HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Problems - SCCFC & WCD - 1962 Ci�Y & SC'C FC & WCD 1�2
OAJI
i0e)
i
COUNTY ® 8 VANTA CLARA
Office of the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
HOWARO R. WEICHERT. IST O/sTRiCT. 04AIRMIM COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
SAM P. CELLA MAGGIORE. two O,sTwICr 70 *CST ROBA STREET. BAN JOSE 10. CALWORNIA
ED. R. LEVIN. 3Ro Oawmm AA
RALPH H. MEHRKErda 4TM O.6rRICT October 2Y, 176EAGq
MARTIN J. SPANOLEQ. SR.. SrM DosTntcr
JEAN PULLAN. CLHR< Or rp8 00"0
Mr. Lawrence R. Martin, Clerk
City of Cupertino
10321 S. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
Cupertino, California
Subject: Agreement between the City o`: Cupertino
and the SCCFC & WCP relative to the prepa-
ration and dissemin ,tion of information to
the people of the City of Cupertino on water
problems
Dear Mr. Martin:
Enclosed you will find a fully executed cony of an
agreement between the Santa Clara County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District and the City of Cupertino rela-
tive to an educational program for preparati.�jn and dissemi-
nation of information on water problems.
The Board of. Supervisors of the Santa Clara County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District authorized:
its Chairman to execiste this agreement on October 22, 1962.
The enclosed copy is for your records.
Very truly yours,
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Mrs. Jean Pullan, Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors
JP:DM.R:bs
Enc.
CC: Flood Control Dept.
<r
199 A M
8
WIMMOS F any$
asideand en . into xis day or
DOT 41
COMMVNM 00116MYd AWSMOT, hereinafter a to
as "vistrict", and the ON OF 09112110, hereinafter referred to
as "City";
VITNESORTH
The parties hereto and their respective peoples are mu-
tually confronted with a serious water problem resulting from the
?umping of water from the underground water basin which underlies
their respective territories in quantities greatly in exceas of
the mount replaced in said basin by nature or otherwise. Serious
danger exists that unless the water in said basin is replenished
in some manner, or other water obtained elsewhere, the water here-
afte.• available to the people of said parties will be inadequate
for f Wre needs. In addition, because of said water pumping and
the resultant lowering of the water level,lard-sinking has oc-
curred and more is threatened with the possibility of resultant
damage to the people of said parties. There is also the possibi-
lity that the underground water supply will be contaminated an the
future by infiltration of salt water from San Francisco Day unless
something is done to raise the water level in said basin. District
from tiiam to time has made extensive studies and investigations of
said problems end of possible solutions, and possesses considerable
factual information respecting the same which, if prepared and dis-
seminated to the people, will 'he of great educational value to them
and will aid theta in oMkihg enlightened decisions respecting the
solutions of the above mentioned problems. It is the desire of
each of the parties to this agreement, and the purpose of this
_1_
cgrommit,, to Vvew1de for tho yvaparatim and dissemImtIon to
tfae people or each of said parties of the intoveationherein-
aftev ►
oif'ie d now peed by 01striots, so that peop3A will be
Ball&taned. r"Wetlas said prOble ms t halr na s t and
eeri, se8 proposed sefutions sad ' Jr Baste, meed wthads
of timmaings and ogWr tits v*l*t '00 saM = Sims �
Hi st rIett Already posmases such itomatloa and since it will be
leer e3qMelve tar all parties conewited if District prep&res
and dissaidnates such iurovuation to the people or each or said
parties rather than have each DaVt7 do such work for their own
respective people with resultant dWlication of effort and cost,
the parties hereto do hereby enter into this agreement.
ham, 11 ZFGMp for emd in consideration of their re-
spective promises, covenents Paid agreements, the parties hereto
do hereby agree as follows:
1. Dietrirb e.Zmes to prepare a"d diseemir,ate t o the
people of District and to the people of City, in such lawful man-
ner or manners to be selected by District efkr oh will be reasonably
calculated to reach said people, for educational purposes only,
factual information respecting the following questions or matters,
to rite
(a) To rhea extent, if any, is rater being pumped from
the above mentioned underground rater basin in excess of the
amount of rater t*ing replaced in said basin by nature or
otherwise
(b) Will the rater in said basin,, if not replenished
with water more outside sources, be adequate to meet the pre-
sent and future estimated needs of the 'people of District?
or City"
(a) Has land within District or City been sinking be-
cause of excessive pumping of water and the resultant lower-
ing of the water level in said basin? To what extent? Will
such lama continue to sink if the water level is not raised?
That damage, if any,; will result from continued land sinking?
v
y
' �� Y,ar`XL �t:,�.`"' '� *aiar`fsc�a,�;r«��,rtsk�k.:ri��£t": +7.+�=d� , �ya•t ,. ,:JY:.a .,.,:.rr.+ .
WT
td) Ze UMO 422WV that to lots , Of the Water LM:L
In sald basin wM owe mat water rran the fan isco
MW to InMtrate Into said basin and contaminate the beta
g Marjay of geoid partiest
(e) CM the water Reftsemy to repleaish said
basic or to otherwise adequately meet the needs of
said ale be practioatly obtained in any Samner other dsta
by rtationt if yea, hoer?
(f) what, if anything, has District or others dotes to
mart crater to replenish said basin or otherwise mat said
people's rater needs? Have any contracts been entered into
by district or others for the importation of water? If eso,
for how much rater and from where? Will other supplemental
water be needed; and, if so, where can it be obtalned and
from where has it been proposed J.t be obtained?
(H) if contracts have already been entered into for the
importation of water, is it necessary tftat wester lines, stor-
age facilities, treatment facilities and other water facili-
ties be constructed or Installed to transport, distribute,
hold, treat or otherwise handle such imported water? If yes,
whet Is the estimated cost of such facilities?
(h) What tax.ez, if any, have already been levied to
pay for any of said facilities? By whom? Now much?
(i) Have bonds been proposed to finance the cost of all
or any pant of said faoili laa ? If Bo, by whom and Plow much?
Would approval of sich bonds cause property taxes to rise?
If yes, what would be the approximate amount c:f the additional
property tan'? If no, how would such bonds be paid? Can such
bondae be Issued without approval of the people? Have pro-
visions been mad* for securing the people's approval of such
bonds?
(J) Now can or will the above mentioned facilities be
financed if the above mentioned bonds should be dieMproved?
k
f:
(k) Otbar faettud 1nftV=t1*2to the
PMWMU which Will ald a in MkUM e2l.i0
decisions reepwting said ymblow.
2. City aPa to VW to In elation
of DIsftlet pr4oarlag wA diseeminMIcS said i Lion to tW �$
pmmu of me t i ty of oupsmrtino taw s of l,.,® � �-A-�—�-'`�-�' � `; d
poi (4.QU.s BWA Ma to be paidupon
demand of D-Letrict at any time after date of Ms aijizvowntj pro-
®ided, however, that if said a= should emooed the actual coat
to District of preparing and disseminating such informtion to the
people of City, then in that event District shall refund mid pay
to City the mount by which said 4 should exceed
said cost,
3. District agrees to spay any and all costs and ex-
penses other than those hereinabove agreed to be paid by City.
the day and year hereinaboee first written.
-ATTEST: SANTA CLARA COUNTY FLOOD COHTROL
AND WATER C011 TION DPTRIC
er o _�— tclrman of t}ie -.�
APPROM z wed of Superv,.iors
And
orney for
"DISTRICT"
ATTEST: CITY CW TINO, a icipal
� cOyvorati0 ,
iry WE uve nu r
APPROMt
City manager
Attorney or city or Cupertino
h
r
y
'Ore
CHARGE Sm 196+65
WMISER
* air opt t ut of Gninead ili�li Wow �tettr
1End
o �.� chwm
/ / n
a 0/ �®► E ® 2 End
Begin
Begin
AUGUST 1'"4170M7 Nx A"W DECEMBER
I we& Un:t of FeWGround It ! Now 1dnu3 oPAcre Fit Grated 1 illiatsr Meter
too 4? Am
i Rettdioe
2 416AW imoo jr/itr 24 7.9j4?3pjw cqm&zf 0 0 2
3 a •J14AS AK 3 �r 3 ir+
��.a5t4.®9I#dr3 SEPTEMBER �ad., •� evi'1pr�r� !® JANUARY-I�fi
VNI tiw Meftr o! a�F"t Gad 1 Me for Us�t Of Acre�t Ground 1 Water Meter
PR► 6itet Readings
i i / pap End
in
J ®� e�► End
�3
�•; /a� P4d1 fly 2 2 ®g11n
30� land /� End
3 6" v .�d'r46 3 �n � ®.3se 3 Bepin
T. �®9#< 8?'7$f.9 OCTO®ER 6�a•�i"AW FE RUARY
�i 1A►etst Mats' Unit Of Flat 8 on iil r Alet®r Uwtof Acre t Ground YYat! Water Motor
Acreiv a !�► mod! s No Reads s
d
Por is
m"M& 2 Ee4d n- 2 EndAe in
s,
mt
End nd
aB'9Y 3 ®sin 3
.,,,� gin
=1= _._-—------------------ - -. �'�-"����- "_------ ------ . ------------------_.-------
Alf
eQcr� �f. 13 d• y74t.?Z 9®
,lcc�s,�►eto,a ,v
40 .7241.24 Jv/y /0J7. ✓4f f fZ2 .�o•,���,�y:
4/, ¢��.Zl.S Aag f/.s7. 9?259.2
JT7 ts,2 Yo/ -5cRl /o lG. 747/04
S9.374 8./4 ®cf
G41'e' a/d,`a�d ,JAr-OAV? Ve'9•o. gg 'nd
�/. /7,��9� Nov /s. . �6®1.�1 lAre
�4• ¢�9�J� ®eC. /2 lx, jf 7'6QPc .31 r 96 4
✓G 1�f. f7416 fS
III, 7!B Selo
/�l7S.s y�o o �E✓.s
Acre s s 3a:l�l fle �s-� •i�rS m�(,¢�'6 9 P7$/d'z B
48./OSS7O Jv.� 9h6. 7B��-S
---4�—
9- 2.1 V34.1®o
39. 30,42 dl 5e',.7/- 740• dl.5"-?7 s7 791
4 k7G4 ?7 'r'r ��J. G4.'S9� S7'9.r®�o;�3.z�g.9'�rs /77: 3J-44& Ac .
ry`oe- o 177,351"11•,®.ass ,334 -9. /3�
SOY/"?- VJr6 4 V41i"
2796 5-000 .94/s.
we 4'S
.4tre f _ ej V2 6 97.�/J y'.S-^'�i'6/7. 73•"yve
7. 45 93/3 � 6d4 9. 97fw AS?d
3303. J3VtYl 7
f c,.i 7.73 S'?
f ;To-
/7 74'd/47 Oc,� 333. 79'9�7'•°
/3. 37.3f 9-3 Nod .1 X.2. 474 R83 �j iX3a. 7`OY2 J? a_
/S. V/X 912-1 Oet: _Voo. o%s'i2 f — /,° r30. 7 r 23.:
.lf / 7. 73 f/7?
Tate. :4�novri��o!O�-.,fP��-®��.�►s..a%-co,,�ov-�',p
JAN2 6 1 x_
/mil ®. ��
t,
}
..tom.._
OIL
- IT T �ATFA *AMR METED ME
IAA IMLL MONO MZTEA MAND S rss� �awls t 00) -
ts
?66.91 X 9EGMi cl f4 ,FOD S `
.2 �n,2 P�12, 04-0 42284--XII
�3 75 2W, 54 4-49 1► 3 9
4 1 ,9ECIa _ I
f N t
EN-
BEC�+N
ENE)
r ?®JtM p►GeV* � Qo it-&.M j g !/
a.+<„ trtdam* ews •rs...oeas mach
- son
elsAssls N OY:la
many
► also®sates asso asfu e
Sn"CT-
�..
py
Ys,
FUNI' M
MOOT
zs t fir�7iMF/�+,[OiJiV Lim- MOWH OF
WEt! ODE NTIFICAT{ON V'
�� WATER A47ER RE/►OgC, o'
p�Pa4m ACRE iEE t CsltOlyo .•<.*La
ovoo W�11 .T WATER � w q*'rto,asR�w w-ctp j ei (.Qq �►!AQ�.r'
vau mmem METER NUMBER LY
!11 42i !41 a gr (6� ( Ig?740 `�`--
END
x,t€� bT 'AO 14tt2W12 i71i 268'�� �BEG'N/ I ,Sv�� j�!/.�/• .�
—� --
IE1D ,� A®-- {
�+ SSE ! 2 1®TStblB2Nt�2 b2204 r�ciN /�% CJ® 4 O7 ' t9U?•
14ESTk" 3 2F011 Sbb3 ollp .;�440
t � ! y�
nEctN P, _ 21'3/0
Ff^
F
-- - -- -; - -ND
END
END
--
- - _IEND
ENG
'sE:ire
— END _
8E�blhJ --
RtAAPKS- •+N COMAAN r:()Tf LROY OF MEASURE IM 2EPGRTVI4f by
ENTtRING 'HE FOLL,`WING NUMBERS
-- - - - - -- -- •- ---- ---- •CRE fff" ..
#4UNDpEL'TH Of Ahr ACRE4WT_. _.
`t:'_ FEES - 3
—,. Of CIS Ff4? •
Y° MlNDRE05 Of GA1lCsceS_ _.__ 6
!-
i
Y 7r
I,�JY C Lii 3�,ra
a=
p _
IPMBUCTrOms ON MM FOR WFOPM OF
REVERSE SIDE MOM Refs 9 1964
x ®AGE I
WELL IDENTIFICATION 'Eva
OWINU ow?" WATER METEi RE/1P?IIVG �� ALl�EfT rikQ tt♦ E&
WELL WELL �IST�CT WATER S M!'still,F77LAW y y< 1.
WELL NUMBER METER NUM61 .� 3Frusc4 SECty. 7.41
{T1 m 131 ,41 , ��, ;61 (7r t8
"OFESTEAO 1 101 26692 7� ®® .�'?.� OO,&U•
"c S® ®$ 00
lwl� st$TEAO 3 110rs2ra12FO1 5%439 t3�{�.,$ 700 'S { =%Y 246 ��
--.---
1 EPIL` ®�r7
i f1+L— _ ----T- —f - ---�- _
- — _
iN
--�'—��--'--t—'—_— _
Erie
i -
—.-.�- --1---- I
BEGIty ,
—
END
REGIN
eEGiN
Rill:".r'�•':. •iNCOUiMN)7)r•+l''f IPYTC)f�v?ASLkf'Nrfsr..i.T;+r .�T+
ENTERING THE f%, :r:;Nli NUMBER'
ACRE FEET. ,_ — •- _. — __._ i
M(;a:)IEDTMOf ANACQE4Q01_
CUBiC°fET—_
Hsi, OEM OF CUSIC EKT_
Of i.ALEON3 —T f, .;
THOUSANDS Of GALLONS
-._ ,_..._.—..- -`t-..._____..- -,�-�--.----.-+-.-_-.-_�..-��_._ _--r_._..._�_ TEN i�1OUSAND:C3➢ GALLOWS..._ _. _..-._
X "
pAT i ES1uwA
� ESTVAA Nt>EEt REaR cS_ ,_,.•__„_It
TO MAIN u
In %
+x x
olot
n
� { .• ! �.
yY.
m . t� $iiAM iA/ATM SYSMq AK ,r
GUKR T I dO Ci l r - INSTRUCTIOPIS�.s REPORT FOR PAONTH OF '
i0321 S HICA4vitV RMRSF SME OC i ..Efts I964
c sitriffo cAt ipe t
WELL IDENTIFICAT10NIOWNR r Meir ACRE FEET
WATER METER READItAG c
OWNER DISTRICT WATER ) r a.tR ten.rN Uvtr.0wal
Nd1AAE ` FEU NUMM METER NUM88t # y.r+i
$®C�1lli ?SZfleh��f3 6�� X of !'j 4 O j !q T71
hY.%f.STEAD -a won � m02 d B4 X , it �j 2SOD !�� �. •I ) 9�, �� .
IN
{ .ENll
FIN
{
i l k N r
! r
`ND
I 5F"iN
ENS
eEMAPK 5 -A)LM1N,7'NC;- +11+t F ,,JRf.iN RL=
MNG
---_._._ ._-------------- --.._—.�._. N_rr.yy4fB'ri C� :.•.,wCRf-fr`,�` _ J 'n
FEET
01UNORtD6Of CUBIC FEET_ e
TWXSAND$CV C.4►LJOW' _.---. _.-. 7
TRH TMOLWP"OF GALLOPS..
f3 DATE shams—'--
,�
. v _
ML
IISTRl3fT.OiMSON REF' FQJI✓ t :�
z - REVERSE SIDE
WELL IDENTIFICATION start" —
f dW DMTRI T
NA WEU �a wait r u Ei+ G� >, .r� , - 91
It (2) (3) (<, • �r0 �G l F 7, I J
15,01MMSIMAD 12 1®9SZ91IZN02 42164 7_-= ��� Qp ✓•�. . i' �� (. G b
w s�EA� i 1 3G9S2Ul2F01 54439
.f` t
s TE`ltl
i !
! F
! 1
!
BF-Giv
END
_J
9E G'N
RKS: _
jair
FE_-
Y
cnUoks _
------- TEN HOUSAOSU<...jf GALL
DATE islMMTEG fliPWd Ut4iE!
� _ _ -fr n. .� ' t�:�+;e...,.nw.,wi%-awl•.1Ft,LJs si+.g.�. _ �
a '
Report to the Eoard of Supervisors
of the
Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
UNIFIED COUNTY WATER PLAN
i
Prepared by
The Special Water Committee of the Board of Supervisors
appointed March 28, 1960.
February 3, 1961
Board of Supervisors
Santa Clara County Flood Control
and Water Conservation, District
20 West Rosa Street
San Jose, Californ;a
Gentlemen:
Transmitted herewith is a report for a unified water plan for
Santa Clara County. Appreciation is expressed for information supplied
by the Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District and to Mr. Ants
Lahi of the Santa Clara County Flood Cor.6rol and Water Conservation
District for analyses and cost estimates of distribution systems shown on
the plates .
Very truly yours,
/f�j� JJ • /
%yam•--�.. or.
WESL /`;L. H UBBARD
l
THELO A. PE/RRROTT
DONALD K. C;URR.LIN
i
DKC:am
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section No. Pave No.
I Introduction 1
II Planning Requirements 2
III Use of the South Bay Aqueduct 3
IV Use of Pacheco Pass Route 5
V Jurisdiction and Administration 6
Vi Financing and Taxation 8
VII Pricing i 3
VIII Facilities to be Constructed 15
D', Construction, Operation and Maintenance 21
X The South County 21
XI Conclusion 22
PLATE INDEX
Plate No.
7A)ne and District Boundaries 1
Recommended Constructon 2
Percolation Plan 3
Deferred or Alternate Construction 4
Facilities Considered 5-30
UNIFIED COUNTY_ WATER PLAN
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION
The time has arrived for decision on the water problems in Santa
Clara County. All of the existing studies and some studies still in progress
have been analyzed by the Review Board jointly hired by the Santa Clara
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the Tri-County
Water Authority. The Review Board has recommended that the South Bay
Aqueduct be used for importing water into northern Santa Clara County. Con-
struction of the South Bay Aqueduct has already begun. Such construction
will falter and be delayed unless a contract is entered into in the near future
with the State of California . Other reasons make it imperative that decisions
be forthcoming immediately on the solution of our remaining water problems .
By the terms of the contract already executed between the State of California
and the, Metropolitar Water District, the Metropolitan, after December 31 ,
1963 , could exercise an option for all uncontracted-for water to be produced
by the initial conservation facilities of the California Water Plan . Unless
action is taken immediately to resolve the remaining problems , Santa Clara
County could be left high, dry, and without the water it will need in the
future.
It is now necessary that decisions be reached upon coordinated
future planning, construction scheduling, financing of facilities to be con-
structed, pricing of water to be sold, a determin%.ition of the way in which
facilities to be constructed will be operated and maintained and other related
subjects .
Up to this time there has been no report which has considered all of
the above related problems and made recommendations thereon . It is ,
therefore, the purpose of the report to make such recommendations , with
explanations and the reasons supporting the same .
In July of 1960 a special water committee appointed by the Board
of Supervisors submitted a progress report relating to the pricing and handling
of water wAhin Santa Clara County. Discussion of the progress report was
thereafter had with the cities now buying water from Hetch Hetchy, a com-
mittee of the Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation Distract , the Cities of
San Jose and Santa Clara , who rely primarily on underground water supplies ,
1 the San Jose Water Works , California Water Service, the South Santa Clara
Valley Water Conservation District, and the Cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy.
These discussions proved quite valuable and provided the foundation for many
of the following recommendations .
1 .
SECTION II - PLANNING REQUIREMENTS
1 . The sixty-year period ending in 2020 should be adopted by all
water agencies as the planning period.
2 . The water demand for Santa Clara County as determined by the
Bureau of Reclamation should be adopted.
The Review Board report agrees with generally prevailing conclu-
sions to the effect that the character of northern Santa Clara County will
in its ultimate development be one of municipal and industrial use, not
only on the valley land but the areas on the adjacent hills . However-, the
Review Board felt that any present forecast of when this development may
be reached is necessarily speculative and uncertain. The Review Board
apparently adopted the school of thought which feels that looking sixty
years to the future is comparable to looking into a crystal ball. The
opposing school however, reasons that in planning water problems we
should look to the "ultimate" demand and do all our planning for the ultimate.
This school of thought will readily agree that there is extreme difficulty in
defining just what is meant by the "ultimate" . The Review Board's position
is that a projection of sixty years in the future cannot be precisely accurate;
that the issue to be decided now is the determination that the facility which
will be constructed will serve for a reasonable period of time and when that
time arrives the facility will have reached its capacity. There is no incon-
sistency between adopting the philosophy of the Review Board and at the
same time having a long-term goal or! which all agencies could base their
planning. If occurrences in the future prove the planning period to be too
long or too short and the water demand to be too high or too low, then these
factors could be easily adjusted, just so long as all the agencies concerned
with water importation and use are in :ommon agreement and both present
and future planning by all concerned proceeds along the same lines .
It is not contended that one planning period is better than the other,
however it seems vital to a coordinated program that all interested agencies
agree upon one goal or method of approach in planning and solving our local
water problems .
The Bureau of Reclamation has estimated that the water needs of
Santa Clara County to be as follows:
a) Fifty thousand acre-feet per year for the South County
b) Two hundred seventy thousand acre-feet per year for the
North County, of which 120, 000 acre-feet per year can be
percolated and 150, 000 acre-feet per year should be dis-
tributed through surface pipe lines .
2 .
2020. The above water demands are those estimated to be reached in year
The reasons for recommending adoption of the Bureau's planning period
and water demand are as follows:
a) The Bureau is recognized as an expert in the water field
b) The Bureau's study is the most recent
c) The Bureau has spent over a year in analyzing the water
needs of Santa Clara County
d) The Bureau's method of analysis seems realistic, reason-
able, and reliable
e) In its analysis the Bureau has been unfettered by local
political influence
IA rough analysis of the Bureau's water demand indicates a per capita
use per day of 175 gallo.is based upon a reasonable population projection of
2 , 450, 000 in the year 2020 . Present per capita use in Santa Clara ( .--)urty
is around 150 gallons per person per day. Therefore, the Bureau's figure
of 175 gallons per person per day seems to allow for a reasonable expansion
of water uses without going overboard.
SECTION III - USE OF THE SOUTH BAY AQUEDUCT
1 . The South Bay Aqueduct should be used to supply treated municipal
and industrial water for the North County.
2 . A contract should be entered into immediately with the State of
California for supplying Santa Clara County with approximately 150, 000
acre-feet per year in the year of maximum delivery, namely year 2020 .
I The Review Board report states that while eventually some surface
service may be required as use is increased, it appears that the drafts for
�;an Jose, Santa Clara, and the municipalities in the southwest portio_. of
the pressure area can be met by recharge in the forebay. The northern
cities, namely Palo Alto, Mountain View, Loa Altos , Los Altos ::ills ,
Sunnyvale„ Milpitas and the Monta Vista area, as well as the eastern
portion of the pressure area between Milpitas and Evergreen and the adjacent
eastern hillside area will therefore require some form of surface delivery.
The terminal point of the South Bay Aqueduct will deliver water into the
Q Milpitas area at an elevation of approximately 470 feet above sea level .
From that point, water can be delivered by gravity through pipe lines tothe
Palo Alto area with turn outs for Monta Vista and all o the cities between
Milpitas and Palo Alto. Similarly, the area between Milpitas and Evergreen
can be served by gravity. A study by the Flood Contro' and Water Conser-
vation District staff indicates that all of the 150, 000 acre-feet of treated
3 .
water can be used in the northern and eastern areas of North Santa Clara
County by the year 2020, possibly before that date. This is the approx-
imate amount of water which should be distributed by the surface dist.ribu-
tion system according to the determination of the Bureau of Reclamation.
If the South Bay Aqueduct is used to supply treated municipal and industrial
water for the North County, the following advantages will result:
a) A single treatment plant could be used for treating water to
be delivered in such areas
b) The terminal point of the South Bay AgUeduct at elevation
470 would allow a distribution system that would operate
by gravity without any pumping costs being incurred to
Palo Alto or Evergreen. Pumping costs to the east valley
hills would be substantially reduced
c) The terminal point of the South Bay Aru:duct is at the
angle point of the "L" shaped area to he served
d) Development within this area is progressing at a rapid
rate and the water could be put to immediate municipal
and industrial use
Wliv should a contract be entered into immediately with the State. of
California for the delivery of water from the South Bay Aqueduct ? Aside fron
the urgent need for water, the answers to this question are many and varied.
As pointed out ir; the introduction the existing contract between the Metro-
politan Water District and the State of California makes it imperative that
jur water importation program be brought to a head at the earliest possible
time. Asi pointed out in the Review Board report, the cities in the northern
:.art of Santa Clara Valley have a present total use of about 45 , 000 acre-feet
per year, of which nearly 1 , 000 acre-feet is now purchased from San Fran-
isco. A contractual arrangement assuring a firm water supply would provide
a guarantee to these cities so that they could reduce or eliminate their pur-
,�hases of Hetch Hetchy water at expensive rates in excess of $70 per
acre-foot. When such assurance is given it is reasonable to assume that
such cities would avail themselves of the cheaper source of water. This in
tur,,. would encourage the use of water from such pipe lines reducing the unit
1 .post for each acre-foot .
Water delivered from the South Bay Aqueduct would require filtration
and treatment for municipal and industrial use. According to i;he State con-
struction schedule, water will be available in Santa Clara County in early
1965 . Treatment plant facilities and pipe lines should be constructed by
1 that time so that water can be put to immediate use. It will take almost four
years to plan, finance and construct a water treatment plant. In order Lo
properly design the staged construction of such a plant, it is essential that
we have firm knowledge of the amount of water which will be treated. A
contract will supply this knowledge .
4 .
Also and of vital importance, is the fact that the South Bay Aqueduct
is now under construct-ion. By entering into a contract at this time, we can
assure ourselves that the facility will be built to a capacity that we desire.
To delay contractual obligations might result in a facility being built that
will not Y cMvide the capacity desired in Santa Clara County. Present State
plans call for delivery of water to Santa Clara County in an amount of 88,000
acre-feet. According to the report of the Review Board this amount would
last only from fifteen to twenty years . This means tha, at the end of twenty
years a second stage or parallel facility would be needed to augment the
supply of the South Bay Aqueduct. Contracts with the State of California
will repaid over a period exceeding fifty years . If new facilities are needed
® in a period of twenty years we would start payments on the new facility and
at the same time continue our payments for more than an additional thirty
years on the old facility. This would mean a double payment on the thirty
odd year overlapping period. Payments under a state contract are fairly
level during the first fifty-two or fifty-three years with rapidly diminishing
payments thereafter. The logical result then is that we should contract for
a facility which will supply the fifty or sixty-year demand. Such a contractual
arrangement would allow for more level payments over the assumed life of the
project.
Finally, the Review Board poi::ts out t,`,at 88, 000 acre-feet of water
will be used in frorn fifteen to twenty years . The existing contract with the
Metropolitan 'Water District provides souther: California with a supply of
water estimated to last thirty years . From the standpoint of self-protection
it is imperative that we at least equal the thirty year supply in our -ors.-ictual
relationships and if possible obtain a greater supply,.
The contract four approximately 1 5C,, 000 acre-feet in the year of max-
imum delivery would satisfy all of the abovementioned aims .
SECTION IV - USE OF THE PACHECO PASS ROUTE
1 . The Pacheco Pass Route sr.ould tentatively be planned as the import
route for -
a) All water requirements of the South County
b) All pei-coiated water requirements for the North County
and possibly for some treated water in the Calero and
Almaden Valleys if the need arises
As pointed out in the Review Board Report the Pacheco Pass Route is
still under study by the Bureau of Reclamation . It is anticipated that this
study will be completed in July of 1962 . Such a project would be subject to
the terms of the Reclamation x; t which include interest-free payment of con-
struction costs allocated to irrigation and if the project becomes a part of the
5 .
Central Valley Project reduction in irrigation costs might be secured by means
of a federally -subsidized price for electrical power for project pumping. As
urbanization of the North County continues it should be anticipated that the
subsidy would be removed. If such is the case, percolated water would be
delivered more cheaply from the South Bay Aqueduct as pointed out in the
t eport of the Review Board, However, the Review Board states , on page
176 of the supporting data "Even if the South Bay Aqueduct is to be used to
supply the northern cities and it is constructed promptly, it will not be
available to Airpoint until the time when the report of the Bureau is now
scheduled to be completed. A decision regarding the extension of the South
Bay Aqueduct to supply water for percolation in the Forebay can then be made
on the basis of the costs and other factors applicable to the delivery of
imported water by the South Bay Aqueduct or the Pacheco Pass Routes . . . . . .
. I . . . . .A decision bctween the extension of the South Bay Aqueduct to Coyote
1 Creek or the construction of the Pacheco Pass Route can be deferred until the
terms and conditions of service obtainable from the Bureau's San Felipe
Division of the Central Valley Project has become available in the Bureau's
report . "
It seems reasonable , therefore, to await the results of the Bureau of
Reclamation and to tentatively plan on the Pacheco Pass Route being usedas
the import route for all water requirements of the South County and for the
percolated water requirements of the North County . The possible subsidy
may make this route a cheaper source for percolation purposes .
SECTION V - JURISDICTION AND ADMINISTRATION
1 . Importation contracts should be executed by the Board of Supervisors .
2 . The Board of Supervisors should appoint members of a nine-man
Santa Clara County Water Commission consisting of one elected official from
each of the following agc.,c1'ti5 and to serve at the pleasure of the Board .
Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District.
South Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District
City of Palo Alto
City of Mountain View
City of Sunnyvale
City of Santa Clara
City of Milpitas
City of San Jose
City of Cupertino
3 . The Board of Supervisors should adopt a resolution stating that the
above Commission would b,, the agency to coordinate the water program for
Santa Clara County.
6.
Water imported into Santa Clara County will be served i:i areas that
are outside the existing boundaries of both water conservation districts .
The Board of Supervisors is elected by and represents all of the people outside
® of, as well as within, the existing water conservation districts. In order to
obtain the proper relationship of authority and responsibility, all matters
relating to major policies should be decided by the Board. It follows that
contracts for- imporCnq water into Santa Clara County should be executed by
a political body that represents all of the present and prospective water users .
With the Board of Supervisors as the contracting agency there would be a
direct line of re--Donsibility from the elected political body to the water users
and beneficiaries both present and prospective who by their vote would elect
the Board.
For many years Santa Clara Valley Water �:onservation District has
1 occupied the field of water conservation and distribution for irrigation or
percolation purposes in North Santa Clara County. The north valley Water
Conservation District and the south valley Water Conservation District have
1 constructed several darns which have performed a notable function in Sar.ta
Clara County. For some time the Santa Clara County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District has occupied the field of flood control . In the
above two mentioned fields neither agency has encroached upon the operations
of the other.
None of the above agencies has ever engaged in the program of im-
porting water, nor distributing water on a wholesale basis for municipal and
industrial use by means of water purification and surface distribution lines .
Much confusion has arisen over who should import water and why. One of
the basic arguments in favor of using the Santa Clara County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District as the importing agency, is that the Flood
Control District, as explained above,, is governed by the Board of Supervisors
who represent and are elected by all of the people of the County of Santa Clara
and is a proper body to supervise a County-wide water program and coordinate
it with other projects of County-wide interest . The Board would speak with
one voice for the County as a whole. The most prevalent argument against
using the Board of Supervisors is that the Board has many other County-wide
problems to consider and could not devote adequate time to the water program .
On the other hand, it is the feeling of some of the metropolitan areas that
their elected representatives have no voice in. either of the Boards whether it
be the Board of Supervisors or the independently elected boards of one of the
water co. servation districts . To retain the advantages of the County-wide
representation found on the Board of Supervisors and to eliminate the possi-
bility of the above mt- tioned disadvantages , is is recommended that an
advisory Santa Clara County Water Commission be created which would allow
for a more localized representation of all interested parties and at the same
time provide for final authority to rest in the hands of the Board of Supervisors .
The Water Commission should be large enough to allow for proper
7 .
A
localized representation, but not so large as to become unwieldly. Therefore,
the recommendation is that a nine-man committee be formed,, consisting of
representatives from each cityowning or operating a municipal water s; stern
P 9 1 Y
and the two water conservation districts . Function of the C:ommissior. would
be to consider proposals for maintenance and financing of new water salvage,
importation or wholesale distribution facilities, annual purchases of imported
water, water pricing proposals, budget review, bond proposals, public edu-
cation activities and so forth.
Those interested in ground water replenishment would be adequately
represented by the Cities of San Jose and Santa Clara along with the two
Water Conservation Districts , Those interested in surface delivered water
would be adequately represented by the Cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View,
Sunnyvale, Cupertino and Milpitas . There would thus be :.:.sated a Commission
that could devote full time to the water importation program and at the same
time the Board of Supervisors , as the ele,:ted representatives of all the people
of the County, would carry out the responsJbility of County-wide elected
officials . The creation of such a Commission would eliminate the need for
any new super agency and the expenses necessarily connected therewith such
as duplicate overlapping staffs , equipment, or administrative office space.
SECTION VI - FINANCING AND TAXATION
1 , The area in the N-orth County which will receive direct or indirect
benefit from existing conservation facilities or future import facilities should
be immediately formed by the Board of Supervisors into a Zone of Benefit.
2 . All future bond elections in the zone should be called by the Board
of Supervisors .
1 3 . All revenues derived from the sale of water, should be pooled to
pay off existing and future bonded indebtedness , continuing operation and
maintenance expenses in the North County Zone, and future contractual obli-
gations with the State of California and,/or the Bureau of Reclamation .
4 . Ad valorem taxes should be levied on land only and should be used
initially to pay off the difference between revenues and costs .
3 . Ad valorem tax levies (except as set forth in recommendation 6
below)should be levied by the Board of Supervisors .
6. The Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District should refrain
from levying future taxes (except an initial amount to be held in reserve for the
ensuing year's outstanding bonded indebtedness) .
7 . The Board of Supervisors should pay the Santa Clara Valley Water
Conservation District from revenues or taxes levied within the North County
Zone sufficient funds to pay off its outstanding bonded indebtedness and
properly maintain existing works owned by it and to be maintained by it in
the future.
8. Legislation should be adopted by the State Legislature which
would allow for the establishment of a water replenishment assessment in
the zone under the following conditions:
a) Metering of wells would be required upon adoption of
the legislation
b) Records of metered wells would be maintained and
analyzed for at least two years before levying any water
replenishment assessments
c) No water replenishment assessment program would
® be started without prior affirrnative vote of a majority
® of those voting in the zone
9 . if a water replenishment assess-.e-.t is adopted and approved it
should be : sed as a partial substitute for ad valorem taxes and ad valorem
taxes be reduced accordingly.
Or:_ of the most difficult problems relating to any public works con-
struction Grogram is that of financing. TKe goal should be one whereby all
those who -ece.ive benefit from the works to be constructed pay their fair
share. Phere are several shortcomings in the financial structure now used
to provide r==venues for the water program ir. _)anta Clara County . These
shortcomi -_ s are best illustrated by examples .
Example 1 . Certain areas within the .Tanta Clara Valley 'y".'ater Con-
servation District are, in addition to paying the land tax paid by veryone
in the District, also purchasing substantial water from the Hetch Hetchy
water system at prices in excess of $70 per acre--foot . The most extrerne
example of this is the southwest portion of the City of Milpitas . No water
is drawn from the underground by the Milpitas Water District, which uses
10010 of Hetch Hetchy water . The "-Aties of Sunnyvale and Mountain View
supplement their ground water with purchases from the Hetch Hetchy water
system. Paywents .in the form of taxes to the Santa Clara Valley Water Con-
servation District as well as payments to the Hetch Hetchy system amount
to a form of double taxation .
Example 2 . Some areas outside of the Santa Clara Valley Water Con-
servation District are receiving substantial benefits from the program of that
® district and are paying nothing for such benefits . The most easily recogniz-
able example of this fact is the area in and around Los Gatos . Lexington
Dam and the percolation downstream from the Dam in the bed of the Los Gatos
Creek undoubtedly is beneficial to the adjacent underground areas outside the
9 .
boundaries of the Water Conservation District. Areas such as these are
directly benefited from the available supply of water and also receive the
indirect benefits associated with such availability.
Example 3 . Certain hillside areas outside the boundaries of the
Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District are also being indirectly
subsidized by the taxpayers within. the Water Conservation District. The
recharge of the underground does not directly benefit these areas . However,
most of these areas are served by private water companies which draw their
water from the underground. In most instances this water is drawn from
areas within the Water Conservation District and piped into the hillside areas .
Water rates charged by these water companies are the same both within and
without the Water Conservation District, Therefore, a taxpayer wi shin the
Water Conservation District is paying the same water bill as the taxpayer
outside the Water Conservation District and in addition thereto is paying
taxes for the salvage of local waters .
How can these inequities be removed and this complex problem be
solved? The answer lies in the available legal machinery found in the Santa
Clara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Act, coupled
with the united cooperative action; of the two water conservation districts .
Pursuant to existing legislation , and without the Need for establishing another
overlapping agency or district, the Flood Control and Water Conservation
District could form a zone of benefit by resolution of the Board of Supervisors .
In the North County, this zone should include all the territory presently within
the Santa C13ra Valley Water Conservation District and all areas outside of
the District receiving direct or indirect benefits from either the existing program
or the future importation program. Plate I shows boundaries of the two Water
Conservation Districts and the proposed North County zone of benefit. Ad
valorem taxes could be levied in this zone to pay the costs of the existing
and ft..iture water program, at least until better legal machinery is devised as
® a possible substitute for ad valorem taxes .
■ The establishment and levy of taxes within, such a zone would not
remove all the inequities . The Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation
District now has certain outstanding bonded indebtedness and will require
certain annual tax levies for administrative, operation and maintenance pur-
poses . If the Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District were to con-
tinue to levy taxes to pay off its bonded indebtedness and operate and main-
tain the local salvage program while the Board of Supervisor s were levying
taxes within the Flood Control District zone of benefit to pay off the water im-
portation program, the taxpayers within the Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation.
District would still be doubly taxed because the Water Conservation District
tax would be in addition to the tax within the zone of benefit. This tax inequity
could be removed by an agreement between. the Santa Clara Valley Water Con-
servation District and the County-wide Flood Control District. By the terms
of such agreement, the Water Conservation District would agree to percolate
10.
all the waters imported by the Flood Control District, As consideration for
the use of Water Conservation District percolation facilities and the service
rendered by the Water Conservation District in using such facilities for per-
colation purposes, the Flood Control District would agree to pay the Water
Conservation District sufficient monies to meet out&tanding annual bonded
indebtedness along with administration, operation and maintenance costs .
Funds for such payments would be derived by the above mentioned ad valorem
tax levy within the Flood Control District zone of benefit. By using this
machinery, tax levies within the Water Conservation District boundaries , as
a separate tax levy, could be eliminated and payments for the total water
program would be spread by the use of ad valorem taxes over the larger F►Dod
Control District zone of benefit.
Certain revenues would be forthcoming to the Flood Control District
zone of benefit as a result of direct sales of water from the two lines des-
cribed above. Similarly, some sales of irrigation water would provicle
revenue to the Water Conservation District. Ad valorem taxes would be
levied in amounts which would supply the difference for annual costs of ex-
isting and future programs which are not paid for by these revenues .
Since there are many residents of Santa Clara County who would be
outside of the Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District boundaries yet
within the Flood Control District zone of benefit who would be receiving
benefits from the water program, it would be necessary that all bond elections
be held by the Board of Supervisors so that people in such areas would not be
deprived of their right to vote. An incidental but important benefit of having
all bond elections held by the Board of Supervisors is that bond sales and
bond retirement schedules could be established so that payments and tax levies
could be leveled out. There would be no peak period of taxation such as
might occur if two separate agencies were to vote their own bond elections
and then sell the bonds at the same time. The holding of bond elections by
the Board would not place undue power in the hands of the supervisors because
one of the functions of the Water Commission would be the determination of
what facilities should be built and the amount of the bonded indebtedness to
be incurred therefor. It is assumed that the representation by the various
interested agencies on that Commission would result in all differences of
opinion being solved at the Commission level . The holding of such bond
elections by the Board of Supervisors would be more in the nature of a minis-
terial function.
Another facet of the financing program centers around the type of ad
valorem tax to be levied and the possibility of a water-replenishment assess-
ment. If water is to be considered as a commodity then it should be priced
in accordance with the amount used, This is the method used bywholesale
agencies, and by retail agencies such as city water companies, and the San
Jose Water Works . The consumer is charged in accordance with the number
of cubic feet of water used.
t 11 .
A water-replenishment assessment is a method whereby wells are
metered and a charge is placed up,,n each acre-foot of water pumped from
the ground. The charge is made to cover the costs of replenishing the
ground water whether those costs arise from local salvage works or import-
ation works and distribution facilities . The assessment has been legally
upheld on the theory that it is in the nature of an excise tax. Charging
for water on the combinaLlon of revenues for direct sales from pipe lines
and a water-replenishment assessment for water pumped out of the ground
places all of the burden of paying for the water program on the water user.
It would be unnecessary under such a program to levy any ad valorem taxes .
However, there are two disadvantages to the water-replenishment assess-
ment theory. One, is that agriculture cannot afford to pay the same water
rates per unit of water used as can municipal, commerical or industrial users .
Secondly, there would be many acres of land in Santa Clara County which
would receive an increased indirect benefit by the mere availability of water
even though water was not being used on the property. It is felt that pay-
ment should be made for the economic benefit derived from ttie mere avail-
ability of water. Such benefits can be collected through only one method,
the levy of ad valorem taxes .
There are however, certain disadvantages to the exclusive use of
ad valorem taxes . First, a choice must be made as to whether the tax will
be levied 4,n land only or on the full tax base of land improvements and
personal property. There is not necessarily a direct relationship between
the increase in assessed valuation when improvements and personal prop-
erty are placed uFon land and the increased use of water. For example;
agricultural land using the normal amount of water could be improved bythe
construction of a warehouse. The total assessed value of such property
after construction could be quadrupled, while water use would probably
decrease. In this example, if the total tax base were to be used the water
cost for such parcel of land would be more than quadrupled, but it is hard
to conceive that the combination of direct and indirect benefit resulting from
the water program received by that property would also be quadrupled. An
ad valorem tax on land only eliminates some of these difficulties . When
property is urbanized, the land itself is assessed at a higher rake than before
development. If the tax were on land only in the above example, the increase
in water charges would not be as far out of line as if the tax were on land, im-
provements, and personal property.
Agricultural land is presently assessed at somewhere around $300 per
acre. Medium-class residential acreage is assessed at $3 , 600 per acre or
more. Water use varies from farm to farm and from house to house depending
upon the crops grown, farming practices of the operator and habits of home-
owner. However, in general it can be said that the average acre of agricultural
land will use about the same amount of water as the residential acre. Assuming
this to be true, the owner of residential property whose land is assessed at
twelve times the rate of the agricultural acre, is paying twelve times the amount
per acre-foot of water consumed.
12 .
If all water revenues other than direct pipeline sales of municipal
and industrial water are derived from tax levies on land only, water would
be considered solely as a governmental service and not as a commodity as
it would be if all revenues where derived from a water-replenishment assess-
ment. If all revenues were (',erived from a water-replenishment assessment
agriculture would be driven out of business in Santa Clara County. It is for
these complex reasons that the recommendation is made that all ad valorem
tax levies be on land only and that they be used initially to get the program
under way. However, it is also recommended that a water-replenishment
assessment be given serious consideration. This could be one of the major
topics of discussion by the Water Commission. A step-by-step process
could be adopted in establishing any water-replenishment assessment. First
A should be: studied by the Commission . As a practical matter, legislation
to establish a water-replenishment assessment could not be submitted to
Sacramento prior to 1963 . Upon adoption by the State Legislature of a water-
replenishment assessment within Santa Clara County, wells could be metered
and accurate records of water uses gathered for a year or two. Upon analysis
of the records a proper pricing method could be established in Santa Clara
County which would make partial use of the water-replenishment assessment
and at the same time proper use of the ad valorem tax levy on land only to
ensure that those receiving benefits from the water salvage and import- program
who are not necessarily using water still pay their proportionate share of Cle
Costs .
SECTION III - PRICING
1 . Municipal and industrial water served from pipe lines should be
priced at a rate per acre-foot competitive with the average cost of producing
well water in the areas served by `he pipe lines .
2 . If a water-replenishment assessment is established, municipal
and industrial water served from pipe lines should be priced at the rate deter-
mined by recommendation number one above , plus the amount of the water-
replenishment assessment.
3 . Irrigation wagers served by surface canals or pipes should be priced
at a rate per acre-foot that would consider -
a) Agriculture's a'-)ility to pay
b) The cost of substitute methods such as wells
c) Tax levies being paid by agriculture
d) Water-replenishment assessments .being paid by
agriculture if in existence
What the best method of pricing water in North Santa Clara County?
Should the residents in the areas receiving municipal and industrial water pay
13 ,
for all the costs of importing, treating and distributing the water to be served
from the South Bay Aqueduct ? The answer to the second question is - No.
The water which would be served directly out of the pipe lines to F-310 Alto,
Monta Vista and Evergreen would be used in lieu of the water that those areas
are now pumping from the underground. By encouraging use of the pipe line
service, the overdraft on the underground will be relieved. This will make
more water available in the underground to the benefit of the remaining areas
in northern Santa Clara County. For this benefit, residents of the remaining
areas should pay-for their proportionate cost of such lines . Secondly, as far
as the pipe lines are concerned there is little, if any, difference between a
pipe line constructed to deliver purified water and a pipe line constructed to
deliver untreated water to the percolation fields The main elements of
difference between a system of percolation and pumping as compared to a
system of treatment -Ind distribution by surface lines , are as follows:
a) Imported water used for municipal and industrial
purposes must be treated
b) Percolated water must be pumped out of the ground
The basic idea behind the recommended rich. structure is to make
pricing
both systems relatively equal and competitive, that is to say that the price
of municipal and industrial water served from pipe lines from a Milpitas
Treatment Plant would be priced at a rate per acre-foot which would equal the
cost of well installation, operation, maintenance and pumping costs in those
areas where surface distribution lines can replace the use of wells , Prelim-
inary investigations have shown that the cost of producing water by the me-:ins
of pump installation, operation and maintenance, runs to approximately $20
per ac-e-foot. This price should be established at the rate per acre-foot for
water sold from pipe lines . It would then be just as cheap to buy water as
to pump it . The encouraged use of distributicn lines will make more water
available in the areas that have good underground water supply. This in turn
will shorten the pump lift and pumping costs will be reduced for those who use
well water. In addition, under the zone of benefit theory hereinabove proposed,
those areas being served by surface distribution lines would also be contributing
to the cost of supplying, distributing , and percolati.ng underground waters .
Although further investigation is needed to determine the cost of
producing ground water from wells , for purposes of illustration we can accept
the cost of $20 per acre-foot . By pricing water at $20 per acre-foot, which
would be sold at such price from the surface distribution lines after treatment,
the probabilities are that those areas which have the availability of service
from such pipe lines would switch over to the use of such pipe line rather than
replace old wells or construct new.ones . In such areas ., although the cost of
water would remain approximately constant , no large capital investments would
be needed for the construction of new wells . Such pricing plan would encourage
`he use of treated municipal and industrial water on the north and east sides
of North Santa Clara County. This in turn would tend to increase the use of
14 ,
such lines which in turn, because of the greater volume in use, would reduce
the treatment cost and unit cost per acre-foot of water delivered through such
lines. The reduced cost per acre-foot of imported water would be reflected
in a lower tax rate. The greater recharge of the underground would be re-
flected in a saving in pumping costs in those areas depending on wells .
The same principle would apply if a water-replenishment assessment
were to be established. For example; assume that the water-replenishment
assessment was established at $7 .50 per acre-foot. If such were the case
the cost of producing ground water would increase $7 .50 per acre-foot to
$27, 50. Similarly, the price of water delivered from the surface lines should
® be increased from $20 to $27 .50 per acre-foot. Again the idea is to make the
ground water prices and pipe line prices on an equal and competitive basis .
One of the most important ideas behind such a pricing program is the
elimination of the requirement of legislation and police action which would
otherwise become necessary for the management of the ground water supply.
Under the pricing program recommended herein, the replenishment or with-
drawals from the underground could be regulated by slight modifications in
the pacing structure. Economics rather than legal action would be the con-
trolling factor. No staff would be required to investigate breaches of the law
and substantial indirect savings would be accomplished by the elimination of
costs connected with legal enforcement and court actions .
The remaining pricing problem Would be that of establishing a price
for untreated water served by surface canals or pipes to be used for irrigation
purposes . The amount of water used and to be used in this manner is and
will be relatively small . It would be used only for agricultural purposes, and
should be entitled to the same type of agricultural subsidy to be obtained by
agricultural interests . A price for this water could be established by the
County Water Commission taking into considerption the following factors:
a) Agriculture's ability to pay
b) The cost of substitute methods such as wells
c) The tax structure being paid by residents of the zone
of benefit
d) The existence of a water-replenishment assessment,
if any
SECTION VIII - FA.. 1ITIES TO BE CONSTRUCTED
1 . The following facilities should be constructed as soon as possible:
a) First stage of a water purification and treatment plant
in the Milpitas area
b) First stage of a distribution line for treated water from
the Milpitas area to the Palo Alto and Morita Vista areas
15 .
c) Fula construction of a distribution line for treated
water from the Milpitas area along Piedmont and White
Roads to Aborn Road in the Evergreen area
d) A distribution line for untreated water (with two
pumping facilities) to carry approximately 25,800 acre-feet
per year from the Coyote-Alamitos Canal to the Capitan-
cillos Percolation Ponds, and 30,400 acre-feet per year
towards Los Gatos Creek
e) Improvement of the Coyote-Alamitos Canal to a cap-
acity of approximately 104,800 acre-feet per year
2 . Upon determination of the economic feasibility by the Bureau of
Reclamation of the Pacheco Pass Route, one of the following facilities should
be constructed:
a) The improvement of tl:e Coyote Canal from Anderson
Reservoir to the Coyote-Alamitos Canal,
b) A conduit from the terminus of the South Bay Aqueduct
to the Coyote-Alamitos Canal
3 . After determination by the Bureau of Reclamation of the economic
feasibility of the Pacheco Pass Route and the terminal delivery point thereof
(i,e, at the base of Anderson Dam or in the reservoir itself), a distribution
O line Should be constructed to serve the purposes as set forth in the Morgan
Hill project in the report dated July 12, 1960, of the Santa Clara Valley Water
Conservation District.
4 . Upon determination that State and local health authorities will
approve underground recharge by use of reclaimed effluent, a facility should
be built for tranr-porting the reclaimed effluent from the San Jose Sewage Plant
to Penitencia Creek as set forth in the report to the Santa Clara Valley Water
Conservation. District dated July 12 , 1960.
It is not the purpose of this report to be another discussion of engin-
eering plans . It will be necessary to prepare an engineer's report setting
forth engineering plans in detail, including bond retirement schedules to show
the tax rates required for facilities proposed for construction. However, some
engineering data is included herein, so that a complete plan can be considered.
Existing reports on various methods of constructing distribution lines bothfor
treated and percolated 'water are based on different water demands. To main-
tain consistency within this report, the planning period and water demand of
the Bureau of Reclamation were used to set forth a long-range construction
program in order to arrive at the most sensible plan for distributing both treated
and percolated water. Consideration was first given to the fact that the Review
Board has determined that the cheapest way to distribute water to the North
County cities is by extension of the South Bay Aqueduct. Consideration was
a 16 .
also given to the Review Board's finding that one treatment plant for the dis-
tribution of purified water would be more economical than several individual
plants . The third factor considered was the finding of the Bureau of Reclam-
ation that of the 270,000 acre-feet to be imported by year 2020, 150,000
acre-feet would require treatment and distribution by a surface system.
Attention was therefore focused on the best method of distributing 150, 000
acre-feet of treated water. Since the cities of' Milpitas , Sunnyvale, Mountain
View, Palo Alto, Los Altos , Los Altos Hills and Cupertino and the Monta Vista
area will require treated water it is a logical conclusion that the single cent-
ralized treatment plant should be placed at the terminal of the South Bay Aque-
duct where untreated water will be received. Water treated in such a plant
would be put to immediate use in the City of Milpitas with frequent turnouts
all along the line to the Palo Alto and Monta Vista areas . Studies of the
Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District indicate
that areas which can be economically ser-red from such a line will use, by
year 2020, approximately 115 , 000 acre-feet . It therefore became necessary
to determine in what other areas the remaining water which will require surface
distribution could be economically distributed . The Review Board's report
discloses that thedrafts for San ?ose, Santa Clara and the municipalities in
the southwest portion of the pressure area can be met by recharge in the
forebay. No mention is specifically made of the area between Milpitas and
Evergreen. This area is on the eastern side of the pressure area and contains
the foothills along the eastern side of the north Santa Clara County. Histor-
ically the Evergreen area has been short of water. In addition to ti,e water
shortage in certain areas of the east side, urban development is -.o•:: occurring
on the hillsides . Existing service of the east side area from a ground water
supply has required many wells to be placed in the vicinity of the i:.cyote
Creek with water being pumper up to the areas of development on, the hillsides .
Findings of the Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District indicate that by year 2020 approximately 40 , 000 acre-feet of water
can be economically served from an east side line to the Evergreen area .
This area could also be served by use of the central treatment plant in the
Milpitas area , Service from such a plant would eliminate all pumping of
treated water or. the valley floor and should materially reduce pumping costs
to the hillside areas . it is for the above reasons that it is recommended that
lines be built from Milpitas to Palo Alto and Monta Vista , from Milpitas to the
Evergreen area and that the f<rst stage of a treatment plant be located in the
Milpitas area . Tentative location of the treatment plant and the recommended
routes for the distribution lines are shown on Plate 2 = Estimated costs of the
routes consider-d or recommended are shown on the plates .
In determining the best distribution system for percolated waters , it.
was necessary to reanalyze all of the existing proposals for such distribution
due to the fact that amounts of water to be distributed by percolation from
such systems were not based on the findings of the Bureau of Reclamation, to
the effect that 120) , 000 acre-feet of imported water could be percolated in the
North County. Records of annual yields of reservoirs in the Coyote, Guadalupe
17 .
and Los Gatos watersheds were supplied by the Santa Clara Valley Water Con-
servation District . Also supplied were percolation capacities of present and
future percolation areas of the water conservation district Using the above
data, it was determined that a disttr.bution system capable of percolating
167, 700 acre-feet of water annually 1,47, 700 local salvage - 120,000 imported)
in the Coyote, Guadalupe and Los Gatos watersheds would be necessary.
By determining which percolation ponds could be fed by gravity, a plan for
distributing such water which would require a minimum amount of pumping was
devised. Such plan with percolation pond capacities is shown on Plate 3 .
In order to effectuate the plan for percolation, several distribution routes were
considered. The recommended route is shown on Plate 2 .
Assuming Pacheco Pass water to be the source of percolated water, the
recommended plan calls for improving the Coyote Canal to the Coyote-Alamitos
Canal to a capacity of 106, 300 acre-feet per year. If the South Bay Aqueduct
is the source, an east valley pipeline from Milpitas to the Coyote-Alamitos
Canal would be used. Either source would require improving the Coyote-
Alamitos Canal to a capacity of 104 , 800 acre-feet per ,year, installing a
pumping facility that would lift 56,200 acre-feet per year against a 44-foot
dynamic head, which is a sufficient lift to get water into the Capitancillos
Percolation Ponds, and at Capitanciilos Percolation Ponds another pumping
facility would be installed to lift 30,400 acre-feet against 167 feet of dynamic
head so that water could he discharged into Los Gatos Creek and the percol-
ation ponds therein , The recommended plan has the following advantages
over the other plans considered
a) It takes advantage of existing rights of way now
owned by the Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation
District
b) Until imported water is acquired, no improvements
will be necessary in the existing canals
c) After imported water is acquired, the canals could
be unproved where necessary by enlarging siphons
and road crossings , Such facilities could at that time
be installed to the capacity of 104: 800 acre-feet per
year
d) When water purchases are increased to a point
where the canal itself could not handle the full cap-
acity, the canal could at that time be improved to the
capacity of the siplions
e) Pumping costs are reduced , Other routes require
a pump lift of over 250 feet of dynamic head for amounts
up to 53, 500 acre-feet, The proposed plan lifts the
total amount of water (56, 200 acre-feet) against the
lesser dynamic head of 44 feet. The amount of water
which needs to be pumped towards Los Gatos Creek
(30, 400 acre-feet) is t :e only amount lifted against
18e
the larger dynamic head of 167 feet.
f) Mileage of the more expensive pipe facilities to
be installed is 6.0 miles as compared to pipe mile-
ages up to 18.6 miles on other routes .
g) Initial construction costs are greatly reduced and
improvements to the existing canals can be staged
as set forth above.
h) Combined construction and annual maintenance
and operation costs are less than ir__ the other routes
considered
i) There would be no necessity for maintaining a
water surface at an elevation of approximately 575
feet in Anderson Reservoir for the plans shown on
Plates 24 through 27 . This elevation. would be nec-
essary to allow that type of plan to function under
gravity and eliminate pumping costs into Anderson
Reservoir. The recommended plan would allow for
the emptying of Anderson Reservoir each year if desired.
By lowering the water surface in Anderson Reservoir,
substantial evaporation losses would be eliminated
and greater storage would be available for flood control
purposes at the beginning of each winter season
Facilities recommended for immediate construction can be put to both
immediate and ultimate use without waiting for a final determination, of the
Bureau of Reclamation relative to the economic feasibility or the terminal point
of the Pacheco Pass Route. They are also th - facilities that are the most
economical to construct irrespective of importation route .
Staged construction of the distribution line to the Palo Alto and Monta
Vista areas is recommended because such construction will result in a cheaper
cost per acre-foot. Capital costs on staged construction are greater than
under full construction. However, each stage can be financed over a shorter
period with a resulting saving in interest costs . Pipe sizes in most areas of
this line would be fairly large if built to its full capacity. During the early
years there would be wasted unused capacity on which interest would be paid.
The recommended line to Evergreen, as compared with the line to Palo
Alto and Monta Vista, is more economically financed by constructing it to its
full capacity and financing it over a longer period of years . This is true
because the line is basically of smaller pipe sizes and relatively small in-
creases in pipe size over that for stage construction result in full capacity
pipes at only a slight increase of initial cost.
From the above analysis came the recommendation for immediate con-
struction of the first stage of a pipe line to Palo Alto and Monta Vista, first
stage of the water treatment plant, full construction of a pipe line to the
19 ,
Evergreen area, construction of the pumping facilities and pipe lines from the
end of the Coyote-Alamitos Canal to Los Gatos Creek, and the ultimate im-
provement of the Alamitos Canal itself. Plans recommended for immediate
construction are shown on Plate 2 .
V
The improvement of the Coyote Canal from Anderson Reservoir to the
Coyote-Alamitos Canal should be delayed until the determination of the econ-
omic feasibility by the Bureau of Reclamation of the Pacheco Pass Route. If,
because of federal subsidisation, water for percolation purposes can be pur-
chased more economically from the Bureau of Reclamation, then the Coyote
Canal should be improved. If at that time the Pacheco Pass Route proves to
be economically unfeasible or even if feasible and San Benito or Santa Cruz
Counties are not financially able to contribute their share of costs for a Pacheco
Pass facility, it may become necessary to construct the conduit recommended
In the report of the Review Board from the terminal of the South Bay Aqueduct.
By terminating such conduit at the Coyote-Alamitos Canal instead of at ele-
vation of 350 feet on Coyote Creek , costs of such a conduit could be substan-
tially reduced frorn the costs used by the Review Board in making their com-
parative analysis of Pacheco Pass and youth Bay Aqueduct. These two alternates
are shown on Plate 4 .
The pipe line proposed as th<< Morgan Hill Project in the July 12 , 1960
report of the Santa Clara Valley Water conservation District should await
determination by the Bureau of Reclamation of the Pacheco Pass Project and
the terminal delivery point thereof. if the economically feasible terminal
delivery point is in the reservoir itself, the project as proposed would certainly
be proper. However, if the Pacheco Pass report of the Bureau of Reclamation
recommends construction of a pipe li-e or c aiiul through the area ro oe served
by the Morgan Hill project such area could be directly served by the Pacheco
Pass Project. Therefore, any project built locally to serve the area in question
should be sized and located in such a manner that it would fit in to, or be a
part of, the Pacheco Pass importatlo , rout(, . By awaiting the report of the
Bureau of Reclamation the possllblr; ungc:r of c oublte _-xpenditurc.• of public funds
would be eliminated .
The pipe line proposed as ti Berryessa Pr,rcolation Project in the July
12 , 1960 report of the Santa Clara Valley Water Cor.servation District needs
further determination . As pointed out by the Review Board, the use of reclaimed
effluent is the cheapest source of water. This water could be used for per-
colation purposes into Penitencia Creek , as set forth in -the report to the Santa
Clara Valley Water Conservation District . A study made by the Santa Clara
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has determined that im-
ported water could be transported from the to }=:.rius of the South Bay Aqueduct
to Penitencia Creek in amounts of 15 , 000 acre-feet per year for an average cost
of about $1 .82 per acre-foot. However, to this cost must be added the cost
of importing the water. The importation costs alone are higher by far than the
costs of transporting and pumping the reclaimed effluent . The logical result
20.
therefore, is that the use of reclaimed effluent should not be discouraged.
However, before funds are expended for the construction of such a facility,
it should be determined that State and local health authorities would approve
the underground recharge by such a method. It is therefore recommended
that construction of such a facility be delayed until such approval is given.
If the use of reclaimed effluent for percolation purposes will not be permitted,
then the portion of the line to Evergreen from Milpitas to Penitencia Creek
could be built as a double conduit with one conduit used for percolation pur-
poses. When municipal and industrial demand requires the use of such
pipeline, further consideration could be given to the way in which water
would be supplied to the Penitencia Percolation Ponds
The Morgan Hill and Berryessa Projects are shown on Plate 4 . A
line from the South Bay Aqueduct for percolating 15 , 000 or 20, 000 acre-feet
per year in Penitencia Creek is shown on Plate 7 . Other routes considered
which led to the final recommendation are shown on Plates 5 through 30 .
SECTION IX - CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
I . The Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District, and the South
Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District should be responsible for the
maintenance and operation of all existing water distribution facilities used for
percolation and irrigation purposes within their respective areas ,
2 . The Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water Conservation Dis-
trict should be responsible for the construction, maintenance and operation of
all new wholesale distribution facilities and water treatment plants .
Recommendations on these matters are almost self-explanatory. The
purpose behind the recommendations is to create a division of responsibility
and authority in those areas wh a division is proper, Under previous recom-
mendations, the Board of Supervisors would hold bond elections for all new
facilities . It would follow that the. Board would be responsible for the expen-
diture of bond funds for the construction of new facilities . This responsibility
would not prevent contractual relationships between the Board and other water
agencies relating to maintenance and operation by such other agencies of the
facilities to be constructed within areas where there is common responsibility
1 by the Board and such agency to the same people _
SEC:TION X - SOUTH COUNTY
1 . When the South County receives benefit from a source of imported
water the area of benefit within the South County should be annexed to the
North County zone of benefit so that the same procedures and practices will
apply in all areas of the County benefited by a water program
21 .
The South County is now providing Ats own local water salvage program
through the works constructed by the South Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation
District. As pointed out in the report of the Review Board, present water supplies
in the South County are sufficient for some years to come. Residents in the
South County are now paying for their local water costs and would not receive
any direct benefit from transporting water into the North County by the South
Bay Aqueduct. The earliest conceivable time for the South County to benefit
from a water importation program would be when water is imported through the
Pacheco Pass Route. When imported water becomes available to the South
County and all areas of the County will be obtaining water both from local
sources and imported sources, there would seem to be little value in keeping
separate water systems in the North County and South County . By annexing
the area into the zone of benefit of the North County the South County could
share the wealth of assessed valuation to be found in the North County and the
North County would share in the revenues derived from any water-replenishment
assessment which might be adopted in the South County.
SECTION XI - CONCLUSION
The recommendations and discussions set forth above point out the
major problems to be solved and the complexities of the Santa Clara County
water problem. The recommendations are based on the theory that water is
water whether such water is directly percolated without being stored in reser-
voirs at no cost to anyone, whether it be stored in reservoirs and later percol-
ated resulting in a payment by local interests for the construction of a storage
facility, or whether it be imported water with payments being made by local
people for the importation and distribution facilities . Water is water - nothing
more or less . All sources , whether local or imported should be pooled for use
in the zone of benefit. Similarly, all revenues whether from sales of water,
taxes , or water-replenishment assessments should be pooled and applied tolhe
costs of the water program.
® Complex as the water problem may be in Santa Clara County, the above
® recommendations and the reasons therefor, do provide answers to all of these
major problems and set forth a step-by-step plan of attack that can, with co-
operative and united action of all cities and water agencies involved, bring a
solution to the problem in Santa Clara County. No new agency need be created .
Existing agencies can do the job. The plan proposed herein is one whereby all
of the various political entities interested in the water program of Santa Clara
County can retain their own political identities and continue in their existing
operations . For the good of the County as a whole, all of such agencies must
1 get together and concentrate all of their efforts . This is accomplished by
having each agency subject itself to the review of the recommended Water Com-
mission upon which each agency, except the Board of Supervisors, will have
representation. The proposed program can be started without any immediate
or controversial legislative amendments . Existing legislation is available to
accomplish practically all of the purposes set forth in the recommendations .
i
1 2� .
It Zhould be repeated that time is of the essence. Imported water can be
delivered into Santa Clara County in approximately four years . It will take
that period of time to properly study, design, construct and have ready for
operation, a water treatment plant in the vicinity of Milpitas . Action cannot
be delayed. Existing local agencies can do the job now. The will to co-
operate must be demonstrated by all of the water agencies and water users in
Santa Clara County. This report provides a guide to this necessary cooperation.
It is urgently recommended that the following initial steps be taken
within the following tentative time schedule.
1 . Adopt this report as to principle and policy now
2 . Complete negotiations with the State on the South
Bay Aqueduct by September 1961,
3 . Engage an engineering firm for treatment plant design
and consulting service by February 23 , 1961
4 . Form a zone of benefit and appoint the Water Com-
mission by March 31 , 1901
5 . Augment the wholesale water division of the Santa
Clara County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District by August 1 , 1961
6 . Take all other steps necessary to implement the
program for financing and bond election purposes by
December 15 , 1961
® 23 .
®err su m m r manM w m . ® m M Mon
PLATE L C G C 9 D
C ---- CONSTRUCTION COST IN $ 1000
A -_-- ANNUAL COSTS IN 6 1000
F - --- FLOW IN 1000 ACRE FEET (ANNUAL_)
P - --- DESIGN * PERCENTAGE OF AVERAGE ANNUAL FLOC✓
C L -- - - CLASS (PIPE)
G - --_ GRADIFENT DESIGN (FOR PIPE CLASS)
A - - - AAXIAUA HEAD DESIGN (FOR PIPE CLASS)
R/V - - - - RIGHT OF VAY
PEC. 12 _ - PERCOLATION CAPACITY 12,000 ACRE FEET (ANNUAL)
Y 10 - - - - YIELD 10,000 ACRE FEET (ANNUAL)
s - - - - NOT INCLUDED
- - - - TOTAL
NI - - - - NOTE
%10 -► FLOW% 10, 000 ACRE FEET (ANNUAL)
CANAL.
CANAL IAAPROVEAENT
-®- PIPELINE , GRAVITY FLOC/
®- -- PIPELINE , PUAP LIFT
® W. T. - VATER TREATMENT PLANT
0 R. R. - REGULATING RESERVOIR
IN P. S. - PUAPING STATION
TURNOUT - T. O.
r PERCOLATION POND , 5ED
7;
.3 0 V 451, 4C
tA o 3 100
3
'I S 03 V), ;t SV !%4 �,
I
a tAO tA(10 C,
A 0 tA
C,
if 0�) 000 IA
0
rot fob
TA c kc
41"
.It
•
0 D
'Ids
0
'30011
,403
01
LN
060
P6
Ar
wo to
so
go
go
r r.' ty,. I. [ .tl.r ..(�Vf,j11� ♦ \' t �r-v—Tal—.
To Accompany RoPori
it
SPECIAL VATiR COAAITTEE
1 � s• �' r.: �+y\ t • o<l SA N T A CLAAA ;.0UNTV t1000 CONTROL
�l `♦"r I )! `°� �)r 't� <� ` WATER CONSERV4TlON DISTRICT
rf8AUAAv 1951
me
N), 68 180 1 1984 5
® 13 180 A 1 ,329 73.2' � ' �' ) � �• � a
40 180 fed 3,342 177 2
76 100 - VT 6.550 s ♦., ' ter :
o R R 2 2 0 0 4 0 7.3 •° `T t _s��
—' 24,81 1 1,242.2 \� .• l`- \� \' .. ... , ;`,.
3 (0 (30,4) 125 /A 2,124 306.4 � �� ♦ � O)1 v � �� 1 �
7 � r
ro - !04,8 125 1 ,450 74.5
-� 3,574 380.9
Y z 28,385 1,623. 1
N: BINDER TREATAENT PLA01 ANNUAL COSTS AAINTENANCE AND OPER-
ATIONS NOT INCLUDED. Ply>=F 1 vTl/IA'iE (i=OR 1001 DESIGN COABINED MITN •�' '°F .a
REGULATING RESERVOIR) AA1 „a-F APPROXIAATELY 8-9Y IN CONST"'tUCTION
COST PLUS ADDITIONAL SAVING iN TREATAIEk!T. DETAILED PROFESSIONAL STUDY
NEEDED. _
i
V OE -A-AlN
r�. .> �li'JN 1dd0
5 ON 0 d
d 4C
Oi t;9i y i.Z'1fli0�� (11tlU'�1��J i
�" "�� `'t•��'„�. �` ':,�'� �~'` �' t.i 0 �_ L t� 6'2 N�10i��3S��i0n��SQ� ' �
N�• "° 9� 0 � 0 fl� lfl p0 �� �,
J
q9 0 b ?
' 1 � ,. '*.. � 11 ., �r ��.,-;., r <? �'•'. ,°�� t ;. '"', spa•p.°
• �Qr�+ �'� � , -.r. fit.
ti �,1 4 ,��0�)}�Yy <,,�i', 1 7 i � •,t , t �` ` r>) i . � an\ � i, >• ) a�`
q V O*'tl O1
is's
'Al
'3—
O
t COO
�� �` � � !' � �.,1.y+..�� �� � ��"'�� { ., w•v��� ° .-+rye
4k
� i � 7 � � • � a by ,�.� .�C"'.-..---.. r. � � �
QQlt
40
pup
'
i
i
SPECIAL EXPLANATION - Plates S through 30
The following plates show studies which led to the final recommend-
ation for routes shown on Plate 2 . Some of the studies were purely expari-
mental and were made prior to announcement by the Bureau of Reclamation
of the water demand for Santa Clara County. Some, therefore, are not
consistent with the Bureau's conclusion, but provided sufficient information
to eliminate need for further present study. They may provide a basis for
consideration of other alternates if percolation of reclaimed effluent is not
permitted or for future works required by ever-changin5 -onditions .
e
i
00
so
so
Je
PLAN
COUate �AY�
{
�Rv �looD coNrRol
..�
1 '�i � t •- ` i, .�-� n SQN[P GIgkP Cpr3D N p157RICT
SERVATtO
C R Q U A Q V , ;3 5
' y 4nJ bow � .`n. Y=i .� � :^:: � t •
• � � L. f.fv tgrlD
5
t
YAa 1`. .. ., i► r..., .4 f J e ��� y/// c,
00
a>r IS � ' ^, s *il v► � - ;CALL IN MILES
V �t. q, I � t �\
y.
Kolb._� {..u. .tW - •'jf Mv�le.�..•ck'Y ��:.�( • , _
\ U N 16I[D COUNTY WATIR ®LAN
TO Accompany RepoO
of
SPt CIA L VAT4R. COAAITTkt
`' \ _ "'• °o� S A N T A C L A R A COUNTY t L OO D CONTROL
/6- \may WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
`t� F 9 R U A R Y 1961
r ■ C L RJ
0 26 150 G 3.305 R/W
02, 3 0 i 5 0 G 3 j 53 :,�., •rl �, \ \
.f
i e
N ' ;} aE SIGNED I Qk f uI URF LXI ENSIGN
v �
44
00
P } 1 �� � j`/ �l.v\Y�ntA�,�. \^\ e....�^ .r ,.J�.'d• a.. •. � cJ l+lY,,
1 �
.,� l ! `� .i •. �,.. ,.,-,: ` � ;. •� ^ ' „ Ply�., _
V ^d 6 '� i ���.vP'' .;v - , �,.--,.11f '„a''\' ;. {�y `,_.}--..' .• ,,r�"'l'e"", ,91 t 4�
A��� � OH'1 S � ' ,,, . �?rYf��,,� ^•��a��'q i¢R. �}� {,1� � � .�t + ���•-: � � a�C,.r .1 � •
��1 yOs�V V,v b 1��� J .:.�,N r, "�;:� � 'rv,'!'.r':k'`�•�1�i1"���'}�� ,� '- .,.�
t
nog a ,� ` `' %
,oa p a It .
y 6i: go
co
\ Q
I two
�C ono C3 �, a
Is
TA
\� � �' •a yam. �r � L�`,. � f.-_ .rJ . .r. '� "'
'�� r'r ..•�� �1,�Y( ��V �•ti. . �.y..w!� }�., P� tW•�soa�'' J'ti
u �.t � ,"� \ e { •• ♦ ..Rip" .
1 �,1�n 1� �'d�. `•' � nt y t to �'P I r -. { `r,
01
3� v � tt
vod
'1S
to to to
00 00 00 wo
to 00
00
$ ,
ti w> �orr.rr , I
LOW
VIP
mot.:.. ;c1
14I1 ♦1' I� ., \ •..`` SCALI IMMILLS
U N I F 16 D COUNTY WATER PLAN
To AccomPonY Repo!
of
s SPtCIAL VATbR COAAITTLL
t lad � "�.,.r ' ._� y ; • u �: \ \`e, S A N T A CI.ARA CTV ;LOOOCONTROL
AND
+mw
\'IwATL11 C0N5ERVAYION DISTRICT
R U A R V, I a 6 1
All� J i
It
y" 4l }:
1. f
t
� 1 52 150 /n 3,656
52 150 /r1 3,372 •1) � � "t�
- N •1) LOV TERAINAL FAUCET PRESSURE _1
i
�� ,`' 4�T C•
JN
j•.. •'.t I t �.... A •� N - r.
3ayTtn •a � 1 �4.tY"'\P' p 0.. , SCALE 14MILE3
O 1 2 J
~� � 1' +• v • � F 1 I � i lr •� � � ( �:r.,` � I KILL.�..L—_yam.
Jl
�� UNIFIED COUNTY WATER PLAN
To A cc o m P o n y R r
t
Ilk
of
..� r� `. 3 .. -^ �\ SPACIAL VAT4 R COAAITTtl
SANTA CLARA CO
:oJ,wte•^�`-� � �r 1. :y_� �YL� t •' - �� UNTv FLOOD CONTROL
IWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
,� •. t`+ 1 .. jl I B R U A R Y 1961
A
L
P C L
r'I (D 38 150 2,890
�2 14 150 AA
IN
;3 y►, ,w i �� �.tYa! {�' ,'•. �,;S •` 1�fir' F� 5C ALa IN gIl.CS
J { '
z „•
n 'S TM j ,`�.,, • ,�..� �t' UNIFIED C®tidlTY Wl4T Id
PLAN
•yu.o ; �)�h + 1 I� To ACco mpany R•Pof!
of
A, i"(• ,i'� _x ,.. . 1 ,., ' •. ..... . SPt CIAl VAT4R C0AAMLL
S A N T A C L A R A COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
J• 'l �a
• d �i—. �:, ,, �1w4TER AND
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
R U A Ft 1961
r iP C �. , .y ,- •-- .
� Q 90 125 G i,i 36 •`L,f�.`� .�r:}.,, � ,l a" �. �i. � \���
2O 90 1 2 S G 7,307
.�• r
't,
too
:''` �t rat � "�;� � ,; .. ,�,�..•F` .'
`, 1.� �' ,� "°r' ».... �+ `�� � •.., \ ',\
n tl 0 � f �j�tlK` 'wt �x`j+y'^' v; '`1 `�������""l, •iH� e �"� 't
x R�tl N p 7 5 ^oo.x - M �~•• P. �x' �X xf*;e'�.�3 *- '..��, "��c x i ,, •-+�� - � Ott •x� �x C.~1�
1e6 tlt�g35 tllNtl
15,Q Np\ SfNno' �titl 1��agdS taxt `~ . l i� V �`71b ' 00011
,.
ry0 7 �1
,atl l y 4 �o of 4
F Olt
fill to
to
s
S a - @
ap
4C
Al
i� �� t« `` � ,�` ,��.. �.-.i+-�.,y,fly l ''�•�•. :,,f ` ♦.t
r
ten,.
g, A-d Y N p 7 its n.uJ ° `".! ti r . to '» 7
03
01
110
solo
«®
y � �
• ty, .� `_ kit Yt !
•-.. '^`, � �aye � �t fi .'^ / `'�..
g 9 t tl M b l S N tl L 1 S »•o r ' « y ;Ao F{ h 4 • ��, . } M p1 o F> '.
ld ad 17 LN 3 br 1, a y �,.► 9:.r ! rt,.
L S`p P10 N(NO� V pr ,r,� dS
'Nola �V O� O 9v Gl, ° �- ` ; •t.. .,' . ,.off �,.;'p{�r ,S'• ..
Oast
lid
c+ to
so
so so
to go
.rr
6 %A
L 5 Zy Q6 @
/' ��� �• .'��.. _y�`�� -1 ... inp.,�• .lie-.��
r
i
.:1 .t -"" .`";- `1� >` :'�IqF �`1 yp."er 1 �t.'tRr "Fv,�re..+�• +--,-
•
r
A�" Old ti bl
o' L.V S 'Yop�.. '+ �+ ttlaL�\,- t^^+^,>>- \F' ,Y"� � ����••" '� t< <v '4. Ste+ Y }�:..,
+ S '/ ♦s' ? to
ts
,0��1ty�'1t03 l ��1n _ • ,;. .�` ?" , ."y8 +, ' „r�°:s sF=+.v "'''
A•g ��0� ~ tt '
to
so
so
110
go
so to
. l
12
•��a}d ttT�I V � y1� , l\\ t
N" / tl 4 { r,. ' ,.i.•a T� t�
SCALI IN MIl.L3
O I 2
U H I i1[R COU14TV WATER PLAN
To Accompony Report
. - .. \\ ... o9
SDtCIAL VATtR C0AAlTItt
-a fANTA CLARA COUNTV FLOOD CONTROL
.�'.. AND
,a , WAiLR CONSERVATION DISTRICT
F [ B R U A R Y, 4951
Oi
� � `� .1♦1�.. �� . .,
r. .... :�
(J1 1i0 125 G 7,994 � `4 �, `, I r'` •t, ttj ).
fm
, , ... le
l `.`�l f�Tom, ... •f ! - ... 1 '`�`• f�� �� p .
14 low,
61 , ^b Y n t3 l t Vtnle 1t v + \
t9 Y
n g
N I :
I'd s P ptov Yt3 r1NtlS �-
07 aoaii �iwno�
n ,
1'oarn Aug oaaY all 110
VT
� ` i `,-..--�,•,,, „ ,. `sue 4r , ^ � ; ~,��``w., ti 11rR ��• ,a
so iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilll
. `y l � � �'T •y ,� Per
r
®�v
® mom
ram,
A
N.
SCAM MMILES
r\�• ` (fit.., ' -'T-' �+� 4't � ..v! \i \�� ' '� l v� .. ' *., ` 1 0 1 2 !
-p. • a� 9 a , !�+ ;\,1 1r U N I i I[® COUNTY WATCR PLAN
-, r .r F4" \\"\ t. To Acc0mporiy Report
of
4i 1 a ,...,.ti, \ 5 D b C I A L VA T i R C 0 A A I T T k t
r, Lill'
` _� _ � 'c i \;q SAN1A CIARA COUNTY TL00DCONTROL
A N D
54
6 S WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
t B R U A AVM 1961
A.
rw
r P c L eri
'w.t-
�2 90 125 G ! 0, Q
0( 5 1 In N k 0 A l 5 0 1 0 R. R Ev E R S E D LJ •n A�7 o w.�.
Fl_ 0%, OF 7 ',500 A i, t R0/n
hCTCALF ROAD ! 0 i'EN l' 'eNCIA
I
4C
V,
tA 00
1to '4 ►
.4 V4
T40%
()01 1
00
,odoc
�o 01,
am
do
0
CA
cl ot VO
V
-33
vr tuoo-4
LN
go
to 00
tog 00
so
too �, go go
�.�`� , �4 S �. �. � �vto .T",` '�_ �(L•ta 'J ..7.:,� ---�__�� ^�•^� 'i 4.�y' �*\,�^�
CA
AL
if
ki
Ilk-
�t�� r �� � • � � ��� ,� i� ��P,�,, t A :�-�,,,� �., ...-,..-.� a �1 � '�� �"`mil- `"�
�.� v .� r `; '' ., •�. .. � r � � fib'h �" .. �.. •�
r^' �
10
�"� �� � _-� � ! ` � � •,t t � �,..���M����a't � � 1, >� �� v
�Q\1`d{1 r �.j V l N .S °a i ,o y ^ + y�?.,+♦ ��``a,�°t �^.-`��♦ •.,.��• o ..�7• .-..� '�' ai it +t'` G
1 �tl 0n � dti ,r +3'tl''. � �" � •oi } r'1`te � • tf �r��'`' �.. {�
Qtl j"O 0p01�
LL�vVQ ,O Ol
wL •�M A r �.�• • R1",�, .1i.��.�i 4.� t
001
1
mo
f`
� <l `4; ' .';� ,vim - � �•. � /—^ "� — -
1
i + l �, 1 ��;i "c,„�•� >
!• F. V r.. ,•s,.. s �.. � �. f , � t'�` SCAT[ IN,lIlES
1 ,: , !F + r`.��►� '+ a♦ �. 1. ,:\, , i .t 1 0 1 2 !
cost! vf� +0 „ ��--•• ... ` � �' � .+`•. ►� � \t 1
- �T '` it . !1 + be♦,M '"•4 •
U N 1 f 1 E D COIiNTY �dAT{it PLAN
To ACCompofNy Rapof4
of
fir: / \ �n •'.. 1� .. ,,... 1 E
>r ?' k3 t• SPtCIAL VAT� R C0�lE1ITUk
�►.a 7,r f�� ` a18.?* � ��:' � 4��\ SANfA CIARA COUNTv tL000 CONTROL
.i. " 77.1
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
\ aoJ.�is/M
hhhhhh f � � ` `�• 1 6 E B R U A RV, I961
a r ''I
v ION
��. 1 "A yrlll�`` _ rIf
Too
N
, 9
y, aye
1 t `�', �.`r•�'.•...., '. � � �' ��:n • �{ � J ,^.ram,
� A � f l�r,.t ... j �'.�`1` r�,` ��• ` �,�'t' �i'} �y ,..•�L���it,� �,'��. � i�`'7� r r�:.',_ di .�
A, Atl V N07
Q ptl 7
1'tl 1ST 1d N�p7aS • �.�F�y` � '� ,• � �,,mt r- ����'• "'.,w,, t .,� 5- p .
17 p1$ IN
w l ;� 1 '�` ?•j t s,\� J `r 1 t s •�.� `�, �y q 1.
31i C�w0,9M 01��,N� ` ; �• 4 �_y t 4FL,1j(,.rl�
' ®� • f + ,
R L „.1
l\. • ` } ..
.ter• ' ` I t�� X �' % ,,
/ c++r v�+ YI!!� Yt,,... .� ` c W���� �•a%44�.��I Lag �" �' ,�7 rr- _ ; ! ', � U 1 2 S
on
SCALEMWLES
\� y+r.,, 'd0 .... �SI xe•a. i ,r �7T �<t 1`�.! \ � .Tvk'l� t
•,� _ ,..-j a �,tr' U W I B 1 I'S® COUNTY WA''lR PLAN
�+. / �i }''�� •y'1 * y ;. \ To Accompany Report
-�` � .o.N'•= , i I �., ! % d A ,.. \�kl ,t 15 - ..r. I OI
:
SPLCIAI VATtR COAA1TTr6t
JJ'• Y. SLJ ,� 5: t •`q, SANTA CIARa COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
U w R V I961
• `r _ ,, / S �v � 'ti R , .tom, I � + � !`
ra
it•'
P e L
�.-
k'
1 r
..•/r�b�.! f�i�lr.r, i L)'J..1• 1 WS ' � ..• ` 1 I
SCAL[ IN wllt3
LlArp(' �` \ `'lt• • �s •�
wrh v,j + ., �.,.. -u4i Vr1 •• v •.«a y1 i 1
�`•. � . v , „� ua : , , �,�\ UNIFIED COUNTY WIATIR PLAN
r it I �� ' A•^:y ` , TO ACCOmPOnT R*p:.
.� i�o�:f,�_ �. '.,• ' .� 1. of
5
SPLCI4L V.ATL R CAI ITTLL
S A N T A CLARA COUNTY tLOOD CONTROL
°'. A N D
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
f [ 1311UARY, 1981
A
' ri. l mot, •+d�� jY�t L` �f I1,'
roi
f"7 12 5 A 1 2 5 38 1 •3 1 8 3
� � r
Ul
J
1e'
ell
43
_ .C���,, r.. ��.. �'��.��. sue' t 4 �•.� _ �r \
S
f J
4.s � •'� � ` �• 4 . \ K ••tom _.� 9 A ��♦ .4 \ ` �`-t
R 4 Er _ tit ����e,� "�""�•`ti s � Z -m"
.1�, { t � '\ ,i - ..., •,� � ,r...-, y lr�,.. S't.Ci-' i•�. �''• y����At �^� u..�_.1�..•. • »} ,.
` 4
,
...� i., e '�..�.. � I,�� ��L- SI* 11 r� r ,l� M+u�,•� � �",��. �l1 �r
® ; f �t. ,r 4. �.
Vid
� f�p to 3• `�
N O aidR.tad
1 ld�� Y 1 N .•' , �� `.ti. .t.°e..,a t �e w ice.• q •P.�vi r ``s 'se � '�-•� C
O tJO ell and>> 'Ids
7st!�S, ,t ♦lN^Q7 � lr,� T� �t � �s'i\� •, t}�q"� 'd«` tl ''n:.1�"�.d�p�, '�.J�,�,
1 O 7 O t20 i ��1� i� ti, s. ti �d "!�! 7, ,�r, e` J .,.~x. � � 01 r ( �•J"�� r
\On l�
r
O ' ,� .' ..�� ..�,.0 �'�icFrY�.�t+ ' `.�•.' s •.�\`. � S ..^ ; •vie,+` 'y„ s w• ..�.._ +
'1 � �J d�,o 'v®� ,�5� � '`- ��� - •-;t,�' „►..�� ..-off'
j
94
%A
' . La
IN
p }r •$, ...tip ..•.�a Y � y Y . 1.•. •,
_ •- ' �-.:^ k y � t t t ° " tm `yin s ��j iiZ �,-,.. i «
1 f!b\ t V n b 3 6 N r l N
t ti�G�d �`N n O� '� � .,��'��� � \ � '.'.� 4, �•'t e y. r � t 4,,.1�i.ice' +,r � '� 'Y,r •
0011
Oo
Ol
d { � ...�•�,.' � � •�`� ,.-
�
so
lop
F`
10
to to
`j
+tdart�AeC•.Y4 ' r ✓� A.t�.., j .v-W_�` t ,•
.. r } �� !� '�• is ' �` � �"`"y''�. . , ' -";\,
'161.' 01 1'I, a �� 't. ,, 'C, `� `1. ,,, r. �• (11
l �� • �:;r 1� SCALE iw"ILEA
1 0 t 214,
-!
ar rys��:Ci t`'b r'..—v=g
.n <. tlNliliD C®ilMTtl WA?dR PLAN
t7 �{ a-i'�' t 1 `\��� �1• To ACco mpony Report
Of
4.�, $P C I A L i/A T b R C 0 AA i T T E
10 SANTA CLARA COUNTY rLOOD CONTROL
WATER -0145ERVATION D15TAICT
.rfi ��•�.,1\ �, � i. •1?, r E 9 0. U A R V 1961
�r 'rh_ i� `� �• t .l
r, 1 , 5 3 ro[' 1 39
r
C) 9 25 A 499 <5 9
... ter
-,.
�� t A , t 1!i�✓ '�
5CALtiMNILL3
'Nl
V,
U N M I D COUNTY WATER PLAN
To Acc0mponr R*po.l
o
^,,, VwJ �„ ,�r 2s.4 R „. .,, � :�i � S P C C I A L VAT R C6AA17Tkt
' '/�- - �• - "" S "' °o,, S A N T A C.LARA COUNik FLOOD CONTROL
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
PLATE 2
UNIT CD STUDY
51 Tb LL GQ N D
A COYOTE ALA.AITOS CANAL
\ r
Q- ALAAi'TOS POND • •.-
r
C A P I T A N C I L L C S POND -� ...
f LOS CATOS C ? LEK , � �t•�. \, �� 1� 1 '�
SIT'E� to �', ��� C R �
SCNEb1E 27e0 -;5-c 25 8 TO 2,205 327 y s 5
SChE 2a�� 5� 25 8 T0. 2,353 382.5
SCNEAE 'a C�0 \v 25 8 T 0 ,
P s 1 1 5 0 ' < 3 0 6 4
SC N E A[ 3 50 ' ' -- '2 'T U ; ;3 3 l 20 `1
N SCNEA ADOPTED ; AL P- 12- 5 C[ in
City & sccrc & W'CD 2/2
r
1
N11lJt�t �� tit °Ia.. L
��� } 1�i1NNVK ,fit1 � NttVy' Vt��,V � N��t�t }{}V�yt�1 OVA
� r
--ti ♦ice� � ��\" � r A' ) �. t• t �1 t+t r, 'ram`
oil) d
04.
Z, � i i ♦ T-.- �� •`` .. � , .f.`+ ���'� ems/ '� .••{i:.�Y�'....r..
� 1 i � ' `��� f��.•�\ � O'. *�~ y' � � Sit ,1 ":•F��O1i114N �
'+ n. � �,���, � �., a �'� _. � •� `,.
(7 r 4
� i�'^n 3 s N
IV
a o
IU �544 ONE _ ,,yV13 tlt�
1O At"0
740Cli A�¢L� �'i}� Jd `' ' » '"' �, 5r�� ,•'�'"x �'" r �`'
J S i1
a YI �yn9W ar3~®eA t~ . •�i ,, + �^ t'{ » 11
,. � ` .. .. � ` r_ z.�ryt. t �°'�\ oJ• •1 ���}y 4. j'itM{1
lw age