mill Creek near Mentone ____ 51.7 13,38( 259 ------ 19 2,500 510 --------- Plunge Creek near East 

Highlands---~------------ 16.6 12,200 735 ------ 39 ------ ------- --------- Santa Ana River near San 

Bernardino -------------- 302 15,430 51.1 ------ 13 6, 750 1,300 --------- Little San Gorgonio Creek 

near Beaumont----------- 2.61 129 49.4 ------ 10 65 72 --------- San Tirnoteo Creek near 

Redlands ---------------- 123 1,200 9. 7€ -8 32 1,060 360 1,300-

San Tirnoteo Creek near Lorna Linda ______________ ------ 2,080 ------ ------ 4 ------ ------- East --------- Twin Creek near Arrowhead Springs_ _______ 8.6 6,200 721 +81 38 3,420 2,500 3,420 

Waterman Canyon Creek near Arrowhead Springs _______ 4.55 3,430 754 +81 40 1,980 1,400 1;900 

City CreeknearHighland ____ 19.8 20,660 1,040 +174 39 7, 720 5,600 7,530 

Devil Canyon Creek near San 

Bernardino -------------- 6.16 5,350 869 +129 39 2,390 1, 700 2,340 

Lytle Creek near Fontana ___ 46.9 35,400 755 +19 54 31,270 2 5,900 29,730 

Cajon Creek near Keenbrook_ 40.9 9,360 229 +39 38 6,520 4,300 6,720 

Lone Pine Creek near Keenbrook _______________ 15.0 880 58.7 -24 27 927 430 1,160 

Warm Creek nearColton ____ 259 15,820 61..1 ------ 38 ------ ------- --------- Santa Ana River at Riverside 

Narrows, near Arlington __ 858 34,030 39.7 -37 28 39,850 29,900 53,860 

Day CreeknearEtiwanda ___ 4.58 6,230 1,360 

Cucamonga Creek near +58 29 3,910 3,000 3,950 

Upland ___________________ 10.1 12,370 1,220 

San Jacinto River near San 

+117 29 5,650 4,100 5, 710 

Jacinto ___________________ 140 40,190 287 +64 38 23,940 13,600 24,550 

Bautista Creek near Hemet ___ 39.4 2,600 66.0 ------ 11 565 7 --------- SanJacinto River near Elsinore __________________ 717 9,900 13.8 ------ 31 7,820 72 --------- See footnotes at end of table. 
WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 1959 21 

Table 4.-Runoff for the water year 1957-58-Continued 

1957-58 runoff Period of record Base mean 

DeparDrain- Acre ture Mean Mediun Mean 

Stream age Acre- feet from Length annual annual annual 

area feet per base (years~ runoff runoff runoff 

(sq mi) square mean (acre- (acre- 1920-55 

mile (per- ft) ft) (acre-ft) 

cent) 

Santa Ana River basin-Continued 

Temescal CreeknearCorona_ ------ 218 ------ ------ 29 2,620 36 --------- San Antonio Creek near 

Claremont---------------- 16.9 34,460 2,040 +114 41 16,000 11,600 16,120 

Santa Ana River below Prado 

Dam--------------------- 1,462 75,700 51.S ------ 18 ------ ------- --------- Santa Ana River at county 

line. below Prado Dam ____ ------ 79,700 ------ ------ 39 ------ ------- --------- Santiago Creek at Santiago 

Dam. near Villa Park ----- 63.2 24,850 393 +121 27 13,030 8,000 11,220 

Santiago Creek near Villa Park ________________ 83.8 2,060 24.6 ------ 38 ------ ------- --------- Santiago Creek at SantaAna __ 96.6 2,310 23-.9 -51 29 3,780 580 4,750 

Santa Ana River at Santa Ana_ 1,625 19,340 11.9 0 35 14,480 2,100 19,300 

San Gabriel River basin 

East Fork San Gabriel River 

near Camp Bonita6 _________ 88.2 112,700 1,280 +130 25 52,850 34,000 48,910 

West Fork San Gabriel River 

at Camp Rincon6 ___________ 102 ~06,100 1,040 +114 31 47,780 24,600 49,640 

San Gabriel River near Azusa _ 211 ~39,000 1:130 +129 63 ~ 11,500 78,900 104,200 

Rogers Creek near Azusa ____ 6.4 5,280 825 +135 41 2,160 1,200 2,240 

Fish Creek near Duarte ______ 6.5 5,680 874 +89 41 2,880 1,700 3,010 

San Gabriel River below Santa 

Fe Dam, near Baldwin Park._ 231 91,530 395 ------ 16 ------ ------- --------- San Dimas Creek below San 

Dimas Dam6 -------------- 16.2 6,520 402 ------ 2 ------ ------- --------- Dalton Creek near Glendora _ ~ 7.5 3,110 415 ------ 38 ------ ------- --------- Little Dalton Creek near Glendora6 _________________ 2.7 1,400 519 ------ 20 514 220 --------- San J 6se Creek near Whittier6 _ 85.2 17,300 203 +195 29 6,280 3,900 5,860 

San Gabriel River at Pico 6 ___ 206 782,190 399 +140 30 32,830 14,000 34,270 

San Gabriel River at Spring 

Street, near Los Alamitos __ 216 22,920 106 ------ 31 18,560 2,000 --------- Brea Creek below Brea Dam, 

near Fullerton------------ 23.4 1,520 65.0 ------ 16 514 140 --------- BreaCreekat Fullerton5 ----- 26.2 1, 750 66.8 ------ 28 852 360 --------- Fullerton Creek below 

Fullerton Dam, near Brea ___ 3.05 1,210 397 ------ 17 ------ ------- --------- Fullerton Creek at Fullerton~_ 6.2 1,120 182 ------ 23 420 170 --------- Coyote Creek near Artesia6 ___ 110 15,680 143 +179 29 6,020 3,200 5,620 

Carbon Creek near Yorba Linda ____________________ 20.4 1,430 70.1 ------ 9 304 ------- ---------

See footnotes at end of table. 
22 WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 1959 

Table 4.-Runoff for the water year 1957-58-Continued 

1957-58 runoff Period of record Base mean 

DeparDrain- Acre ture Mean Median Mean 

Stream age Acre- feet from Length annual annual annual area feet per base (years) runoff runoff runoff 

·(sq mi) square mean (acre- (acre- 1920-55 

mile (per- ft) ft) (acre-ft) 

cent) 

Los Angeles River basin 

Lqs Angeles River at 

Sepulveda Dam ___________ 155 8

41,110 265 ------ 15 14.460 10,000 --------- Pacoima Creek near San 

Fernando~--------------- 28.2 15,890 563 

Tujunga Creek below Mill 

+130 41 6, 730 3,200 6,920 

Creek. near Colby Ranch6 ___ 64.~ 19,970 308 

Tujunga Creek near ------ 10 5,340 1,900 --------- Sunland6 _________________ 106 38,880 367 +83 41 20,270 10,900 21,190 

Raines Creek near Tujunga __ 1.2 195 162 ------ 26 275 140 --------- Little Tujunga Creek near 

San Fernando~----------- 21.0 3,440 164 +70 30 1,850 510 2,020 

Tujunga Creek below Hansen Dam ____________________ 148 33,560 22_7 ------ 18 15,220 2,900 --------- Los Angeles River at Los 

Angeles6 _________________ 510 91,020 178 +~23 29 42,930 25,300 40,790 

Arroyo Seco near Pasadena __ 16.4 11,2 90 688 +80 44 6,640 3,600 6,270 

Los Angeles River near Downey6 _________________ 614 134,900 210 ------ 30 70,950 47,100 

Sawpit Creek near --------- Monrovia ________________ 5.3 1,490 281 

Santa Anita Creek near -21 41 1,810 1,400 1,880 

Sierra Madre-----------_ 10.5 11,480 109 

Little Santa Anita Creek 

+163 42 4,260 2. 750 4,360 

near Sierra Madre _______ . 1.9 1,470 774 +121 41 644 360 665 

Eaton Creek near Pasadena ________________ 6.5 3,490 537 

Rio Hondo above Whittier 

+24 40 2,660 1, 700 2,820 

Narrows Dam ____________ ------ 4 5,810 ------ ------ 2 

Rio Hondo ------ ------ --------- near MontebelloE?.. 115 9

119,300 1,040 ------ 30 

Mission Creek ------ ------ --------- near Montebello6 ______________ 6 2,660 443 ------ 28 10,860 11,600 

Mission Creek --------- below 

Whittier Narrows Dam ____ ------ 2,590 ------ ------ 2 

Rio Hondo near Downey 6 ____ ------ ------ --------- 140 30.2 70 216 ------ 30 19,400 8,000 --------- Los Angeles River at Long Beach6 __________________ 

------ 191,600 ------ +118 29 ~04,300 68,800 88,040 

Ballona Creek basin 

Ballona Creek near Culver Cily6 ____________________ 88.6 43,020 486 ------ 30 ------ ------ ---------

See footnotes at end of table. 
WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 1959 23 

Table 4.-Runoff for the water year 1957-58-Continued 

1957-58 runoff Period of record Base mean 

DeparDrain- Acre ture Mean Med,ian Mean 

Stream age Acre- feet from Length annual annual annual 

area feet per base (years) runoff runoff runoff 

(sq mi) square mean (acre- (acre- 1920-55 

mile (per- ft) ft) (acre-ft) 

cent) 

Topanga Creek basin 

Topanga Creek near Topanga Beach6 __________ 17.9 7,580 423 +105 27 3,930 1,400 3,690 

Malibu Creek basin 

Malibu Creek at Crater 

Camp, near Calabasas6 ____ 103 31,670 307 +148 27 14,190 4,900 12,760 

Santa Clara River basin 

Santa Cla~a River at Los 

Angeles-Ventura County line10 ____________________ 651 40,160 61.7 ------ 6 11,440 ------ --------- Piru Creek above Lake Piru ____________________ 371 92,580 2'50 ------ 3 ------ ------ ---------- Piru Creek below Santa 

Felicia Dam _____________ 420 73,490 175 ------ 3 ------ ------ --------- Hopper Creek near Piru ~ __ 23.0 10,710 466 --~--- 26 3,660 1,600 --------- Sespe Creek near Wheeler 

Springs_-------------- __ 50 30,840 617 ------ 10 6,120 2,000 --------- Sespe Creek near Fillmore __ 254 226,200 891 +219 31 73,840 41,300 70,980 

Santa Paula Creek near 

Santa Paula ------------- 40.0 47,080 1,180 +253 31 14,050 7,200 1'3,330 

Ventura River basin 

Matilija Creek above 

reservoir, near Matilija Hot 

Springs ____ --- ___ -- ___ -- 51 67,860 1,330 ------ 10 14,990 5,400 --------- Matilija Creek at Matilija 

Hot Springs ------------- 55 71,780 1,310 +243 31 22,020 10,100 20,910 

North Fork Matilija Creekat 

Matilija Hot Springs 10 _____ 15.5 25,740 1,660 +339 29 6,680 3,000 5,860 

San Antonio Creek at Casitas Springs10 ________________ 

------ 23,880 ------ ------ 9 4,580 ------ Coyote CreeknearVentura --------- __ 41.1 34,280 834 +298 30 9,560 3,500 8,620 

Ventura River near Ventura _ 187 165,500 885 +255 31 49,950 23,200 46,590 

Carpinteria Creek basin 

Carpinteria Creek near Carpinteria _____________ 13.8 7,170 520 ------ 17 1,380 290 ---------

See footnotes at end of table. 
24 WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 1959 

Table 4.-Runoff for the water year 1957-58-Continued 

1957-58 runoff Period of record Base mean 

IDepar'-

Drain- Acre ture Mean Median Mean 

Stream age Acre- feet from !Length annual annual annual 

area per base (years) runoff runoff runoff 

(sq mi) feet square mean (acre- (acre- 1920-55 

mile (per- ft) ft) (acre -ft) 

cent) 

Atascadero Creek basin 

Atascadero Creek near Goleta ___________________ 18.3 8,440 461 ------ 17 1,880 650 ---------

San Jose Creek basin 

San Jose Creek near Goleta __ 

Santa Ynez River basin 

SantaYnez River at Jameson 

Lake. near Montecito ~ ____ 13.8 13,440 974 +250 27 4,430 1. 700 3,840 

Santa Ynez River above 

Gibraltar Dam, near 

Santa Barbara ~---------- 216 130,670 605 +328 38 32,000 11.500 30,540 

Santa Ynez River below 

Gibraltar Dam, near Santa Barbara12 ________________ 216 123,600 572 f------ 38 27.730 8,000 --------- Santa Ynez River below Los 

Laureles Canyon, near Santa Ynez ____________________ 277 164,800 595 ----- 11 29.390 1,900 --------- Santa Cruz Creek near Santa Ynez ____________________ 73.8 43,720 592 ------ 16 9,340 4.900 --------- Cachuma Creek near Santa 

Ynez -------------------- 20.5 11,660 569 1-..;. ____ 8 3,170 ------ --------- Santa Ynez River near Santa Ynez ____________________ 422 44,000 104 1------ 28 60,550 14,500 --------- Santa Agueda Creek near Santa Ynez _______________ 55.9 10,690 191 ------ 17 2,120 720 

Zanja Cota --------- near Santa Ynez ___ 13.4 3,090 231 ------ 4 ------ ------ --------- Santa Ynez River at Grand 

Avenue, near Santa Ynez ___ 513 64,460 126 ------ 4 

Santa Ynez River ------ ------ --------- at Solvang __ 579 91,640 158 ------ 20 32,840 10 .ooo 

Santa Ynez River at Buellton __ --------- 594 107.700 181 ------ 4 

La Zaca Creek at Buellton ___ ------ --------- 39.5 2,320 58.7 ------ 17 304 29 

Santa Ynez River near --------- Buellton----------------- 668 123,700 185 ------ 6 27.610 

Santa Ynez River ------ --------- at Santa Rosa 

Damsite, near Buellton ____ 748 122,900 164 ------ 4 ------ ------ --------- Santa Ynez River at Cooper's 

Reef. near Lompoc_ _______ 755 117,800 156 ------ 4 ------ __ ..., ___ 

Santa Ynez River --------- below Santa 

RitaCreek, near Lompoc __ 781 105,600 135 ------ 4 

Salsipuedes Creek ------ ------ --------- near 

Lompoc ----------------- 47.0 23,560 501 ------ 17 6,140 2,200 --------- See footnotes at end of table. 
WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 1959 25 

Table 4.-Runoff for the water year 1957-58-Continued 

19 57-58 runoff Period of record Base mean 

DeparDrain- Acre- ture Mean Median Mean 

Stream age Acre- feet from 

Length annual annual annual 

area feet per base (years) runoff runoff runoff 

(sq mi) square mean (acre- (acre- 1920-55 

mile (per- ft) ft) (acre-ft) 

cent) 

Santa Ynez River basin-Continued 

Santa Ynez River at Narrows, near Lompoc _____________ 790 140 ,OOC 177 ------ 6 34,790 ------ Santa Ynez River --------- near Lompoc __________________ 790 140,200 177 ------ 33 85,060 30,900 --------- Santa Ynez River at H Street, near Lompoc _____________ 816 131,320 161 ------ 11 39,750 1,600 --------- Santa Ynez River at 13th 

Street, near Lompoc ______ 820 128,500 157 ------ 4 

Santa Ynez River ------ ------ --------- at barrier, near Surf ________________ 895 124,200 139 ------ 11 42,700 1,800 ---------

San Antonio Creek basin 

San Antonio Creek near Casmalia _______________ _ 13,620 ------ ------ 3 

Santa Maria River basin 

Cuyama Rive.r near 

Ventucopa --------------- 90.0 261.510 295 ------ 13 5,490 2,800 

Cuyama River near Santa --------- Maria ___________________ 912 51,520 56.5 +269 28 15,570 7,200 13,970 

Alamo Creek near Santa Maria ___________________ 87.7 28,600 326 ------ 15 4,750 1, 700 

Huasna River --------- near Santa Maria ___________________ 119 48,940 411 +290 28 14,620 5,500 12,540 Sisquoc River near Sisquoc __ 290 110,600 381 ------ 15 22,520 10,900 

La Brea Creek near Sisquoc __ --------- 86.7 19,200 221 ------ 15 3, 720 580 

Tepusquet Creek near --------- Sisquoc __________________ 28.9 4,560 158 ------ 15 977 510 

Sisquoc River near Garey ____ --------- ------ 99,210 ----- ------ 17 20,340 6, 700 

Santa Maria River at ---------

Guadalupe --------------- 1, 763 133,500 75.7 ------ 17 20,710 2,200 --------- Arroyo Grande basin 

Arroyo Grande at Arroyo Grande __________________ 106 46,750 441 +213 18 17,090 8,000 14,940 
26 WATER-RESOURCES SUMMARY FOR SOUTHERN CAIJFORNIA, 1959 

Thble 4.-Runoff for the water year 1957-58-Continued 

1957-58 runoff Period of record 

DeparDrain- Acre ture 

Stream age Acre- feet from Length area feet per base (years) (sq mi) square mean 

mile (percent 

THE GREAT BASIN 

Salton Sea basin 

Coyote Creek near Borrego Springs _________________ 144 1,820 12.6 ------ 8 

Palm Canyon Creek near Borrego Springs _________ 21.7 723 33.3 ------ 8 

Whitewater River at White 

Water------------------ 57.4 21,640 377 ------ 9 

Tahquitz Creek near Palm Springs _________________ 16.7 8,180 490 ------ 11 

Palm Canyon Creek near 

Palm Springs ----------- 94.0 7,290 77.6 +66 23 

Andreas Creek near Palm Springs _________________ 8.78 2,990 341 ------ 10 

Mojave River basin 

Deep Creek near Hesperia __ 137 106,000 774 +139 45 

West Fork Mojave River near Hesperia ___________ 74.8 45,930 614 +87 46 

Mojave River at lower 

narrows, near Victorville __ 530 99,050 187 +70 33 

Mojave River at Barstow ___ ------- 20,070 ------ -22 28 

Mojave River at Afton----- ------- 2,780 ------ ------ 8 

Antelope Valley 

Big Rock Creek near Valyermo _______________ 23.0 25,020 1,090 +107 35 

Little Rock Creek near Little Rock 6 _____________ 49.0 29,470 601 +118 26 

Oak Creek near Mojave ____ 15.8 1,550 98.1 ------ 1 

lBasic data furnished by the city of San Diego. 2

Basic data furnished by the California Water and Telephone Co. 

3Basic data furnished by the Helix Irrigation District. 

4Basic data furnished by the Vista Irrigation District. 

Mean 

annual 

runoff 

(acreft) 

1,850 

405 

9,050 

2,290 

3,510 

1,560 

55,480 

31,340 

56,770 

20,630 

2,030 

11,290 

13,030 

------

5Records furnished by the Orange County Flood Control District. 

6Records furnished by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. 

7Includes about 28,000 acre -ft of water imported from the Colorado River. 

8Adjusted for 92 acre-ft of water imported from the Owens River. 

9Includes about 63,000 acre -ft of water imported from the Colorado River. 

10Records furnished by the Ventura County Water Resources Division. 

11 Basic data furnished by the Montecite County Water District. 

12Basic data furnished by the city of Santa Barbara. 

Median 

annual 

runoff 

(acreft) 

------

------

------

1,300 

940 

1,200 

41,700 

20,900 

33,360 

72 

------

6,800 

7,000 

------

Base mean 

Mean 

annual 

runoff 

1920-55 

(acre-ft) 

---------

---------

---------

---------

4,390 

---------

44,270 

24,510 

58,270 

2 5,690 

---------

12,100 

13,500 

---------