None
305 Power houses, Hetch Hetchy project — At Cherry River mouth At Moccasin Creek Freeman plan Grunsky plan 1 ^9, Manson plan No. 1 4,29. 109, No. 2 4. 22, 30. 282, No. 3 Power plant, temporary Power possibilities^ American-Cosumnes aqueduct Hetch Hetchy aqueduct McCloud River Power stations, McCloud River project Power transmission lines Prattville, meteorological tests at Precautions to prevent pollution Precipitation — Alameda Creek watershed 193, Eleanor watershed Hetch Hetchy watershed High Sierras Mountain catchments exceed (hose at outlets of valleys.. Proportion to run-off Railroad Flat watershed Relation to run-off Precita Valley emergency pumps Preference for a mountain water supply Preliminary studies, scope of Premium rate, employers' liability insurance Preparation of foundations — Hetch Hetchy dam Poopenaut dam Present needs necessitate broadening of Garfield permit Present sources — Additional supply from East bay region Studies of Ultimate decrease in yield of Yield of Present supply — Increase in Quality of Preservation of water to lands overlying water bearing strata for reasonable use Presidio Heights tank 131, Pressure — Bay head pipe Fire hydrants, San Francisco 215, Flood waters, Coyote Creek Hetch Hetchy aqueduct tunnels Inadequacy for water service, San Francisco 206. 207, 213-214, San Bruno tunnel Storm waters, Santa Clara gravels Tanks, control in developing power Pressure tunnels — - Advantages of Alternative distribution aqueducts Discharge Hetch Hetchy aqueduct 120, 252, 255, 258. 259-260, 264-265, 276. 278-281, 283-284, 289, Interchangeabllity New York water supply Preference for by John R. Freeman Pressure zones. Peoples Water Company. Prevention of defilmg of water Priest's Hill Priest's Hotel Primary right of land owner to full flow of underground water. Prince, George T. — Estimate on Lake Chabot Report on irrigation requirements Principles of law, use of percolating waters 73, 160r 280 139-141 140-141 139 116-117 284, 286 30 73 311 29 336 328, 337 15, 31 100 55 194-195 101 101 99-100 105 100 366 98 131 69 71 298 287 291 140 97 173-178 82 81 80 69-70 61 209 212, 389 236 218-219 209 221 216-218 295 208 221 121 294 221 294-295 126 221 138 177 13, 34 242, 289 109 208 134 357 205-206 INDEX Page Priority — La Grange Water and Power Company 285 Modesto Irrigation District 285 Of appropriation, percolating waters 205 Turlock Irrigation District 285 Priorities — Alameda Creek 1 87 Allowance for 101-103 American River 312 Calaveras Creek 187 Cosumnes River 312 Could be released by meters 83 Mass curve diagram allowing 285 Modesto and Turlock Districts 21 , 33, 83, 358 Mokelumne River 366 Release of water for 33, 101, 104 Satisfaction of 101-104, 106-107 Stanislaus River 303-304-305 Tuolumne River 8, 285 Yuba River 355 Prior rights — American River 312 Bay Cities Water Company 187 Cosumnes River 312 McCloud River 341-342 Modesto and Turlock Districts 21 , 33, 83, 358 Mokelumne River 366 Pitt River 342 Sacramento River 342 Stanislaus River 303-304-305 To be supplied from Poopenaut reservoir 293 Tuolumne River 8. 285, 293 Yuba River 355 Privately owned lands — American River watershed 312-313 Cosumnes River watershed 312-313 Stanislaus River watershed 303 Private wells ._ 81, 174 Probable increase in population '/ Problems of water supply 80 Profile- City Pipe System '31 Flood levels, Alameda Creek 181, 184 Freeman plan of development 139 Grunsky plan of development 139 Hetch Hetchy aqueduct location 277 Manson plan of development '39 Niles Cone ^^ Niles dam '81 Run-off Tuolumne River 101-103 San Joaquin River crossing -6/ Stanislaus River project 3UV Sunol dam '°'' Profiles^ Alternative distribution aqueducts 'j-^ Hetch Hetchy aqueduct U7 San Miguel reservoir ooa inn Profit, contractor's, Hetch Hetchy project 987 Profit in commisary, Hetch Hetchy camp 287 Progress of work — Los Angeles aqueduct 2/D Portland aqueduct 23/ Progressive development — Boston ^ii Los Angeles ! ^^ New York \ii Seattle ' ^^ Progress of San Francisco retarded by inadequate water sup- ply f 20 Prolific supply from Niles Cone Property rights— Percolating waters ^^^ San Francisco ^ Propagation of germs, stored water 3/, 54 Proportion of run-off to precipitation ^. ■. 1 00 Proposal for purchase by San Francisco of the Spring Val- ley Water Works 395-400 Page Proposed general order of water supply development 62-75 Proposition of D. P. Doak to San Francisco 328-329 Protection — For City's lights 72 From pollution 13, 34, 38 54, 138 Of courts for rights to percolating water 205 Proximity — Mokelumne River 1 58-160 Stanislaus River 158-160 Tuolumne River 1 58- 1 60 Prudency of building — Arroyo Valle reservoir 190, 192 Calaveras reservoir 190, 192 San Antonio reservoir 190, 192 Public— Freely admitted to Boston reservoirs 36 Opinion adverse through court decisions on ground waters 1 76 Sentiment in favor of mountain supply for Oakland... 162 Spirit against defiling of water 47 Use of reservoir catchments 38-47, 51 Welfare, basis of City's action in securing water sup- ply 312 Public lands — Borings on 71 Taking of construction materials from 15, 22, 25 Public service corporations, east bay region 1 74, 1 76 Public water supply — Sacramento River water unsuitable for 317 San Joaquin River water unsuitable for 317 Pumping — American-Cosumnes project 311, 313 70, 80-81 142 353 187 91 86 308 86 Court decisions on Elimination of. McCloud River Tuolumne River 38, 42 38, 42 54, 57 349 317 317 54 198 314 314 138 329, 330 53, 57 THE HETCH HETCHY WATER SUPPLY FOR SAN FRANCISCO Page Qualitative character of Livermore Valley gravels 200 Quality — Of roadbeds 13, 15 Of sub-strata rock 71 Quality of water^ — Alameda Creek 61, 194 American River 313 Cosumnes River 313 Eel River 346 Hetch Hetchy 1 38 Important factor in determining source 147, 151 Improved by storage 32 McCloud River 329 Mokulmne River 370 Pleasanlon ground waters 61 Sacramento River 317 San Joaqum River 317 Sprmg Valley 61 Stanislaus River 309 Sunol ground waters 61 Tuolumne River 53-57 Quantity of water available^ Daily under Freeman plan 139, 140 Daily under Grunsky plan 139, 140 From Bay Shore gravels 81 From ocean slope creeks 81 To San Francisco from American-Cosumnes source.... 311, 313 To San Francisco from Feather River 348 To San Francisco from McCloud River 328 To San Francisco from Stanislaus River 305, 306, 307 To San Francisco from Tuolumne River. I OM 07, 361-363, 285 To San Francisco if priorities are restricted to maxi- mum that can be beneficially used 101-103 Quantity of water pumped from Niles Cone 203 Quantity of water required — By irrigationists, American-Cosumnes project 313, 314 By San Francisco, Marx on 78 For future needs 8| For intensive farming 80 For market gardening 80 Quantity of water that can be diverted from Tuolumne River by City without encroaching on prior rights 21 Quantities — Arroyo del Hambre reservoirs 349 Cherry Valley dam 289 Eleanor dam 289 Hetch Hetchy aqueduct tunnels 120 Hetch Hetchy dam 118, 285. Porlolacca. Railroad Flat watershed Records 99, 100, Relation to floods Relation to run-off 87, 100, San Antonio Valley San Francisco Shingle Springs Sierra Nevada Mountains Sonora Stanislaus River drainage basin Stations 192- Studies by Williams Sunol. Tables Tuolumne River Canyon Rain gauges — Clock recording High Sierras Rainwater, interception of Raising — Crystal Springs dam Crystal Springs upper dam Portola dam San Andreas dam San Leandro dam Raising of water level — Hetch Hetchy Valley Poopenaut Valley Ramsey dam Ramsey reservoir Rancheria Creek, storage on Rapid — Growth of San Francisco Response to rain, Livermore Valley Rise in flow after rainfall, Livermore Valley Rapidity of flow, Alameda Creek Rale— Employers' liability insurance Fixing. Oakland Of delivery, Hetch Hetchy aqueduct tunnels Of discharge, flood flow Of increase in population Of run-off, Calaveras watershed Page 197 ', 199 312-314 313 , 314 88 ., 193 197 105 197 313 , 314 206 199 188 190 , 193 193 99 , 105 197 195 99, , 105 99, 100 105 197 197 195, 197 193, 199 194, 195 358 302 366 195, 199 302 84 194-195 193 105  388 385 387 135, 136 9 293 306 306 58 77 86, 87 197 298 177 121, 221 98 76 196 xlv INDEX rage Rate of flow — Alameda Creek ]9Q Coarse sands 201 Underground waters 1 9g Rating table — Cherry Creek 379 Eleanor Creek 377 Tuolumne River 373 Ratio — Geometric, growth of cities 77 Of mean monthly discharge. City catchments to La Grange 99 Of mountain run-off to valley rainfall 105 Of run-off to rainfall 99^ 1 00 Ravenswood — Range of tides at 254 Routes of filtered water supply 321, 323 Ravenswood wells 80 96 391-392 Raw water storage 320 Real value of Hetch Hetchy |5| Reasonable use of water — For irrigation 359 Preserved to lands overlying water bearing strata 209 Reclamation — Marsh lands 203, 204 Swamp lands 77 Recognition — Ban San Francisco of vested rights 312 Of priorities, mass curve on 285 Reconnaissance — By John R. Freeman 71 By W. C. Hammatt 290 By Horace Ropes 109-1 10, 221 Geological 1 09- 1 1 0 Hetch Hetchy tunnels 109, 110 San Joaquin Valley 108 Records — Alameda Creek discharge 82, 84, 188 Errors in by Spring Valley Water Co 84, 85 Rainfall 99, 1 00 Rainfall and run-off above Sunol 195 Run-off, Spring Valley Water Co 196 Water companies, not dependable as to yield 82 Recovery of water through pumpage 204 Recreation use of reservoir margins 38-45 Recurring heavy rains — Coyote River 207, 208 Santa Clara Valley 207, 208 Red Bank crossing, Mt. Shasta aqueduct 332 Red Bluff, power plant at 328 Red Mountain bar — Belt of serpentine 110 Elevation 1 08 Location 116 Roads near 281 Water level at 108 Reduction — Available supply, Pleasanton wells 191 Freight rates, through Panama Canal 231 Taxes 1 66 Redwood City — City Council 163 Interest in Hetch Hetchy 163 Redwood gatehouse, pipe line from 294 Redwood tunnel — Cost of 252, 253 Diameter 244 Length 244 Location 252 Unit costs 244, 246, 252, 253 Refill, Livermore Valley, composition of 201 Refilling depleted reservoirs 294 Refusal by Spring Valley — To extend mains 213. 214 To install larger mains 213-218 Regulation — Outflow, gravel, deposits, Livermore 196 Regulation — ■ Of outflow, gravel deposit., Pleasanton 196 Of run-off 186 Regulations- — Enforcing of 34 By superintendent of park 55 Formulating of 34 For sanitary control of water supply 34 Yosemite National Park 34, 54 Regulators, Stanislaus River reservoir sites 303 Reimbursement to San Francisco by D. P. Doak of moneys expended on Hetch Hetchy 328-329 Relation — Floods to rainfall 87 Precipitation to run-off 98 Rainfall to run-ofl^ 105 Run-off to rainfall 87, 194 Release of irrigation priorities — Actual less than theoretic 104 At Poopenaut reservoir 293 Below Moccasin Creek power-house 61, 101 From Hetch Hetchy reservoir 121 In Colorado 83 Measurement of 33 Reliability — Of discharge, McCloud River 330 Of estimates based on insufficient data 99 Of service, McCloud River project 331 Relief by courts to shortage of water for residents 188 Relief dam 306 Relief map — Lands and rights of Spring Valley Water Co 394 Tuolumne River 4 Relief reservoir 303. Long 161-166 Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts, by J. H. Dockweiler 357-363 Mokelumne River project, by C. E. Grunsky 365-372 Niles Cone, by J. H. Dockweiler 203, 204 Quality of Tuolumne River water, by Allen Hazen... 53-57 Stanislaus River project, by C. E. Grunsky 303-309 Yuba River, by C. E. Grunsky. 355, 356 Requirements, Bay cities and communities 21, 357 Reservation — Of unappropriated Tuolumne River water for use of Bay cities ^^ To City of reservoir sites above Hetch Hetchy 28 ^^^"^l^rage 28, 68,126 Supply 58 THE HETCH HETCHY WATER SUPPLY FOR SAN FRANCISCO Page Reserves — Against accidents 65-68, 129, 134 Of Peoples Water Co. exaggerated 82 Of Spring Valley Water Co., exaggerated 82 Reservoirs — Boston 35-42 Camping upstream from 36 Covered for mountain supply 129 Depletion of 1 04 England 46-47 Enhance beauty cf landscapes 51 Fishing upstream from 36 Forbidding of bathing in 34 In Catskill Mountains 44, 145 In foothills 58 In metropolitan parks 38 In populous communities 35, 38 Modesto and Turlock Districts 83 Partial emptiness of 187 Pleasure boats on 49 Scotland 48-50 Tourist routes round 43, 46-51 Reservoir sites — Above Hetch Hetchy ._. 28 Absence of on Sierra rivers 151 American-Cosumnes project 312, 314 Mokelumne River 1 60a, 366, 367 Necessity of on Sierra rivers 160k Owned by City 1 38 Stanislaus River 303-4, 306 Strawberry Creek 303, 304 Resistance to corrosion, steel pipe 229 Resolutions on Hetch Helchy— Berkeley City Council 161-162 Daly City Board of Trustees 164 Oakland City Council 162, 163 Palo Alto City Council 163, 164 San Jose City Council 1 63, 1 64 Resources of water companies overestimated 69, 70 Restrictions — Found needful by sanitary science 33 Sanitary, proposed by City 34 Retarding building up of San Francisco, by inadequate water supply 220 Retarding effect — Moss-hke growth in tunnels 221 Of eddies, etc 82 Of great conflagration 78 Return water 204, 357 Revenue — Peoples Water Co | 77 Spring Valley Water Co 385 Rich Gulch 366-369 Richmond District, San Francisco — Complaints of inadequate water supply 211, 213, 214 Inadequate fire protection 213, 214, 220 Inadequate water pressure 213, 214 Views of 213, 214 Richmond — Wells, yield from 1 72, 177 Richness, concrete, Hetch Hetchy dam 287 Right of owner to accustomed flood flow of stream paramount to appropriator's 208 Rights- Bay Cities Water Co 179, 187 Claimed by Doak 341 La Grange Water and Power Co 285 Modesto Irrigation District 285 Niles Cone 1 79 Owners of artesian wells 205, 208 Owners of superimposed lands 208 Spring Valley Water Co 384, 385 To percolating waters 94, 205 Turlock Irrigation District 285 United Properties Co 179 Page Rights of way — Desired by City 15, 22 Early intake 22 Filtered water supply 325 For roads 15 Hetch Hetchy aqueduct, divisions 72, 300, 301 Power house No. 2, Hetch Hetchy 22 Sacramento River project 325 San Joaquin River project 325 Securing of 72 Sierra Blue Lakes Water & Power Co 368-370 Spring Valley Water Co 394 Stanislaus River project 308 Rights, prior- American River 312 Bay Cities Water Co 187 Cosumnes River 312 McCloud River 341-342 Modesto and Turlock Districts 21, 33, 83, 358 Mokelumne River 366 Sacramento River 342 Stanislaus River 303, 304, 305 Tuolumne River 8, 285, 293 Yuba River 355 Rigidity, steel pipe 229 Rio Vista intake 319, 324 Rio Vista pipe line 324 Rio Vista pumping station 319, 324 Riparian rights — Alameda Creek 1 80 McCloud River 341 Owned by Spring Valley Water Co 384. Robinson's Valley Rock- Insolubility of Tunneling of Rock, character of — Elizabeth tunnel Los Angeles aqueduct tunnels Rock formation — Canyon tunnel Hetch Hetchy aqueduct Tesla tunnel Page Rocks Chabot line Decomposition of Jointing of Peninsula line To be encountered, Hetch Hetchy aqueduct Rolph, James, Jr., letter to Advisory Board Ropes, Horace — Charge of construction of Boston aqueduct tunnels Commendation for zeal in City's service Cost estimate. Hetch Hetchy project Reconnaissances by, Hetch Hetchy project 109, Studies for New York aqueducts Rosasco — Cost of cement delivered Railroad to Hetch Hetchy Road to Hetch Hetchy Station on Sierra Railway Rough and Ready Creek mouth, wood-stave pipe at Roughness — Co-efficients of Hetch Hetchy aqueduct tunnels Of finish, tunnels Roundout Creek Rule of common law, applicable to percolating waters Rules, Yosemite National Park Rulings, Supreme Court, use of percolating waters Run-off — Alameda Creek 91, 190, 194, American-Cosumnes project Arroyo Mocho Arroyo Valle Atmospheric moisture, effect on Calaveras damsite Calaveras watershed Cherry Creek Cherry Creek watershed 98, 99, 101- Data, lack of Eleanor Creek Eleanor watershed 98, 99,101- Falls Creek Feather River Hetch Hetchy watershed 98, 99, 101- Hog Ranch McCloud River Mokelumne River Nashua River Portolacca Railroad Flat watershed Records Regulation of Relation to precipitation Relation to rainfall 87, 88. 100, 105, 194- San Antonio Creek Streams tributary to Sacramento Valley Sunol watershed Temperature, effect on Tuolumne River 98,99, 101-103, 105, 15 290 13, , 15 72 13 23 216 307 53 71 223 224, 225 284 276 281, 283 124, 125 124 276 124, 125 111 5 221 160s 239-301 110, 221 221 242 290 290 289 260 221, 222 221 145 209 34, 54 205-210 195, 197 313 196 193, 196 194 193 196 380, 381 •103, 105 88 377-379 •103, 105 375, 376 348 103, 105 105 329 366 36 105 366 195, 196 186 98, 100 195, 197 193 329 196 194 374-376 Page Rural- Communities, growth in population of 78 Population, increase of 77 Russian River, water dropped into from Eel River 345 Rusting of steel pipes, preservation from 21 Ruslproofing steel pipe 229 Rust, resistance of 229 Sacks for cement, charge for 241, 242 Sacramento River — Adverse rights 342 Brackish water 317 Cities and towns on 317 Crossings 324, 327, 337 Dikes 77 Filtering water from 1 60g Flow 317, 340 Navigability of 317, 336, 340 Swamp lands 77 Tide flows 317 Water 56,57, 316,317 Sacramento River project — Bay crossing 320, 321 Capacity 315 Cost estimates 324, 325 Cost of operation 325 Crossings 320, 321, 322, 323 Disadvantages of 160g Filter plants 319, 320 Goat Island route 322 Intake position 315, 317 Livermore pass route 323 Oakland reservoir 320 Pipe line 319 Pumping stations 319, 320, 321 Ravenswood route 323 Raw water storage 320 Rights of way required for 325 San Pablo route 322 Steel pipe 320 Tunnels 320. 321 Sacramento Valley — Area of 329 Industries in 313 Irrigable lands 313 Irrigation requirements 329 Run-off, streams in 329 Sacramento Valley Irrigation Co 336, 340 Saddle reservoir 131 Safeguards — Against interruption, Boston water supply. 38 Against shortage of water 64 In Calaveras reservoir 64 Safe supply — Alameda Creek 190 Peninsula reservoirs 388 Safety — Against accident, Freeman plan '. 144 Against earthquakes 126, 127 Of water 54 Salinity of water 315 Sale— Diversion of water for 266, 267 Of water. Coyote River, at distance 209 Sales of water. San Antonio dam — Cost. Effect on Niles Cone Elevation of Hydraulic fill Height Method of construction Plan of Prudence of building Roadway across Section of San Antonio damsite San Antonio pipe line San Antonio reservoir — Advisability of building 88, 94, 97, Area of Catchment area Cost of Elevations Evaporation . 84, Flow line Gravity flow of water from Lack of data on run-off from Levels Location of Plan of ][[[ Property of Spring Valley Water Co. at Storage capacity 67, Temperature San Antonio tunnel San Bruno sandstone 124, 125, 244, San Bruno tunnel 238, 246^ 249,' Sand — Cost Filtration From public lands for construction work Proportion in concrete Sand Flat San Diego, consumption per capita Sands — Coarse, rate of flow through Livermore Valley, voids in Niles Cone 89 Sandstones Ill, 225,246-249, 255, 258, 264^ Sandstone tunnels, Los Angeles aqueduct San Fernando reservoir San Francisco — Advantageous location of Area of Areas not supplied with Spring Valley water Building up retarded by inadequate water supply City distributing system 211, Climate Commercial center Consumption of water Density of population Distance across Factory population Fault lines in neighborhood of Future demands for water Future population Growth Harbor History of development of water supply Inadequate water supply Increase m population Page 297 297, 387 249, 297 61 193 88 193 88 186 259 81 257 257, 259 257. 259 257 257 68, 69 257 257 186, 257 230 190, 192 256 84 259 256 189, 199 256 122 88 256 112, 256 257 256 197, 256 84 246, 258 246, 252 295, 296 243, 288 34, 317 15, 22 287, 288 303, 306 79 20! 199 90, 91 265, 291 223 128 78 303 212 220 212, 384 79 77 79 78 321 77 321 78 78 76, 77 78 386-390 211-220 78 San Francisco- Lack of lawns and gardens Litigation with Spring Valley Water Co Location of Opportunities for Ownership in Hetch Hetchy Valley Percentage built up Population Quantity of water available for. . . .305, 31 1, 313, 314, Rainfall Service areas Service connections Topography Water supply problems Wells Zones 211, San Francisco Bay — Bridge across Communities on Crossings Depth of water Distance from shore to shore Tide range Tunnel under Francisco Bay cities Francisco Bay communities Francisco Bay municipalities Francisco Bay shore, wells on Francisco Cify Water Works Francisco District — Increases in population Population. Water supply, needs of Francisco Fire Department, reports on inadequate fire pro- tection . 211, Francisco Gas and Electric Co., rights on Mokelumne River. San Francisco Metropolitan Water District San Francisquito Creek Sanitary — Control Difficulties Necessity for filtration Precaution by storage 260, 309, Regulations 34, Restrictions 32-34, Safeguard through storage 260i 309, Safety through storage 260, 309, Safety of water Survey, Hetch Hetchy and Lake Eleanor San Gregono Creek San Joaquin — Aqueduct Irrigation district Pipe . 229, 230-236, San Joaquin pipe line — American-Cosumnes project Freeman plan Grunsky plan Hetch Hetchy project 229-231, 262, 263, Manson plan San Joaquin River —  78 328, 348 80 212 384 211, 383 80 383 212, 384 166 9, 76 127 127, 321 127 254 321 22, 71 77, 165 161 -165 82 385, 386 76, 312 312 80 218, 219 367 144 389 32 309 158 343, 350 36, 55 36, 54-55 343, 350 343, 350 54 53-55 81, 96 160h 305 269, 270 313 139-141 139, 141 269, 270 139 Crossings Dikes .. Elevations Formations Freshets. Line of flow Marsh lands Navigation Overflow lane Sloughs Tide flows. Water 270 317 317 114, 122, 266-268, 269, 270, 308, 324 77 266-268 Ill, 114, 115 269 114, 115 122 317 270 267, 268 317 316-317 .56, Hi INDEX Page San Joaquin River — Water levels 266-268 San Joaquin River project — Bay crossing 320, 321 Capacity 315 Chabot Lake route 322 Cost estimates 324, 325 Cost of operation 325 Filter plants 319 Livermore Pass route 323 Oakland reservoir 320 Pumping stations 319, 320, 321 Ravenswood route 323 San Joaquin Valley — Equalizing basin 265 Crossing 139, 141 Irrigation tracts 305 Levels 108, 261-263, 266-268 Pliocene formation 265 Railroads 23 1 Reconnaissance 1 08 Semi-arid surface 229 Shafts sunk in 265 Surge tank 265 Surveys by Grunsky 1 08 Topography 108,261-263, 266-268 San Jose — Branch aqueduct toward 123, 255 City Council 1 63 Location 163 Population 1 63 Resolution on Hetch Hetchy 163 San Leandro Cone — Agricultural needs of water 97 Area 174, 175 Draft on 173, 175 Location of ' ' 4 RepIenisKment of 1 73, 1 75 Source of supply '74 San Leandro Creek "7, I ! i San Leandro dam — • Cost of enlarging ' ^4 Enlargement of 67. 68, 134, 135, 136 Safety of 134 Views 66 San Leandro reservoir 1 34, 1 /Z, I // San Leandro reservoir, upper 1 76 San Lorenzo Cone — Area 174-175 Draft on '73 Location of ' ' ^ Replenishment of ' '^ Source of supply ' '^ San Lorenzo Creek siphon 291 San Lorenzo Water Company 1 '4, 1 7o, 2u3 San Mateo '23, 164 San Mateo County 76, 78, 163 San Mateo Creek 294 San Mateo tunnel '2' San Mateo Waterworks 385, 388 San Miguel dam '29, 297 San Miguel dam site '32 San Miguel-Millbrae Division 240, 295-296-297, 301 San Miguel reservoir — Area covered by water surface '2i Delivery of Hetch Hetchy water to 294 Diagram ■ • • Elevation % un'\ll Flow line 129-130. 33 Gravity flow from Hetch Hetchy '29 Location of 63, 29 Storage capacity^ '.'.'.'.'.'. 62, 129, '31-132 Survey 29 Views '30. Steel pipe, through cement lining Scant run-off Scenery, Hetch Hetchy Valley 6, 10, 12, 15-17, 19, Scenic road, Hetch Hetchy — Arcades on Branch to Tilllill Valley Cost of Grades on Length of Map showing Route of Time of building Type of construction Views Schell ditch School census, San Francisco Schussler, H. — Additional supply Affidavits of Criticism of his Alameda Creek yield estimates. .. .84, Development of underground storage, Livermore Valley. Page 246, 249 174 173, 173 175 175 176 174 176 175 174 176-177 176 322-323 176 176-177 201 250 78 392 206 76 253 209 78 209 392 207 206-207 210, 253 209 208 208 207-208 208-209 207 208-209 176 265, 291 312 285 198 259 70, 80 259 205 224, 227 385 260 127 297 297 308 229 91 57, 148 18 290 290 15 241, 290 11 11 74 19 10, 12 307 77 68 192 180-201 86 , 88 THE HETCH HETCHY WATER SUPPLY FOR SAN FRANCISCO Page Schussler, H. Septic tanks Serpentine formation .... 1 I 1 , 116, 124-125, 247-249, 259, 264, Service areas- — Peoples Water Company San Francisco Services — Hay ward Hercules Water Company Oakland Division Peoples Water Company San Lorenzo Water Company Spring Valley Water Company Union Water Company Service zones, San Francisco Servitude, establishing of Settlement of ground, strain due to Sewage pollution — - Sacramento River water San Joaquin River water Sewerage — Appliances, installation of Disposal, Hetch Hetchy camp Regulation of Sewer System, McCloud Sewer system on catchment areas Shafts 251-252, 255, 259-269, 265, 269,283-284, 289. Shaft sites Shallow flowage Shasta National Forest Reserve Sheet steel pipe, east bay region Shepard Canyon, yield Shift bosses' wages Shifts worked, Los Angeles aqueduct tunnels Sherman Island Shmgle Springs, rainfall Shipping — - Canned fruits and asparagus Los Angeles pipe Steel for Hetch Hetchy pipe, via Panama Canal Shop buildings, Hetch Hetchy Shores, Hetch Hetchy reservoir Shortage of water — - Disaster consequent upon Niles Cone 91, San Francisco 64, Shortage, storage capacity, Tuolumne River reservoir sites. . .. Shoshone dam Shrinkaoe — In flow, Alameda Creek Of available supply of Oakland Sidings, railroad, Rosasco to Hetch Hetchy Sierra and San Francisco Power Company 304 Sierra Blue Lakes Water and Power Company I60b-160d Sierra Club excursion to Hetch Hetchy Sierra Nevada region — Haulage rates in Necessity of storage reservoirs Rainfall Sierra Point tunnel Sierra Railroad 1 ' 5- Signboards cautioning against pollution of reservoirs. .. .36, 38, Silt— Clogging of gravel conduit Deposited over gravel Detention in natural filter Siltmg — Of gravels Of San Leandro reservoir Silver I ake Silver Valley Silver Valley dam Silver Valley reservoir Sinking of waters — In Coyote River Into Alameda Creek gravels F 'age 166 34 279 , 291 177 212 178 177 176 177 178 384 177-178 211 -212 34 229 317 317 34 286 55 335 43, 54 291, 297 260, 265 304, 307 331, 336 177 177 223 223 319 302 77 230 231 287 13 188 94 188 211 -220 58 119 86, 198 94 290 :-305-306 365-370 60 242 160k 302 251 116. 289 39 41 200 88 200 191 65, 134 310 304 306 304-306 206 196 li^ INDEX Page Sinking of walers — Into Arroyo Mocho gravels 1 99-200 Into Arroyo Valle gravels 199, 201 Into Coyote Valley gravels 207 Into Santa Clara Valley gravels 207-208 Siphon joints 232 Siphons — Alameda Creek 258, 291 Bear Gulch 139| |4] Dry Creek tunnel 278 Freeman plan 1 39- 1 40 Grunsky plan 1 39_ [ 4 \ Hetch Hetchy aqueduct 21. 121, 128 Los Angeles aqueduct 128, 139, 230-234 Moccasin Creek 1 39, 141 New York aqueduct 122, 229^ 232 San Lorenzo Creek 291 Six Mile Bar \ 307 Sizes of water mains, San Francisco 213-217 Skaneateles, Lake 53 Sketch- Castro Valley dike 136 San Leandro dam enlargement 135-136 Slope — Of tunnels, Hetch Hetchy aqueduct 121 Of water table 94 Sloughs — Bay head pipe 253 San Joaquin River 267-268 Small increase in future yield from present sources 81 Smith Creek 96. 1 87 Smith's Peak 15, 59-60 Snowfall — Cherry Creek watershed 99 Eleanor Creek watershed 28, 99 Hetch Hetchy watershed 24, 99 High Sierras 99-100 Measurement of 101 Railroad Flat watershed 366 Snow Mountain Water and Power Company 345 Snows, melting of — Dates of 98 Cherry Creek watershed 105 Eleanor watershed 105 Hetch Hetchy watershed 1 05 Replenishment by 11, 13 Snow Valley dam 1 60a Snow Valley reservoir 160a Soaking in of waters, Pleasanlon Valley 86 Softness of water — American River 1 53 Hetch Hetchy 56. 69, 138, 153 Mokelumne River 1 53 Sacramento Rive*' 317 Stanislaus River 1 53 Tuolumne River 151, 1 53 Whipple on 1 53 Softness, steel pipe, San Joaquin Valley 229 Soil- Conditions, Modesto and Turlock Districts 358 Depth of cover, High Sierras 100 Purifying power of 54 Studies by J. C Branner Ml. South San Joaquin Irrigation District 223, 276, 303, Southern Alabama Street and Vicinity Improvement Club, complamt on inadequacy of water supply Southern Pacific Company — Bay shore tunnels Contract prices for mountain work Rate paid for common labor Sierra tunnels South Yuba River, gaugings Spauldmg Lake, dam at Specification — Steel pipe. Feather River project Steel pipe, Los Angeles aqueduct Speculative nature of D. P. Doak's proposition 306 283 109 143 109 216 220 307 216 251 251 252 250 101 119 350 230 342 286 Speed of construction, Canyon tunnel. Spill crest — Cherry Valley dam Early Intake dam Eleanor dam Hetch Hetchy dam Poopenaut dam Spillway — Hetch Hetchy dam Poopenaut dam San Antonio dam Spot Pond reservoir 36, Springfield aqueduct Spring Valley Water Company — Additional supply 80, 83, 94, Alameda Creek system 383, Areas of lands owned by 385, 39.- Borings by 188-189 Calaveras purchase 385, 388 Capitalization .... City distributing reservoirs 131, City distributing system not essential to HetcK HetcKy project. City pipe system 131, Companies acquired by. Condemnation of Courtesy of Data furnished by Date of incorcoration.. Delivery conduits 383-384 Depreciation ^^^ Disbursements 385 Diversions from Alameda Creek 1 75, 204 Errors in records 84-85, 180 Extensions of mains 213-218 26 285 27 288 291 285 293 285 147 229 97 383 385 384 62 384 385 62 8! 81 385 Iv THE HETCH HETCHY WATER SUPPLY FOR SAN FRANCISCO Page Spring Valley Waler Company^ — Franchises 393 Friction joints 232 Gauglngs by 83-84, 1 86 Inadequacy of mains 2l I Inadequacy of supply 211 -220 Income 385 Increase in supply 69-70 Lands owned by 96, 186, 256. 384-385, 394 Litigation over diversions 91 Litigation with City 393-394 Litigation with Clough 85, 94 Mains supplying outlying districts 212 Meters 384 Monoply held by 384 Negotiations for purchase 62-63, 144, 394-400 Niles Cone, drafts on 80, 91 Operation expenses 385 Outside sales of water 385 Partial ownership of watershed lands 391 Peninsula system 383 Protection of catchment areas 138 Pumping plants 131, 384 Purchase of San Mateo Water Works 388 Purchases to prevent competition 384 Records 84-85, 189, 198 Rents 385 Reserves exaggerated 82 Reservoirs 383, 387-390 Revenue 385 Rights of way 384-385 Riparian rights 384-385 Run-off 196 Sales of water 385 Service connections 384 Sources of supply 383. 391 -392 Subsidiary companies 385 Taxes 385 Transfer from Spring Valley Water Works 385 Undeveloped resources 197 Valuation of properties 394 Water 61-62, 67, 138, 317 Watersheds 138, 391-392 Yielding capacity 81 Squaw Creek 334 St. Louis, consumption per capita 79 Stairway, Hetch Hetchy dam 118 Standard Canal 365 Standard Oil Company, wells of 176 Standard screw pipe, east bay region 177 Standing water purifies itself 32 Stanford Heights, no mains for fire protection 219 Stanislaus and San Joaquin Water Company 307 Stanislaus National Forest Reserve 303 Stanislaus River — Availability of 303 Diversion point 305 Flow 303, 305, 307 Inadequacy of supply 303 Irrigation requirements 305. 307 Log dams 304 Middle Fork 303. 306 North Fork 303-306 Pollution dangers 303-304, 307 Priorities 303-305 Quantltv of water available for City 305. 307 Rainfall 302 Reservoir sites 303-304. 307 Source of 303 South Fork 303-304. 306 Surplus waters 307 Water 309 Watershed .^ 302-303, 305. 306 Water used in Tuolumne drainage basin 304-305 Stanislaus River project — Auxiliary supply 303, 308 Steel Stanislaus River project — Bay crossing Capacity Comparison with Tuolumne Cost of Disadvantages of Power development Pumping stations Report by C. E. New York aqueduct Pitting Pittsburgh aqueduct Portland aqueduct Potrero tunnel Power develoDment projects Preservation from rusting of Prevention of flattening Protection of exterior Rigidity Rustproofing Sacramento Ri^-er propect San Bruno tunnel San Toaquin River project San foaouin Valley 122, 229. 262-263, 267-268, South Fork Canvon crossing Sprinnfield aqueduct Stanislaus River project Stronger than wrought iron Tuberculation Visitacion Valley Withstanding of rust Steel pipe lines Steel siphons — Alameda Creek Valley. Page 308 308 158-160 308 308-309 305, 308 308 303-309 308 308 309 308 308 308 165 365 307 241 241 177  229 229 320 295 320 269-270 283 229 308 229 229 296 229 155 258 229 IvJ INDEX Page Steel siphons- New York water supply 229 Hetch Hetchy aqueduct 264 Los Angeles aqueduct 230-234 Steep gradient lessens cost of Hetch Helchy aqueduct 155 Stillwater Creek Valley 333 Stimulus of cheap electric power Ig7 Stipulations, Garfield permit ] 49. ] 50 Stock, capital, Spring Valley Water Company 385 Stock-raismg, Feather River watershed 347 Stone — Cost of 243, 288 Hetch Hetchy dam 287-288 Proportion of in concrete 287-288 Stoney Creek 32g Storage — Alameda Creek gravels 188, 196-197 Destroys organisms and impurities 32, 36-38, 53-54, 348 Feather River project 349 In foothills 58, 307 Mokelumne River 366-367 Niles Cone 7O Pleasanton Valley gravels 198 Poopenaut Meadow 58 Possibilities 303-304, 366-367 Purifies water 32, 36-38, 53-54, 348-349 Rancheria Creek 58 Reserves for bay region 68, 383 Reservoirs 20,28, 127, 131, 147, 172-173, 177, 187, 303-304,367-308, 366 Stanislaus River 303-304, 307 Vernon Lake 58 Storage capacity — (See "Capacity") Storm waters — Coyote River 206-209 208 61 Sludii Santa Clara Valley Straining bugs and algae from surface waters. . .. Strata — Dip of Livermore Valley refill Stratification, Livermore Valley Stratum of gravel underlying Santa Clara Valley Strawberry — Creek Dam 304, 306 Farm, near Niles 92-93 Reservoir 304, 306 Stream flow — Diminution in Feather River Fluctuations in Intercepting of Stanislaus River, equalization of Tapping of Streams, drying up of Streets, San Ffancisco, with no mains for fire protection 219-220 Strength, steel pipe 229 Stronachlagher Hotel 49 Structural steel work, cost of painting 233 Structures, Hetch Hetchy project — Alternative distribution aqueducts 294 Antonio- Valle Division 259-260 Calaveras- Antonio Division 258-259 Canyon Division 284, 286 Crystal Springs- Irvington Division 252-254 Eleanor-Cherry Division 289 Hetch Hetchy Division 286-288 Irvington-Calaveras Division 254-255, 258 Irvington-Chabot Division 291 Millbrae-San Mateo Division 297 Not injured by earthquakes 126-127 Poopenaut Division 291 San Miguel-Millbrae Division 295-296 Valle-Moccasin Division 260-281 110 200 89-90 206 304 205 348 188 205 305 205 209 By C. D. Marx.... Hetch Hetchy aquedu Moccasin Creek crossing location. Poopenaut dam Preliminary scope of Present sources of supply. Roads 78 :t location 262-263, 271-275 280 293 71 81-82 72 crossing 266-268 77 77 21 311 311 357 San Joaquin Rii Subdivision — Movement towards Of great individual land holdings Of water among the different communities Sub-irngated lands — American River Cosumnes River Modesto and Turlock Districts Submerged pipe — Alameda pipe line 383, 389 Bay head crossing 253 Dumbarton Straits 1 23 Hetch Hetchy aqueduct 20 Laying of 123 McCloud River project 328, 337-338 Ml. Shasta aqueduct , 328 Newark Slough 253 Repairs to 127 Sacramento River project 321-322 San Joaquin River crossing 114, 122, 269-270 San Joaquin River project 321 -322 Stanislaus River project 308 Subsidiary companies. Spring Valley Water Company 385 Sub-strata — Limitations of 1 92 Of rock in tunnels 71 Subsurface flow — Coyote River 206, 208-209 Coyote Valley gravels 207 Subterranean channels underlying Santa Clara Valley 207 Subterranean reservoir — Alameda Creek gravels 198 Availability uncertain Intake to Livermore Valley gravels Montana Pleasanton Valley gravels 86, Rate of giving up of water 201 Sunol gravels Texas 1 98 Uncertainty of extent 1 88 Suburban communities, growth of 78 Sudbury reservoir 42, 53 Sudden floods, Alameda Creek 87 Suffering from inadequate water supply, San Francisco 21 1-220 Suisun — Cement works 242 Marshes, reclamation of 328 Point reservoir 328 Summer flow— - Alameda Creek 86 Feather River 347 Summer population, McCloud River 331, 335 Summit tunnels, yield 1 77 Sunlight. exDOsure to; purification by 38 Sunnyside District- Inadequacy of water supply 220 No mains for fire protection 219 Sunol— Discharge at 1 98 Filters 197, 201,383 Ground waters 61 Rainfall 193, 195 Run-off 195-196, 198 Water 201 Watershed 196 Sunol dam — Area tributary to 196 Ivii THE HETCH HETCHY WATER SUPPLY FOR SAN FRANCISCO Page Sunol dam- Section 1 84 Views 184-185 Waste over 1 93 Sunol gravels- Area of 197 Beds 389 Botlom of 197 Dip In 259 Draining of 86 Erosion 259 Priority 197, 259 Saturation 259 Yielding capacity 81 Sunol Valley — Area of 1 86 Gravels 197, 259 Turbidity of streams through 201 Yield of 186 Sunset District- Inadequate water supply 211, 218 View 218 Sunset reservoir 131 Superimposed lands, rights of owners of, superior lo those of appropriators 208-209 Superintendent of Park, regulations by 55 Superiority, underground waters for irrigation 209 Supervision, catchment areas, Upper Tuolumne River.. 13, 36, 38, 55 Supervisors, Board of — Complaints of inadequate water service 213-218 Conferences with 70 Supreme Court decisions — ■ On ground waters 97, 1 75 On use of percolating waters 205-210 Surface- Areas, San Joaquin pipe 233 Exposure, Alameda Creek gravels 197 Flow, Alameda Creek 1 88 Of roads 15 East bay region 1 73 Surface waters — Consumption of, bay region 312 East bay region 1 72, I 76- 1 77 Peninsula 61 Screening of 61 Surge — Pipe, San Joaquin siphon 276 Shafts 29-30 Surge tanks — Basis of estimates on 251 Power house No. 2 284, 286 San Joaquin Valley 265 Surplus capacity — Hetch Hetchy aqueduct 21, 34 Los Angeles aqueduct 2! Manson plan 1 43- 1 44 Surplus flood waters — From Hetch b^etchy. conserving at Poopenaut Valley. 291 Tuolumne River 58 Surplus flow — Available for irrigation 21, 34, 124 Calaveras Creek 97 Coyote River 209 La Grange 101-103 Mokelumne River 365 Stanislaus River 307 Tuolumne River 81. 101-103 Surveys — Additional, after favorable decision from Washington. 1 60t Alameda Creek watershed 1 88 By D. P. Doak on McCloud River project 333 By C. E. Grunsky 108 By Wm. Ham Hall 108 By W. C. Hammatt 109 By Sierra Blue Lakes Water and Power Company. 370 For Early Intake 109 For perfecting details of plans 71 Surveys — For power house No. 1 For power house sites For roads Hetch Hetchy, time advisable lo begin In 1901 in 1902 In 1912 McCloud River project Past, reasons why so crude San Miguel reservoir Slow progress of Time for beginning Tuolumne River supply Sutkamp. A. P.. complaint of inadequate water supply Sutro Heights Improvement Club, complaint of inadequate water service Swamp lands — Fertility of Hetch Hetchy Valley Owens Valley Pleasanton Reclamation of Sacramento River San Joaquin River 77, Yolo Basin Sv/amps formed by excessive irrigation Swanitz, H. Unit costs 244, 247, 265, Test- Case in courts, Niles Cone ground waters Pits, Hetch Helchy project 70 Wells, Brooklyn, N. Y. . .. Wells, Niles Cone Wells, Santa Clara Valley '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. Testing — - Joints, Hetch Hetchy pipe Of altitude Texas, subterranean storage Thirlmere Lake 46-47 Thorns Creek Three-Mile Slough Tides — Carquinez Straits Ravenswood Sacramento River San Joaquin River Tilltill Valley— Branch road to 15 Location of View of Timbered areas — Feather River watershed McCloud River watershed Timber from public lands for construction work Timbering — Cosu 224-225 Elizabeth tunnel Hetch Hetchy aqueduct tunnels 71, 120, 244-249, 252-253, 255, 258, 260. 265, 278 283, 286, 297 Irvington gatehouse Klamath project tunnels Los Angeles aqueduct tunnels Orphan asylum tunnel Potrero tunnel Shafts 265, Southern Pacific Railroad tunnels Western Pacific Railroad tunnels Time required for construction work, Hetch Hetchy project... Time to begin — Borings Calaveras reservoir construction Further investigations Hetch Hetchy aqueduct Scenic road Sinking of test pits Surveys Tipping up of gravels Titicus reservoir Title- Desired by City to ground beneath scenic road McCloud River water rights To dam site, floor and shores, Hetch Hetchy Valley.. To land near Early Intake To lands, Hetch Hetchy, desired by City Todd, J. C, rain gauging, Lake Eleanor Tomatoes, irrigation of Topographical maps — Alameda Creek bed San Joaquin Valley U. S. Geological Survey Yosemite quadrangle Topography — Foothills east of San Joaquin Valley Hetch Hetchy aqueduct line 221, 261-263, 266-268, 271-275, 277, Mokelumne River region Mt. Shasta aqueduct Niles Canyon Pleasanton Valey age 264-265 247 280 269, , 283 70 71, 75 70 70 208 232 108 198 53-54 332 315 350-351 254 317 317 23, 290 117 23 347 336 15, 22 244-252 223, 226 255 250 224-225 251 251 269, 284 250-251 251 73-74 75 179 75 179 74 75 75, 179 190 14 15 328-329 13 22 13, 15 101 92 182 108 108, 239 108 271-275 280, 282 365 328 84 86 1 opograptiy — San Francisco 211, 383 San Joaquin Valley |08, 261-263, 266-268 Tuolumne River Canyon 277, 282 Torrential floods — Alameda Creek 85, 180, 188, 193 Livermore Valley 188-190, 197 90, 197 229 35 52 148 54 335 216 289 339 289 298 282 31, 13, Pleasanton Valley Toughness, steel pipe Tourists — Boston reservoirs Exclusion of 33 Hetch Hetchy 33^ On roads around reservoirs 43, 46-51, Towns, McCloud River watershed Toyne, G., complaint of inadequate water supply Traffic to Hetch Hetchy mainly through Chinese Camp Trail — Built by D. P. Doak Hog Ranch to Hetch Hetchy Construction for Hetch Hetchy project Transformers, power house No. 2 Transmission lines — Hetch Hetchy project 15, Los Angeles aqueduct McCloud River project Mokelumne River project 368-369, Transmission of power, Grunsky plan Transparency of water Transpiration of moisture in high altitudes Transportation — Charges Costs, Hetch Hetchy divisions 241-242, Difficulties of Facilities Of construction materials Treacherous ground — Chabot tunnel Dry Creek tunnel Los Angeles aqueduct tunnels Treatment of river waters 317, 348 Trenches — San Joaquin pipe line 229-230, San Joaquin River crossing Trestles — Bay head pipe Elimination of. 