THE STONY CREEK WATER WARS
Glenn County - Tehama County - Colusa County , California.
(c) 2009, Mike Barkley

Testimony by USA's expert S.T. Harding proving the Orland Project's diversion requirement.

[A re-transcription of the transcript on file in the Angle Archives

Important because it sets the Project requirement at 4.05 acre-feet per irrigated acre at the point of diversion. From this testimony, all Project requirements followed.

The transcription was made first by optically scanning through Textbridge software, and then cleaning it up. The public-use photocopier in the Court Clerk's office is of such a poor quality that the first output from Textbridge is nearly unusable and requires great effort to clean it up. I am pretty good at it, but not perfect; I apologize for any errors I may have missed.

This is in straight text with minimal HTML formatting. Any editorial comments by me are contained within brackets, "[]", which you may delete easily after downloading the "page source" to your own editing software if your browser allows source downloading. ]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


p. 3107

IN THE NORTHERN DIVISION OF THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,

SECOND DIVISION

BEFORE: GEORGE E. McCUTCHEN, ESQ., SPECIAL MASTER IN CHANCERY

AT WILLOWS, CALIF.

The United States of America,

Plaintiff,

-vs-

H.C. Angle, et al.,

Defendants.

IN EQUITY

No. 30

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13th, 1923 - 10:00 A.M.
APPEARANCES:
Oliver P. Morton, Esq., Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Los Angeles
For the United States

H.J. Hankins, Esq., of Messrs. Hankins & Hankins, San Francisco, Calif.
R.M. Rankin, Esq., Willows, Calif.
Duard F. Geis, Esq., Willows, Calif.
For their respective Defendants.

MR. MORTON: I will say for the record that the Government, as has been the understanding all along, has had the intention of supplementing its proof in chief with some odds and ends and also of supplementing it by way of the introduction of some testimony as to the water requirements for the Orland Project. It happens that the two gentlemen, consulting engineers, who will be used in making a showing of irrigation practice and related

p. 3108

subjects can be here today and a part of tomorrow, and instead of completing the supplemental proof in chief of the Government at this time, I thought it best that we use Mr. Harding, both upon the proof in chief and what might be termed possibly proof in rebuttal with reference to the water requirements for the lands of the Defendants. In that way his testimony is more or less related together and in that way it will be a completed whole and will be more readily used in the record. So I will call Mr. Harding.

- - - - - -

S.T. HARDING,

a witness called and sworn in behalf of the United States, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION


MR. MORTON: Q. Give your full name.
A. S.T. Harding
Q. Where do you live, Mr. Harding?
Q. Berkeley.
A. And your profession?
A. Civil Engineer.
Q. How long have you been engaged in the practice of your profession, Mr. Harding?
A. For the past 18 years.
Q. In this practice have you acquired s special knowledge of or have you paid special attention to certain branches of engineering subjects?
A. My engineering experience has been largely in relation to irrigation and particularly in relation to matters of irrigation practice.
Q. I wish you would list for the record, Mr. Harding somewhat in detail, first your training as an engineer and, second, your experience, particularly noting, please, your experience along the lines of irrigation practice and related subjects.

p. 3109

A. I graduated in Civil Engineering from the University of Michigan in 1905. Afler about two years general hydrographic work in the East, I came West and have been engaged in irrigation work continuously since. For about two years and a half from 1907 to 1909 I was engaged in general irrigation work, largely construction, for the Reclamation Service on the Yakima Project in Washington. I was then engaged for about a year and a half in general irrigation work, construction, location and investigations in Utah and California. In 1911 I became Irrigation Engineer with the U.S. Department of Agiculture, in charge of their irrigations investigations in the State of Montana, continuing in such charge until 1914. One season there was spent in the general study of irrigation conditions and development in Montana and two seasons in detailed experiments and investigations of use of water, in which we made applications of varying quantities of water to different fields selected, under actual farming conditions--that is, taking actual farm areas and handling them either ourselves or measuring the results of operations of their owners and comparing the results of qantities of water used and crop yields. That work was located largely near Billings and continued through the seasons of 1913 and 1914. During the seanson of 1912, I was in California, engaged on the so-called Water Resources Investigations of the State Conservation Commission, which brought me into general contact with the irrigation development in the northern and central portions of this State, their use of water, and factors of that kind. The season of 1915 I spent largely on the Minnidoca [Minidoka] Project in Idaho, still in the employ of the Federal Department of Agriculture, working out a system of adjustment of their operation or rates in relation to the

p. 3110

water requirements of the soils. They have on that project soils which vary from those of fairly heavy texture to those of very sandy nature and in their application of the sysem of rates prescribed by the Extension Act of the Reclamation Service they were having difficulties in developing a form of rate which would not unduly penalize those having the more porous soils. In the season of 1916 I was engaged on various work, mainly in California, such as investigations in relation to damage suits on the Crocker-Hoffman system near Merced, classifications of lands and other miscellaneous work. In 1917 I was in the employ of the Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District, which is the district of land owners in the Sunnnyside unit of the Yakima Project , in a study of their water requirements and the classification of their lands, for use as a basis of their operation rates. I also began in that season a study of the water requirements under the canals diverting from the Truckee River, in the adjudication proceedings brought by the Reclamation Service on that stream. That involved a soil survey and water classification of some thirty thousand acres in the Truckee meadows and a study of their irrigation practice and water requirements. In 1918 we continued our studies on the Truckee River, including the taking of actual fields and applying water under different conditions and that also included the investigation of water requirements of the lands under that system in connection with litigation that was then pending involving water rights on that system. I also assisted in the operation and management of the Sutter-Butte Canal during a portion of that season, and later was appointed by the Food Administration to have supervision of the District of water from the Feather River, in connection

p. 3111

with food products during the war. In 1919 I did further work on the Minnedoca Project in connection with litigation that had arisen there or threatened to arise between the land owners themselves, and continued the Truckee River investigations as well as other general work. Beginning in 1920, and since that time, I have been Consulting Engineer for the State Engineer of the State of California, handling for his office certain investigations, which have included a general study of the Kern River and its utilization and the development of plans for a project which has just completed its organization as the Kern River Water Storage District. That work involved the investigation in some detail of the practice of the use of waters from that stream and in the pumping of ground water. We examined the pumping plants in that country in 1920 and secured data as to the amount of water used under different conditions of farming operations and in that way made our estimate of use. In 1920 I began a study which lasted for two years of the water resources of Tulare County. We again made studies of their irrigation practice, water requirements and water resources. In 1922 I had charge of an investigation of ground water conditions and their use in the San Jacinto Basin in Southern California for the State Division of Water Rights, and I also began, and which is still continuing, an investigation for the State Engineer of the proposed water storage district in the San Joaquin River, which included nearly a million acres and involved the use of water both for pasture crops and for general crops, under a wide variety of soil conditions and the investigations of the San Joaquin River and other water storage districts now before the State

p. 3112

Engineer are still under way. I am still engaged on those. Since 1914 I have also been a member of the faculty of the University of California, giving the course there in irrigation practice, operation and maintenance and irrigation institutions. As to the work in connnection with the Orland Project, I had visited the Project at various times and began the first actual contact with the question of water requirements there in 1919 and continued more or less in contact with those up to the present time.
Q. And, Mr. Harding, you also investigated, did you not, the water requirements the lands [sic, syntax] along Stony Creek?
A. Yes, I have made an examination of those lands irrigated from diversions above the Orland Project, as well as those on the Project.
Q. Referring now to the Orland Project and the water requirements therefor, will you give in outline the results of your investigations in that regard.
A. The work which I have done on the Orland Project has consisted of an examination of their records, which are more than usually complete, as to the distribution and use of water, areas and nature of crops grown.
Q. Those are the official records that are kept from day to day and from month to month upon the Project itself, are they?
A. Yes, they are. I have gone over those and I have gone over the lands in a general way and have made use of the available soil surveys of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and all records available in that connection.
Q. These are official records of governmental operations that you are rererring to, are they not?

p. 3113

A. Yes, very largely. In discussing the water requirements of any project, the result will depend to quite an extent on the nature of the crops which may be grown on that project, and for the Orland Project I have considered it on the basis of three features of crops--summer crops and orchards, including of course with those the vines; the forage crops will be mainly alfalfa, with some minor area of other types, and also a considerable area of pasturage. The summer crops would be such crops as corn, grains and crops of that kind--that is only crops grown during a portion of the season. The orchards would include the the nuts, fruits and vines, including the citrus that may be grown on that project. The present practice and the nunber of irrigations and the depth of each application on the particular soils were considered from the records and from discussions with those on the project. Taking the records of the past as an indication of the tendency and the probable future division of crops, it isnít necessary to forecast the probable proportion of the area which will be crops of these three characters, because the water requirement of them will differ and as the full area of the project is not as yet irrigated, it isnít necessary to forecase [pencil change to forecast] the probable division of the area into those three crops when the full area has been developed, but taking the records of the past as an indivision [pencil change to indication] of what that division may be, I find there has been, as is usual with most such projects, a tendency to irrigate a relatively high proportion of the forage types of crops and that tendency still continues; that is, there has been during recent years and is still over 60% of the land irrigated in the forage types of crops,
Q. You refer there to alfalfa mainly, do you not?

p. 3114

A. Alfalfa is the dominating forage crop on that project, and that includes both the alfalfa grown for hay and for pasture.
Q. You distinguish forage crops from annual grain or corn crops?
A. Yes, and also from orchard crops, because their water requirements in general are considerably larger; that is, larger quantities of water are needed for either summer crops or the orchards, so that the proportion of the total area which may be in forage crops will affect the resulting total water requirement. The summer crops are subject to more fluctuation in the proportion of their area due to variable conditions of price from year to year and matters of that character. Being annual crops, of course the lands can be changed in those crops more readily than either forage or orchard types, and the proportion of the area in them is from 25 to 30% at the present time. The orchard crops have shown a continuous tendency towards increase. The proportion in orchard still remains high, and as those coming into bearing develop, the total of bearing orchards increases. At the present time the area in orchard is 25% of the total area irrigated on the Project, including bearing and non-bearing areas. From the past experience in the division of crops on that Project, it appears that there will be a considerable period during which the forage crops will occupy probably 60% of the area irrigated. It may be in the future that the tendency to increase the area in orchard crops will reduce the proportion in alfalfa, but it is reasonable to consider that by the time the project is fully developed there will be some years during which forage crops will be 60% of that of the total area. It may be that the proportion of forage crops may be dropped to 50% of the total, but it is probable that there will be a

p. 3115

considerable period when as much as 60% in alfalfa will be expected. During that period when 60%/ of the area may be in forage crops it is probable that there will be probably 15% of the area in summer type of crops and the remaining 25% in orchard. It is possible that those figures may change to 50% in forage crops, 20% in summer crops and 30% in orchard. I have later worked out the water requirements on the basis of both of these figures as to the possible division of crops. Coming to the soil on the project, I find there are three different ways in which the lands may be divided in a discussion of their water requirements. In various reports, and particularly the earlier reports that were made in connection with the Project, the soils were divided into five general groups and the irrigable area of each determined. I have used as the irrigable area of the Project 20,500 acres, which is very closely, as I understand, the actual irrigable area. Taking these five groups, there would be 3000 acres of coarse gravel soil, 7,000 acres of gravelly loam, 2500 acres of clay, 3,500 acres of black loam and 3500 acres of sandy loam, giving a total of 20,500 acres [? adds to 19,500]. The class of clay soils as used in this grouping are what is known locally as hard lands. They are not all as heavy a texture as would be the clays found in many areas. The area has also been covered by a soil survey of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It was covered in an earlier survey known as the Colusa Survey, which was carried out in more detail. The areas also included in the genenel area are covered by soil survevs of the Sacramento Valley.
Q. Of what Departnent?
A. Well, of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Using the Colusa Survey, I plotted the area on the Project on that map

p. 3116

and scaled off the areas of the different soil classes as shown on the soil survey map and found that there were the following results: 4700 acres of Sacramento loam, 4200 acres of Sacramento gravel clay loam, 200 acres of Sacramento silt loam, 8700 acres of San Joaquin loam, 400 acres of San Joaquin fine loam, 9200 acres of Orland gravel loam, 250 acres of Orland fine sand, and 250 acres of Orland sandy loam [27,900 acres total?]. There is also in the operation of the project a further division of the lands over a continuance of their operation records into a fourth division--what is called the north side area and the southeast area. The soils in a general way vary in those four divisions [4?] so that the records of those four divisions separately give some measure of the difference in use under different soil conditions on the Project. In studying the actual records of use on the Project, I have given most attention to the records for the years 1921, 1922 and 1923. That is due to the fact that those are the more recent years, when the practice in irrigation more nearly represents the present development. They are also years in which the use was not limited by shortage in the water supply, such as would have been the case had I used the records for 1920 or other occasional years when the supply was not complete. I went over the records for individual farms selected to represent different crop conditions and used information secured in the reaching of my conclusions as to the reasonable use on these different soils and crops within the Project. The irrigation practice consists in serving the larger part of the lands on what they speak of as a 14-day schedule; that is, with an irrigation in two-week periods. Some of the lands require the water at shorter periods and some are able to go somewhat

p. 3117

longer, but in the main the soil is such that relatively frequent irrigations are given, which with their rather long irrigation season will necessarily mean a rather large total amount of use for the season as a whole.
Q. What is the length of the irrigation season?
A. It will vary some with the different seasons, beginning ordinarily in March and running into October and occasionally in November in drier falls.
Q. More than six months?
A. Yes.
Q. You refer to the fact that the length of the season somewhat increases the total amount of water used. Just explain that briefly.
A. The period of time that a soil can carry a crop between irrigations is dependent on the amount of moisture which that soil can retain from an irrigation and the rate of consumption of moisture by the crop. Many of the soils on the Project are ones of rather small moisture holding capacity, that is, they cannot retain as much water from an irrigation as would soils of more favorable texture--
Q. (interrupting) Would retain, you mean?
A. Yes, would retain. The result is that irrigation needs to be given at relatively frequent periods, such as 12 to 14 days. With irrigations given at some period, the number of irrigations during the season as a whole will be generally proportionable to the length of the irrigation season.
Q. And frequent irrigations, Mr. Harding, are compensated for in part by a less application than is the case where irrigations are at long intervals?
A. Yes; again governed somewhat by the type of the soil. On the heavier soils, where the land can be covered, that is,

p. 3118

the water flooded across the area, with a larger amount of absorption, a relatively small irrigation at each application may be given. On the coarser soils, which also require irrigations at frequent intervals, the difficulty of getting the water over those lands without having excessive percolation loss tends to balance the loss by the frequency of the irrigation. I have used those three divisions of the lands and soils as a basis in preparing three estimates of the water requirements for the Project, based on the actual records on the Project and based also on data which I have on similar lands in the Sacramento and on some in the San Joaquin Valley. Those are secured by assuming the proportion of the area that will be used in the alfalfa, summer crops and orchards and then estimating the number of irrigations per season and the depth of each irrigation for each of those crops on each of the soil classes, and from that developing by computation an estimate of the total quantity of water in acre feet which should delivered [sic, syntax] to the farms for their complete irrigation of the full irrigable area on the Project.
Q. Mr. Harding, these results and these investigations and computations are also based upon your examination of the country--upon your own examination of the country and the investigation of soil conditions, coupled with these other things, are they not?
A. Yes they are. I made no direct or detailed effort to determine the extent of the areas in the different types of soils, but used the already available soil map of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I did examine in the field areas classed as the different types of soil to determine their nature and the character of their irrigation practice.

p. 3119

Q Go ahead.
A. Using the five groups of soils previously given, from the older project reports, and assuming that when the full area of the project is irrigated the proportion of forage crops may be as low as 50%, with 20% of the area in summer crops and 30% in orchards, I derive a total estimated water requirement for delivery to the farms on the Project of some 60,150 acre feet per season. If for the same division of soils the assumption is made that threre will be 60% of the area in forage crops, the corresponding figure becomes 62,870 acre feet. The difference in those two figures is due to the fact that the difference in the proportion of the area in forage crops results in a difference in the total use as the estimated requirement for such forage crops is larger for crops such as summer crops or orchards. The actual estimated use of water in acre feet per acre varies from a maximum of five acre feet per acre for alfalfa on coarse gravel soil to a minimum of 1.3 acre feet per acre for orchards on black loam soils. For the various soil and crop conditions in betwen those two extremes, intermediate figures of reasonable use, dependent on such conditions, have been used. Taking the soil classification from the map of the U.S. soil survey and again estimating a reasonable use for each of these three crops on each of the soil types, I find for conditions where 50% of the area may be in forage crops a total estimated requirement for delivery to the farms for the full irrigable area of the Project of 57,700 acre feet. For the same conditions, excepting again assuming 60% of the area would be in forage crops, the corresponding estimate is.55,900 acre feet. Taking the four geographic divisions of the Project and basing an estimate

p. 3120

of the soils in each of these divisions and the records of existing use of water within each of these divisions, for conditions where 50% of the area may be in forage crops, the resulting estimate of the total requirements for delivery to the farms became 55,100 acre feet. Again estimating 60% of the area in forage crops, the corresponding estimate of the total requirements for delivery to the farms becomes 57,600 acre feet. The mean of those three estimates may be used, that is, each should have a reasonable basis for its support, and an average of the three for each of the crop conditions would represent in my opinion a reasonable water requirement for the irrigable area of the farms. For the conditions where 50% of the area is considered to be in forage crops, 20% in summer crops and 30% in orchards, the average is 57,600 acre feet as the reasonable requirement for delivery to the farms. For the other conditions, where 60% of the area is considered to be in forage crops, with 15% in summer crops and 25% in trees, the average becomes 60,100 acre feet. That represents in my opinion the reasonable water requirement of the lands classed as irrigable within the Orland Project when they are fully developed, the figure being the quantity required for delivery to the farms, that is, no conveyance losses are included in that figure.
Q. I think you have already stated, Mr. Harding, that gauged upon the fact that morre than 60% of the area is now in forage crops that it is a reasonable assumption to say that for a considerable period after full development, still 60% will be in forage crops and that condition might persist?
A. Yes, in my opinion the eventual proportion of forage crops may become as low as 50%, but there will probably be a

p. 3121

period in which the Project will have to meet a condition of irrigation of its full area with as much as 60% in forage crops and it will require a water supply adequate to meet that demand during that period.
Q. And that period is indeterminate?
A. Yes, it is of necessity indeteriminate because it involves the future tendency in the nature of crops, which is only a matter of prediction at the present time. I do however believe we will have as much as 60% of the land in forage crops. If that is done the resulting estimate for the Project would be, in round numbers, 60,000 acre feet per season delivered to the farms. The Project will of course require diversions of larger amounts than the quantity necessary for delivery to the farms, due to the losses in conveyance. I have made an examination of their records covering both seepage loss from the canals and regulation loss from them and have made estimates of the probable future amount of such seepage loss and of the amount of loss which in my opinion would be a reasonable loss and a loss which would be provided for in the amounts of water which the Project may be permitted to divert.
Q. Mr. Harding, you referred to distribution and seepage losses. Is there also a coefficient in there that is based upon evaporation loss?
A, Seepage, as the term is generally used, includes the evaporation loss. Usually and normally, seepage and evaporation are measured and considered jointly. Seepage is ordinarily the larger item of the two, and the percentage may or may not include the evaporation.
Q. Then, when you speak generally of seepage loss, you are using the generic term, which covers seepage and evaporation losses?

p. 3122

A. Yes, the proper term would probably be conveyance losses. The conditions of irrigation on the Project necessarily result in more regulation waste than is required on a good many systems; that is, we have a Project where the delivery to each farm is based upon the requirement of that farm as to periods between irrigation. There is no uniform period between irrigations used throughout the Project, so that there is more shifting around of the water between the laterals and between the individual farms, which will of necessity result in certain periods of the supply reaching the lower ends of the laterals without diversion. That is measured and is noted in their records as the regulation waste. The proportion of the regulation waste is naturally larger in the earlier months of the season when the irrigation is more irregular and when farms may not take water at certain periods. During the main irrigation months the demand is more regular and the proportion of regulation waste becomes less, and there records indicate that during months such as July, August and September their canals are operated with a very small amount of regulation waste. In the earlier months the regulation waste may amount to a considerable portion of the diversion. I have gone over their records for conveveyance losses, that is, seepage and evaporation, and find that even with the considerable amount of concrete lining now in use on the stream [er, canals?] that the conveyance losses are averaging about 25% of the diversion. The figures for the past three years for the season as a whole were 26% in 1921, 25% in 1922 and 1923. It may be that with the additional lining that is contemplated, the seepage losses may be reduced slightly below these figures. The present existing canal systems represent a higher standard of practice in

p. 3123

prevention of seepage than is usual throughout the general irrigation practice in this area.
Q. You mean that the present practice on the present Orland Project is superior to the usual practice in the Valley?
A. Yes, they have already gone further in preventing losses than is the usual practice. They have what may be regarded as a better built system than the average in the Sacramento Valley. So that I have used as reasonable conveyance loss for the Project 25% of the amount diverted. I have used various figures for the regulation waste, varying those figures in the different months of the season as appears reasonable; that is, the proportion that would be reasonable would be larger in the early and late seasonal months as compared with those at the heigth [sic] of the demand. The figures which I have used for regulation waste are 20% of the diversion in March, 10% in April, 5% in May, 3% in June, zero in July, August and September, and 5% in October. The actual diversion by the Project will vary in different months of season, so that an estimate of the total acre feet per season does not give much guide to the capacity of the canals required, unless we distribute that diversion to the months in which it will probably occur. The irrigation demand begins gradually in the spring, reaches a fairly steady amount during the main summer months and gradually diminishes again in the fall period. I have examined the records of the Projeect and determined the percentage of the total seasonal diversion that has occurred in each month of the season's operation and find that the probable or normal division of the diversion during the months of the season would be such that of the total diversion during any season one would expect to find in a normal year that 1% of

p. 3124

that diversion would occur in March, 9% in April, 16% in May, 19% in June, 20% in Ju1y, 18% in August, 13% in September, and 4% October. There will be variation from those averages in different years, depending upon whether or not the crop season is relatively larger in the spring or otherwise, or the time at which fall rains may begin. But a general average schedule of diversion would be expected to be in accordance with the figures given. Using those percentages and applying them to the estimate of 60,000 acre feet required for delivery to the farms, the requirement for delivery to the farms in each month of the season can be secured, applying to that monthly requirement for delivery to the farms the estimated conveyance loss of 25% for all months and the regulation waste for each month in the amount which has been given, we have the basis for computing the total requirement in acre feet for each month of the season. I have made such computation, which shows that in order to be able to deliver 60,000 acre feet per season to the farms during the entire season it it would be necessary to divert 83,000 acre feet at the headgates of the canal.

[THIS IS THE SOURCE OF THE 4.05 a-f/acre: he is using gross acreage of 20,500 acres, p. 3115 & 3125; 60,000 a-f p. 3124 & 3121, with 25% conveyance = 83,000, but that's more than 25%; even so, 83000/20500 = 4.0487 a-f/acre, or 4.05 rounded]

Q The canals you are referring to now, Mr. Harding, are the north and south diverting canals of the Project, are they not--the main distributing canals?
A. Yes, there is no consideration in that figure of any losses in Stony Creek above that point, or in the storage of water. It is the amount that would have to pass the headgate of the north and south diversions in order to deliver 60,000 to the lands in the Project.
Q. That would be the combined storage and natural flow during the season?
A. Yes. Taking those

p. 3125

figures for the total acre feet of diversion in the different months of the season, the mean diversion in second ffet [sic] that w [sic] would be required in each month to maintain those deliveries can be computed; that is, one second foot of flow will give two acre feet for 24 hours, and knowing the number of acre feet that we need, the diversion in each month of 30 or 31 days, as the case may be, the equivalent average diversion in terms of second feet can be computed, and we find on making such a computation that the month of maximum [c typed changed to x handwritten] diversion would be June and that an average diversion during that month of 266 second feet would be required to deliver the proportion of this total requirement which it is estimated will occur in that month. That is, the sum of the diversion in the north and south canal would have to average 266 second feet in June in order to enable the Project to deliver the 19% of its total seasonal requirements, which would occur in that month. That figure of 266 second feet represents the flow at the heads of these two canals and is again independent of any stream losses above those points; that is, it represents the diversion, regardless of the source from which such supply might come. That figure of 266 second feet would in my opinion represent the reasonable diversion capacity of the canals serving the 20,500 acres of irrigable land within the Project.
Q. And would also represent, if you can state it in that fashion, for the purpose of making it clear, the water right that the Project would require in diversion units?
A. Yes, that would be, in my understanding, the degree to which the Project would be entitled under a reasonable standard of irrigation practice to water requirement of the lands which it is attempting to serve.

p. 3126

Q. An approximation of 265 or 266 second feet?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that complete main body of your testimony?
A. That completes the main body of my testimony relative to the water requirements of the Project lands.

CROSS EXAMINATION

MR. HANKINS: Q. Mr. Harding, do you consider a 25% transmission loss a normal loss of an irrigation project of this type?
A. Yes, if in that answer is included a consideration of the nature of the soils, through which these canals have to pass. You might have systems serving equal irrigated area of similar shape where with different soil conditions the percentage of conveyence loss might be considerably less.
MR. MORTON: Q. It might also be considerably more?
A. It might, although on the whole the conveyance conditions on the Orland Project are more than average unfavorable, that is, there is a more than average amount of coarser soils.
MR. HANKINS: Q. Do your records show the number of miles in the Project?
A. There is such a figure, I haven't it exactly but my recollection is it is in the neighborhood of 150 miles. Mr. Weber can correct me on that if I am not correct.
MR. MORTON: I am told it is 148 miles.
MR. HANKINS: Q. Then your seepage loss is based on 148 miles of canals?
A. It is, except of course that no particle of water covers any such distance; that is, the average distance traveled by water in the canals would be very much smaller than that amount.
Q. But that is the foundation of your computation of seepage loss?
A. It is the existing canal system, yes.

p. 3127

Q. What amount of this seepage loss can be cured through concreting, say, a third of the canal system.
A. There is over a third of the canal system concreted in which these losses occur. That figure which I have given you is based on the actual loss during the seasons of 1921, 1922, and 1923, and in all of those seasons there was a considerable mileage of the canals which were concreted, the amount increasing each year as additional lining was done between the seasons, so that the figure of 25% is their existing loss on the basis of the canals as they are now lined.
Q. In your opinion, will this seepage loss ever be reduced in this Project, assuming that reasonable amount of concreting will be done and that that work will be continued?
A. My opinion would be that it might be possible to somewhat reduce this seepage loss but that any requirement for lining which would make such reduction would be setting up a standard of practice that isoutside [sic, run together] of the ordinary practice now in use in the Sacramento Valley. I think also that the reduction which might be brought about by further lining would not be perhaps a very large part of this 25% loss.
MR. HANKINS: I think that is all.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

MR. MORTON: Q. What, if you know, Mr. Harding, is about the average mileage of water on the Project? I under that that [sic, syntax] figure is affected by the size of the canals and matters of that kind, which make it a somewhat variable figure, but I would like to know.
A. I did not make any detailed computations, but judging by the general locaton of the canals and the irrigated area, the average distance which the water travels in the canals between

p. 3128

the point of diversion and the delivery to the land would probably be somewhere around 10 or 12 miles.
Q. If you wished to make a rough calculation--and which again would be a variable figure--you would get somewhere around 2% per mile?
A. Yes, the present average conveyance loss, expressed in terms of per cent per mile, would probably be somewhere in the vicinity of two or two and one-half per cent.
Q. That or course is not an accurate way of estimating loss, as I understand it, Mr. Harding, for this reason: that in large canals the wetted perimeter is a very much larger figure and therefore the loss is reduced?
A/ [sic] For the same rate of seepage expressed in terms of the water which seeps from a canal per square foot of water with which the water is in contact the percentage of loss will be much larger in a small canal as the so-called wetted area is relatively larger to the proportion of the water in the canal.
Q. We have on the Project a number of large canals and also a number of small canals?
A. Yes. The canal system is relatively compact on the Orland Project. There is approximately 140 acres of irrigable land for each mile of canal system, which is much higher than is found--or where the topographic conditions make the irrigable area a less solid area than it is on the Orland Project.
MR. MORTON: If there are no further questions, I will start Mr. Harding on the other branch [upstream non-USA diversions] of his testmony.
THE MASTER: It is practically noon now, and we will adjourn until 1:15 p.m.



Table of Harding "Rules" in the transcript:
pp. 3107-3128 HARDING, SETS UP PROJECT REQUIREMENTS, re-transcribed, above
pp. 3129-3130 HARDING, INVESTIGATION OF UPPER WATERSHED LANDS
pp. 3133-3138 HARDING, STANDARD OF PRACTICE in determining requirements
pp. 3143-3144 HARDING, DELIVERED PLUS CONVEYANCE IN DIVERSION NUMBER
pp. 3145-3148 HARDING, AMOUNT & MONTH OF MAXIMUM DIVERSION
p. 3149 HARDING, 150-DAY SEASON
pp. 3151-3152 HARDING, MORE ON MONTHS OF MAXIMUM USE
p. 3153 HARDING, FLOWS vs. MONTHLY TOTALS
pp. 3170-3171 HARDING, ROTATION
pp. 3174-3175 HARDING, HEAD vs. RIGHT; ROTATION
p. 3183-3184 HARDING: MONTH OF MAXIMUM USE
p. 3185 HARDING, CONVEYANCE LOSSES, HEADS, VOLUMES, ROTATION
pp. 3190-3191 HARDING, CONVEYANCE THROUGH SOIL TYPES
p. 3212 HARDING, INFO FROM ERIKSEN, REMOTE TRACTS
pp. 3212-3215 HARDING, CONVEYANCE LOSSES/STUDY THROUGHOUT THE WEST

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Return to Stony Creek Water Wars.

--Mike Barkley, 161 N. Sheridan Ave. #1, Manteca, CA 95336 (H) 209/823-4817
mjbarkl@inreach.com