WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS IN CALIFORNIA
Historic Context Development
and Evaluation Procedures
Prepared Jointly by:
JRP Historical Consulting Services California Department of Transportation
1490 Drew Avenue, Suite 110 Environmental Program/ Cultural Studies Office
Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, CA 95814
December 2000
December 2000 Water Conveyance Systems in California
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report reflects the contributions of many individuals. Its strengths can be attributed to the diverse
professional backgrounds and experiences of two multidisciplinary teams, one from the private sector and one
from state service. John Snyder of the Caltrans Cultural Studies Office in Sacramento was responsible for the
vision that prompted the study, and he oversaw the contract with JRP Historical Consulting Services to
produce the initial document. JRP staff, including Jeff Crawford, Rand Herbert, Steve Mikesell, Stephen Wee,
and Meta Bunse authored the draft report under that contract. In June 1995, JRP submitted the manuscript to
Caltrans, completing their responsibilities under the contract.
JRP’s excellent work constitutes the body of this report, with subsequent work by Caltrans staff to meet
additional needs not foreseen in the original contract. Caltrans Cultural Studies Office staff Thad Van Bueren,
Dorene Clement, Greg King, Gloria Scott, and Laurie Welch contributed to the revisions and preparation of
supplementary material, while Kendall Schinke assisted with graphics production. Throughout the process,
Meta Bunse and other staff at JRP Historical Consulting Services cooperated in the revisions and rendered
invaluable assistance, particularly with regard to the conversion of electronic files.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the many professional colleagues who shared their expertise and
suggestions during the formulation of this study. This report has benefited from their generous and thoughtful
observations.
Any questions or comments on the study should be directed to the Chief, Cultural Studies Office, Caltrans
Environmental Program, MS 27, P. O. Box 942874, Sacramento, CA 94274- 0001.
Cover Photograph: Folsom Dam ( courtesy of the California Room, California State Library)
Water Conveyance Systems in California December 2000
ii
December 2000 Water Conveyance Systems in California
iii
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................................... .................... i
CONTENTS....................................................................................................................... ................................................. iii
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... ............................................ 1
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW....................................................................................................................... ....................... 3
IRRIGATION..................................................................................................................... ................................................... 6
Native American Irrigation ............................................................................................................................... ........... 6
Spanish and Mexican Period Irrigation..................................................................................................................... .. 8
American Period Irrigation..................................................................................................................... ................... 11
The Legacy of Irrigation Canals ............................................................................................................................... . 31
MINING......................................................................................................................... ................................................... 31
The Gold Rush........................................................................................................................... ................................. 32
Development of Large- Scale Mining......................................................................................................................... . 33
Hydraulic Mining ............................................................................................................................... ........................ 38
Effects of the Sawyer Decision ............................................................................................................................... .... 48
Quartz Mining ............................................................................................................................... ............................. 51
Dredge Mining ............................................................................................................................... ............................ 52
Return of Small- Scale Placer Mining......................................................................................................................... 52
The Legacy of Mining in California ............................................................................................................................ 53
HYDROELECTRIC SYSTEMS........................................................................................................................ ...................... 54
Pioneering Development, 1890s- 1910 ........................................................................................................................ 56
Consolidation and Watershed Development, 1905 to Present .................................................................................... 62
Public Development of Hydroelectric Power.............................................................................................................. 67
The Legacy of Hydroelectric Power.......................................................................................................................... . 69
COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................... ........ 70
RECLAMATION SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................... .................. 71
MAJOR MULTI- PURPOSE SYSTEMS........................................................................................................................ .......... 72
The Central Valley Project........................................................................................................................ ................. 73
The State Water Project ............................................................................................................................... .............. 80
Integration of the Major Multi- Purpose Systems ........................................................................................................ 83
TYPICAL COMPONENTS ............................................................................................................................... .............. 83
DIVERSION STRUCTURES..................................................................................................................... ............................ 85
CONDUITS....................................................................................................................... ................................................. 85
FLOW CONTROL AND CLEANSING DEVICES ...................................................................................................................... 88
ASSOCIATED RESOURCES AND SETTING ........................................................................................................................... 88
SURVEY METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... ........... 89
RESEARCH....................................................................................................................... ................................................ 89
FIELD INSPECTION AND RECORDATION.................................................................................................................... ........ 90
SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION ............................................................................................................................... ............. 92
Application of the NRHP Criteria ............................................................................................................................... 92
Integrity...................................................................................................................... ................................................ 95
Eligibility Details ............................................................................................................................... ........................ 95
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS................................................................................................................. ......... 97
ENDNOTES....................................................................................................................... ................................................ 99
BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................... ........................................ 113
INDEX.......................................................................................................................... .................................................... 127
Water Conveyance Systems in California December 2000
iv
Appendices
APPENDIX A: List of identified water conveyance systems
APPENDIX B: Detailed typology of water conveyance system components
List of Tables
Table 1. Hall’s 1880 survey ............................................................................................................................... .......... 13
Table 2. Growth of irrigated acreage in California........................................................................................................ 15
Table 3. Salinas Valley irrigation canals ca. 1902......................................................................................................... 26
Table 4. Owens Valley canals, 1904 ............................................................................................................................. 29
Table 5. Mining ditches and canals by length, per county ca. 1865 .............................................................................. 37
Table 6. Comparison of ditch dimension of three companies........................................................................................ 43
Table 7. Major hydraulic mining ditches of the Sierra Nevada region in 1882............................................................. 49
Table 8. Pioneer period hydroelectric water conveyance systems as of 1923 ............................................................... 61
Table 9. Typical components and features .................................................................................................................... 84
Table 10. Inventory record checklist ............................................................................................................................... 91
Table 11. Survey report checklist...................................................................................................................... ............. 92
List of Figures
Figure 1. Distribution of prehistoric agriculture in California ...................................................................................... 7
Figure 2. Mission San Diego ............................................................................................................................... ........ 9
Figure 3. Remains of Mission San Diego stone dam .................................................................................................. 10
Figure 4. Gage Canal, ca. 1900........................................................................................................................... ....... 17
Figure 5. Cobble and brush dam, Fresno Canal, ca. 1898 .......................................................................................... 21
Figure 6. Headworks and dam, Moore Ditch, ca. 1900 .............................................................................................. 22
Figure 7. Orland Project lateral, ca. 1914................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 8. Salinas Valley irrigation, ca. 1904............................................................................................................... 25
Figure 9. Lateral of the Klamath Project, under construction in 1949 ........................................................................ 28
Figure 10. The rocker or cradle ............................................................................................................................... .... 32
Figure 11. The long tom ............................................................................................................................... ............... 32
Figure 12. California ground sluicing ........................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 13. Early hydraulic mining operation ................................................................................................................ 38
Figure 14. North Bloomfield Mining Company’s Malakoff Mine................................................................................ 40
Figure 15. Trestled flume.......................................................................................................................... ................... 44
Figure 16. Miocene bracket flume ............................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 17. Milton bench flume ............................................................................................................................... ..... 45
Figure 18. Section of La Grange Ditch ......................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 19. El Dorado Canal bench flume showing side drainage notch ....................................................................... 47
Figure 20. Pelton wheel ............................................................................................................................... ................ 52
Figure 21. Old Pomona Plant, ca. 1920 ........................................................................................................................ 57
Figure 22. Folsom dam and intake structure................................................................................................................. 58
Figure 23. Flume on Colgate system, 1910................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 24. Bear River Canal, 1908 ............................................................................................................................... 60
Figure 25. Lower end of Butte Creek Canal, 1908 ....................................................................................................... 63
Figure 26. Drum Canal showing rock wall, 1914 ......................................................................................................... 66
Figure 27. Central Valley Project features, 1981.......................................................................................................... 75
Figure 28. Typical unreinforced concrete section of Contra Costa Canal..................................................................... 76
Figure 29. Delta- Mendota Canal under construction, 1947 .......................................................................................... 77
Figure 30. Madera Canal and Friant Dam..................................................................................................................... 79
Figure 31. Major facilities of the State Water Project, 1993 ........................................................................................ 81
Figure 32. Typical State Water Project canal ............................................................................................................... 83
December 2000 Water Conveyance Systems in California
1
INTRODUCTION
This study began as an attempt to develop a statewide thematic approach to surveying the ditches and canals
which are a commonly encountered, but previously little studied, property type in California. In the past,
canals were not always recognized as a type of cultural resource that might need study, and furthermore,
although highways and other transportation facilities often intersect artificial waterways, projects that merely
cross linear resources typically have little potential to affect them. As a result, structures such as canals,
railroads, or roads that were bridged by a transportation project were rarely included in cultural resource
studies.
Now there is increased awareness that canals and other water conveyance facilities can be historically
significant, and that when projects do have the potential to affect them, they need to be studied systematically.
However, important water conveyance systems are frequently extensive and sometimes quite complex, while
transportation project effects on them are typically limited to a small segment of the entire property. Under
these circumstances, developing a basic historical context would allow researchers to work from a baseline of
existing knowledge, thus helping to achieve a suitable balance between the need for adequate information and
expenditure of a reasonable level of effort.
Because of California’s unique combination of natural resources, climate, topography, history, and
development patterns, the state has a variety and number of water conveyance systems possessed by few if
any other states. Consequently, little guidance has been developed at a national or regional level, leaving
California to develop its own statewide historic context and methodology. Sufficient research has now been
conducted on California’s water conveyance systems to provide this historic context and survey methodology
for the appropriate consideration of water conveyance systems, especially the frequently encountered canals
and ditches, in order to take into account the effect of transportation projects on historic water conveyance
facilities.
It must be recognized that not all water conveyance properties encountered in the course of a project
require study. No studies are needed when it can be reasonably concluded that an affected water
conveyance facility lacks any potential for significance or when the project has no potential for effect
on the property.
When there is potential for an effect on a water conveyance facility requiring study, the property should be
incorporated within a project’s Area of Potential Effect ( APE). Undertakings that could have effects might
include proposals that would modify a critical element of a significant system, concrete line or pipe an
important earthen ditch, introduce visual intrusions that alter a canal’s historic setting, reroute a critical
component of an early system, obliterate a small mining ditch, or cause other changes to an important
property’s essential physical features. On the other hand, improving or replacing an existing bridge over a
canal, including minor modifications in the vicinity of bridge footings, would have little potential to alter
important characteristics of most water conveyance systems. In such circumstances, the project’s APE would
normally exclude the canal, and no studies would be needed.
Some level of research may be necessary to identify the possibility of historical associations and to reach a
conclusion as to whether an evaluative study would be warranted, but certain types of water conveyance
facilities are generally more likely than others to require study. Likely properties include any prehistoric or
mission- era irrigation systems; gold rush- era mining ditches; early or major irrigation, reclamation, or
hydroelectric systems; major multi- purpose systems; flumes, tunnels, or ditches that may possess engineering,
construction, or design distinction; properties associated with important events, such as critical or precedent-setting
litigation; and any early or prototype facilities. Other properties have minimal potential for
significance and rarely require evaluative studies, although recordation and mapping during an archeological
survey may be appropriate. Among properties normally unlikely to require further consideration are roadside
drainage ditches; municipal water, sewer, and storm drain systems; most ordinary irrigation ditches; modified
Water Conveyance Systems in California December 2000
2
natural waterways; modern pipelines; isolated or unidentified ditch segments; and canals less than 50 years
old.
Professional judgment should always be exercised before undertaking studies of most canals and ditches,
particularly ordinary irrigation facilities that are ubiquitous in many regions and could easily generate a great
number of unnecessary studies. In many cases, survey mapping and limited research to verify absence of any
important associations will be all that is needed. Exceptions are possible, however, and careful consideration
is needed to ensure that the level of effort is adequate and appropriate but not excessive.
When studies are called for, Caltrans cultural resources staff and consultants are encouraged to use the
following historic context and survey methodology to help identify and evaluate water conveyance systems in
an efficient, systematic manner. Consideration of such resources is part of the agency’s general
responsibilities to take into account the effects of transportation projects on properties that are eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places, responsibilities that derive from Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations, 36 CFR Part 800. Caltrans also has
responsibilities for cultural resources under various provisions of state law, including the California
Environmental Quality Act and Public Resources Code 5024 et seq.
This report offers a thematic approach to the identification and evaluation of the major types of water
conveyance systems found in California. The term “ water conveyance system” underscores two concepts that
are central to this approach. First, structures designed to move water from one place to another are frequently
part of a larger system and can be evaluated only by consideration of the entire system. Second, such systems
delivered water that facilitated other activities, and thus their importance must be understood in relation to
broader developments and the challenges that California’s varied landscapes posed. Individual historic
contexts are presented for the state’s most common types of systems, those that conveyed water for irrigation,
mining, hydroelectric power production, communities, reclamation, and large multi- purpose systems.
Examples of each type of system are described in detail, but it should be noted that systems discussed in the
text are selected examples, not a comprehensive survey or an identification of the most significant resources.
While this study focuses on ditches, canals, and similar features commonly intersected by transportation
facilities, water conveyance systems can encompass a great range of other resources that may be worthy of
consideration on a survey. It is hoped that the research and approaches developed here will also be useful for
studies of other water- related resource types. For example, the scope of this study is limited to systems
designed for the conveyance of water rather than for the movement of goods or people. However, the same or
similar systems may have been used for other purposes, such as to transport logs or other materials. Existing
water systems may also be used for related purposes, such as by ground water recharge facilities or by water
treatment plants. While the current study does not extend to alternative uses of water systems, many of the
survey considerations identified here will be similar for such properties.
During the preparation of this guidance, existing information and approaches to the subject were first
reviewed, identifying both problems and general trends in the way information about water conveyance
systems is presently gathered. Although a wide array of public agencies and private individuals generate
records and documents pertaining to the identification, evaluation, and treatment of water conveyance
systems, the absence of a centralized filing system and variable quality of available information continues to
hamper comparative research. The dispersion of records is an issue that may eventually be surmounted by
more consistent data sharing with the statewide inventory system managed by the California Office of Historic
Preservation ( OHP). At present, research at multiple repositories will continue to be a necessity. Some of the
most important sources of inventory records are briefly discussed below. The variable quality of information
may be addressed with more consistent and broadly scoped thematic approaches to evaluation, such as the one
developed in this document.
OHP and affiliated regional Information Centers of the California Historical Resources Information System
( ICs) can be important sources of inventory records and survey reports concerning water conveyance systems.
While OHP and ICs each receive unique documentation, regular data exchanges are gradually creating
duplicate libraries that will eventually result in improved access to information. Significant backlogs of
December 2000 Water Conveyance Systems in California
3
unprocessed records and the fact that not all records reach the OHP inventory mean that research at other
archives will remain necessary in the short term.
As part of this project, JRP Historical Consulting Services ( JRP) inspected documentation at a number of
locations to assess general trends in previous research about water delivery systems and to identify useful
survey strategies. The sampled repositories included OHP, Caltrans headquarters and district offices, two of
the 11 regional ICs ( Northeastern and Eastern), five of the 17 National Forests located in California, the U. S.
Bureau of Reclamation office in Sacramento, two of 15 Resource Area offices of the U. S. Bureau of Land
Management ( Redding and Folsom), and several private companies, including the Pacific Gas & Electric
Company. Of 384 water delivery systems identified during that research, 64 were listed or had been
determined eligible for the National Register, 62 appeared eligible or might become eligible, 162 were
determined ineligible, and the remainder were not formally evaluated.
The records sampled indicate that water delivery systems have been most commonly found significant under
National Register criteria A and C, with periods of significance spanning all eras of the state’s history. No
prehistoric water delivery systems had been evaluated to date. Themes identified with the 288 evaluated
properties include irrigation ( 130 properties), hydroelectricity ( 43 properties), mining ( 30 properties),
reclamation and drainage ( nine properties), municipal and multi- purpose systems ( seven properties), domestic
water supply ( one property), and systems associated with more than one use over time ( 13 properties). The
functions of the remaining 55 properties are not specified in the electronic database.
The foregoing figures provide a reasonably comprehensive list of water delivery systems evaluated through
mid- 1995, but do not accurately reflect the total number of water delivery systems that have been identified.
An electronic search of the OHP Archaeological Database in December 1995 revealed 1,132 recorded water
delivery systems in that repository alone, of which only a fraction have been evaluated. Taking into account
the data entry backlog at the ICs and records not yet submitted for inclusion to the statewide inventory, the
total number of recorded water delivery system features in the state likely exceeds 1,500 properties. Those
properties have been recorded on a wide variety of inventory forms, and in some cases, in a narrative format.
Appendix A contains a comprehensive list of water conveyance systems identified in OHP’s database as of
July 21, 1997.
Survey approaches and recordation strategies have varied from evaluations of entire water conveyance
systems to piecemeal identification of segments of such properties. This approach has created confusion and
problems of correlation for evaluators. In some cases, several resource numbers have been assigned to a
single water system. Both the Office of Historic Preservation’s DPR 523 series of forms and the Stanislaus
National Forest’s recordation approach were developed to address the problem. Those strategies each involve
the use of a “ parent” record and master map for the resource as a whole and detailed records for specific
segments. Nevertheless, duplicate numbering will likely continue because poorly documented or adjacent
systems cannot always be identified without complete field inspection to verify alignments and relationships.
In the absence of a statewide historic context for water conveyance systems, previous evaluations also have
covered some of the same ground each time the eligibility of a new water delivery system was considered.
The context contained in this study was developed in part to address that problem by offering a
comprehensive analytical framework that will permit more streamlined reporting and consistent approaches to
recordation and evaluation.
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
Water— too much, too little, in the wrong place, or at the wrong time— has shaped much of California’s
history. Rain falls unevenly and seasonally over the length of the state, and all too often California faces
prolonged drought or flood cycles. The state has a generally Mediterranean climate, with little rain falling
through the summer months. Although the amount of available water varies enormously from northern
redwood regions of heavy rainfall to dry southern deserts, California as a whole is considered semi- arid, and
Water Conveyance Systems in California December 2000
4
much of the state relies on winter snow in the mountains to provide spring and summer runoff to water the
valleys below. 1
The effects of the erratic water distribution are magnified by the eccentric placement of population centers.
Traditionally, civilizations develop their cities and towns from agricultural beginnings located adjacent to
water sources, but California developed abruptly with the gold rush. The newcomers were miners, merchants,
and adventurers, rather than farmers. Instead of following a gradual growth pattern along waterways based on
traditional practices of agriculture, California became suddenly urban, with cities preceding farms.
In the gold rush and the years following, Californians rarely let planning for long- term water needs interfere
with current enterprises, and many decisions were made without regard for an adequate supply of water.
People set up business in locations that suited them in other ways. They built cities along the coast where
shipping and commercial advantages outweighed the shortage of municipal water supplies; extracted gold
from dry diggings using water carried in miles of mining ditches; planted crops requiring irrigation in fertile
but arid valleys; and brought in the water to make desert housing developments bloom, at least until the lots
were sold.
Shortage of water was one issue; excess was another. In Northern California, storm- fed rivers periodically
rampaged down narrow gorges and spread floodwaters across coastal plains and inland valleys. Much of the
interior Central Valley was a great seasonal wetland, receiving the bulk of the Sierra snowmelt and only
partially draining the surplus water through the Sacramento- San Joaquin River Delta. Californians attacked
these circumstances with typical vigor, by rearranging the landscape and redirecting the natural flow of water.
Cities that were found to have been built on floodplains erected levees for flood protection. When its levees
failed in the early years, Sacramento went even further by jacking up downtown buildings and raising the
ground level of the business district to escape recurring floodwaters. Low- lying areas subject to seasonal
inundation were drained by speculators and cattlemen who then claimed ownership of vast tracts of land
through reclamation of “ swamp and overflowed lands.” Later, large multi- purpose dams were built on major
rivers to provide flood protection, as well as municipal and agricultural water supplies, hydroelectric power,
or recreation.
Relocation of water for these varied purposes did not take place without controversy. In fact, conflict over
water rights is a major theme of California’s history. This conflict was originally rooted in the existence of
two mutually exclusive traditions for ownership of water, riparian rights versus prior appropriation, and
perpetuated by the ongoing rivalry between Northern California, source of much of the state’s water, and
Southern California, populous and thirsty.
The doctrine of riparian rights came to California with the English common law tradition. It gives landowners
bordering waterways the exclusive and nontransferable rights to that water. In lands of abundant water, where
rivers are seen as necessary for drainage, to remove water rather than deliver it, this doctrine works well. In
drier lands, prior appropriation is the dominant doctrine. Coming from Spanish law, it allows the first users of
the water to divert it from streams, a principle which is essential for communal uses of water such as for
mining or irrigation. Under extreme political pressure, the California Legislature passed contradictory water
rights laws which were upheld by the State Supreme Court and later confirmed by congressional action,
creating a dual water rights system which has endured. 2 The lack of a single, clearcut system created endless
scope for legal and political battles.
Rivalry between Northern and Southern California is only partly a competition between San Francisco and
Los Angeles for urban dominance, and it does not rest solely on water issues, but it has been exacerbated by
the discontiguity between southern population centers and northern water supplies. Southern Californians
want to divert more northern water, now “ wasted” in rivers that flow out to sea, to their thirsty cities, while
northerners fear that insatiable southern needs will drain them of their own rights to those rivers. Periodically,
the issue of splitting California into two states is raised, generally by northern politicians aware of their
constituents’ distrust of the powerful south’s growing water needs. Political battles such as the bitter fight
over the proposed Peripheral Canal seem inevitable as long as this disparity of supply and need remains.
December 2000 Water Conveyance Systems in California
5
Water development has shaped both land use and the landscape itself in California. Urban, residential,
industrial, and agricultural land uses have been established in regions that lack adequate natural water
supplies, in some cases at the cost of a corresponding drain on other well- watered but less populous or less
politically powerful areas. Reshaping the land and relocating water has also caused widespread destruction of
native vegetation and of fish and wildlife habitat. For example, over 90 percent of the Central Valley’s once-vast
wetlands have been destroyed at great cost to fish and bird populations, dams flood riparian habitat and
impede salmon and steelhead spawning runs, and canals block wildlife migration routes. Few of these far-reaching
political, social, and environmental consequences were foreseen when Californians began to move
water from one place to another.
The development of water conveyance systems has been part of California’s history beginning with the
emergence of late prehistoric Native American agriculture. The spread of incipient agriculture in the southern
and eastern portions of the state during the late prehistoric period led to important changes in some of the
state’s hunting and gathering societies. This process culminated in the development of the modern California
landscape and communities. The history of water uses and ownership in the Owens Valley offers a prime
example of the development and technological control of water resources.
During the late prehistoric period the Paiute began to divert water from streams such as Bishop Creek in order
to promote the cultivation of various root and seed crops on adjacent alluvial fans. By the time non- Indian
settlers arrived in the area, the Paiute had developed large- scale agriculture using diversion structures of
brush, boulders, sticks, and mud and ditches up to several miles in length. Farmers later diverted water from
the same creeks, adding control gates and other features to their hand- dug ditches to permit more careful
allocation of the water. Such early pioneer water systems diverted limited quantities of water and required
only a modest amount of work and limited knowledge of the science of hydrology. Surviving water supply
systems from both periods can still evoke a strong feeling of time and place in such rural areas.
Following the west side of the Owens Valley and continuing for several hundred miles south, the Los Angeles
Aqueduct provides strong contrast to the Paiute and pioneer irrigators’ ditches. This municipal water
conveyance system is a monument to modern technology. Its hard, clean, uniform geometry and complex
system of canals, siphons, tunnels, gates, and other water control structures is clearly the work of engineers
rather than pioneer farmers. The largest system of its kind in the western United States at the time it was
completed in 1913, the Los Angeles Aqueduct came to symbolize the struggle for control of water in the arid
West. As such, it also evokes a strong feeling of time and place.
From the simple structures created by Native Americans and early historic irrigators and miners, to the
enormous edifices constructed by irrigation districts, hydroelectric engineers, and the US Bureau of
Reclamation ( USBR), water conveyance systems in California have grown from simple vernacular creations
to elaborately engineered structures. Prior to 1860, few water conveyance systems in the state were designed
by trained professionals and most were constructed to control modest quantities of water. As time passed and
demands grew, older systems were often abandoned in favor of larger, more sophisticated structures designed
by engineers. In the development of the civil engineering profession in California, hydraulic engineering for
mining, hydroelectric power, and irrigation drew some of the state’s most famous water engineers— William
Hammond Hall, C. E. Grunsky, B. A. Echeverry, Walter Huber, J. B. Lippincott, John Eastwood, J. D.
Schuyler, John R. Freeman, William Mulholland, M. M. O’Shaughnessy, Marsden Manson, and many others.
Canals are the dominant features of most water conveyance systems. These narrow linear structures can
appear deceptively simple if observed in isolation, but they are only the most visible part of complex water
systems. The complete layout of a water conveyance system may include diversion works, grade, alignment,
cross- section, various types of conduits, and control structures joined in a complicated piece of engineering.
Such systems must be seen as a whole to understand and appreciate the skills involved in their design and
construction.
The generally accepted principles of hydraulic engineering, construction materials, and equipment used to
build canals have all changed over time. Understanding the changing concepts of water conveyance system
construction and the different materials and modes of construction, from vernacular to modern, can reveal the
Water Conveyance Systems in California December 2000
6
potential significance of different systems for their engineering qualities or the information they may reveal.
Learning why the systems were constructed, public attitudes of the period toward the use and redirection of
natural resources, and the events, people, and politics associated with their construction and operation can
reveal the significance of these systems in California’s history.
IRRIGATION
Native American Irrigation
For an unknown period before California was colonized by European settlers, some native tribes in the
southern part of the state augmented their subsistence with agriculture. In certain cases, that practice included
the irrigation of crops. By the time Europeans arrived, a few tribes had developed fairly extensive irrigation
systems, which were duly noted in a variety of historical accounts. 3 Any surviving irrigation systems, as well
as other evidence of native agricultural practices, are likely to have considerable historical significance for
several reasons. First, as rare examples of the acquisition of new vernacular competencies, such systems may
evoke a strong appreciation for the significance of prehistoric agriculture and irrigation. Equally important,
the study of prehistoric water conveyance systems may address a variety of important questions regarding the
design and antiquity of such structures, and when coupled with broader investigations of the cultures that built
them, such studies may lead to better understandings of the origins and transformative role of agriculture and
irrigation among hunting and gathering societies.
The near absence of prehistoric agriculture among California tribes has long puzzled scholars because crop
irrigation was well established in the neighboring Southwest for nearly two millennia. Cultigens were first
introduced in the Southwest about 2000 BC, with substantial irrigation adopted at places like Snaketown, a
large Hohokam community on the Gila River Indian Reservation south of Phoenix, Arizona, as early as 300
BC. 4 A number of theories have been developed to explain why agriculture and irrigation took so long to
spread and reached so few of California’s prehistoric tribes. Those explanations include cultural factors such
as seasonal population movements, the adequacy of gathered staples such as acorns, and environmental
considerations such as the absence of adequate precipitation to grow cultigens. 5 Investigations of prehistoric
irrigation systems in California may contribute to the explanation of such issues. While agricultural practices
contributed to the subsistence regimes of several southern California tribes in the late prehistoric period, only
a few of those groups are known to have used irrigation ( Figure 1). Floodplain farming, supplemented by hand
watering, was more common than irrigation with ditches. For example, the Mohave, Quechan, and
Halchidoma grew corn, beans, and pumpkins in silts deposited by the flooding Colorado River. Other
southern California tribes also may have planted in areas subject to seasonal flooding or springs during the
prehistoric period, although the antiquity of such practices is less certain. 6
Irrigation was practiced by at least two California tribes in the late prehistoric period. Both the Owens Valley
Paiute and the Palm Springs band of Cahuilla diverted water from streams or springs. Other groups including
some bands of Southern Paiute and various coastal southern California tribes also adopted crop irrigation,
although the origins of such innovations may postdate historic contacts. Because current knowledge of
prehistoric irrigation is based primarily on ethnohistoric data, the full distribution of the practice is not
satisfactorily known and remains an important area for future investigation. 7
The water conveyance systems constructed by the Owens Valley Paiute have received the widest attention to
date. At least 10 systems between Independence and Bishop were reported by ethnographic informants. Those
systems may have differed slightly in their design, but typically consisted of a main canal up to several miles
in length and a latticework of smaller branch ditches to bring water to a collective plot. In one case, a series of
parallel ditches west of Big Pine may have been operated with a separate diversion structure on each small
ditch.
A new dam of boulders, sticks, and mud was built each year in the spring through the collective effort of the
men in each local group. It was the job of the head irrigator ( tuvaijü), elected each year by popular assembly,
to turn water from the main canal into distribution channels using small mud or sod dams and a wooden pole
December 2000 Water Conveyance Systems in California
7
called a pavodo. The main diversion dam was later purposely destroyed at harvest time. Women harvested
tubers of yellow nut grass ( Cyperus esculentus), wild hyacinth corms ( Dichelostemma pulchella), and various
seed crops. Destruction of the dam also facilitated the collection of fish stranded in the drying ditch
channels. Plots were alternated every other year, allowing a regular fallow period. Excess water from the plots
was allowed to continue downhill toward the Owens River. 8
The absence of cultigens lends credence to the theory that irrigation originated independently among the
Paiute, perhaps springing from observations of natural runoff and the widespread Great Basin practice of
stream diversion for purposes of fishing and flooding rodents out of their burrows. Julian Steward’s
informants told him that irrigation was practiced on the west side of the Owens Valley from Rock Creek just
north of Bishop to as far south as Independence. 9
The Palm Springs Cahuilla also diverted water for agricultural purposes, although the prehistoric origins of
that practice remain poorly known. In contrast to the indigenous crops grown by the Owens Valley Paiute, the
Cahuilla grew cultigens such as corn, squash, and beans. 10 One Cahuilla irrigation system reportedly diverted
the water debouching from Tahquitz Canyon ( Dwight Dutschke 1996: personal communication).
Figure 1. Distribution of prehistoric agriculture in California
Water Conveyance Systems in California December 2000
8
Because prehistoric water conveyance systems are rare, poorly understood, and constitute the oldest examples
built in California, extant examples are likely to be found eligible for the National Register. However, the
integrity of such properties will influence the level of significance and range of applicable criteria. Most
prehistoric water conveyance systems are likely to retain some significance regarding their ability to address
important questions about prehistory ( Criterion D). Details derived from the study of such systems may
address important topics such as how these vernacular structures were designed, variability in those designs,
their evolution and emergence, the scope and intensity of agriculture among particular indigenous groups, and
what types of crops were grown, to name a few. The best preserved prehistoric irrigation systems may also be
found eligible as vernacular constructions pursuant to Criterion C, particularly in cases where relict vegetation
contributes to the appreciation of the system as a cultural landscape. For example, wild hyacinths continue to
prosper in some areas previously subjected to irrigation by the Owens Valley Paiute.
Like most abandoned water conveyance systems, Native American irrigation works have likely suffered
damage due to natural forces such as erosion and siltation, as well as the impacts of subsequent historic
developments. Diversion structures probably have not survived, both because such dams were often purposely
demolished and also due to erosion. There is no existing evidence for the use of control structures such as
gates. Thus, main canals and branch ditches are likely to be the primary surviving elements of such systems,
along with any associated relict vegetation. Where traces of such systems can be clearly detected, they may
still evoke a sense of time and place connoting eligibility under both criteria C and D. Even systems that are
largely obscured by siltation or have been partly destroyed may still provide important information about
prehistory when studied with appropriate methods such as cross- trenching, aerial photography, mapping, and
palynology.
Corroborating the age and Native American association of a water conveyance system is a crucial step in the
evaluation of properties associated with this theme. Because no reliable methods are presently available to
precisely date the year of construction or length of time a given system was in use, ethnohistoric data provide
the most convincing grounds for demonstrating associations with the prehistoric irrigation theme. Historic
documentation and ethnographic data may both render assistance in efforts to establish that a given system
predates non- native settlement. For example, Government Land Office survey plats and notes for portions of
the Owens Valley specifically identify Paiute irrigation or note multiple “ stream” channels running parallel to
elevation contours, not across them, in the same year non- native settlement of the area began. Ethnographic
data collected in the early 1900s from informants who had direct knowledge of irrigation practices may also
help establish associations for particular systems.
Spanish and Mexican Period Irrigation
Spanish colonists, among them missionaries and neophytes, were the first non- indigenous people to build
irrigation systems in California. Beginning in 1769 at San Diego, the Spanish established missions along the
California coast at roughly 30- mile intervals. They constructed irrigation systems at both the missions and the
associated pueblos. 11 By modern standards these systems were not very extensive, but some portions were of
such solid construction that they survive to the present day.
The agricultural tradition of the missionaries, by the time they reached California, was a hybrid of strategies
and cropping patterns derived from two centuries of Mesoamerican occupation. California’s Mediterranean
climate was familiar to the Franciscan priests who founded the missions. They applied traditions and
technologies dating back to the Roman empire, including dry farming, runoff irrigation, flood water farming,
and major irrigation projects requiring masonry dams, aqueducts, and tile- lined ditches. 12
The Spanish established their settlements on the coast and in coastal valleys, leaving the interior largely to the
Native Americans. While the Spanish occasionally entered and explored the Central Valley, they made no
permanent settlement in the interior. For 50 years beginning around 1770, missionaries and rancheros raised
cattle and farmed areas of southern and coastal California. Most of the missions had some kind of irrigation
system, but the works were relatively small, although in one instance extending up to 20 miles. Size was
limited by southern and coastal California’s irregular water supplies, which were subject to wide fluctuations,
December 2000 Water Conveyance Systems in California
9
Figure 2. San Diego Mission Aqueduct
( California Room, California State Library)
and by the necessary extensive investment in labor. Indian laborers built the missions’ irrigation systems,
using hand tools to construct earth and stone- lined channels. 13
Spanish missionaries directed the planting of staple crops and brought water to irrigate small fields of maize
and beans, but the largest areas of cultivation were in dry- farmed wheat and barley. Some of the mission
gardeners also grew small quantities of lentils, peas, garbanzo beans, hemp, and cotton. As the settlements
became more established they planted orchards and vineyards, including pears, peaches, apples, almonds,
plums, oranges, lemons, limes, dates, cherries, walnuts, olives, and figs. The southern missions, like San
Diego and Santa Barbara, fared better at raising fruit. San Gabriel, for example, had almost 200 acres of
orchards and vineyards. Most of the missions, however, depended on wheat and cattle production. At peak
development, scholars estimate that the missions cultivated, in the aggregate, only 5,000 to 10,000 acres, with
most of that area in dry- farmed wheat. 14
Evidence in secondary literature suggests that most missions founded during the Spanish period in California
had some limited irrigation system to serve small gardens, vineyards, or orchards, as did their estancias and
branch missions in outlying areas. At San Buenaventura, for example, the mission Indians were trained in
horticulture, which implies
farming and limited irrigation.
At San Fernando Rey, the
missionaries directed
construction of a stone
masonry dam in 1808, and by
1811 had a 1.3- mile aqueduct
connecting it to the mission
vineyard. This conduit was
described as “ clay pipe,” and
was depicted on the General
Land Office plat of the
mission in 1904. Dams and
aqueducts of stone also were
built at other missions
( Figures 2 and 3). Mission
San Jose in Alameda County
was described as having
developed an extensive system
of wheat fields, gardens,
orchards, and vineyards in
1826, also suggesting an
irrigation system was in place.
The garden and vineyard at
Mission San Juan Bautista
were served by a “ zanja of
water... in some years.” 15
In 1776, Mission San Luis
Obispo installed a wooden
aqueduct to connect the
mission with San Luis Creek
several miles away, and later
installed two water- powered
grist mills, one supported by a
system of reservoirs and
tanks. At San Luis Rey,
Water Conveyance Systems in California December 2000
10
between San Diego and San Juan Capistrano, the original mission was established at a marsh from which the
missionaries got sufficient water for the Indians “ and for irrigating a garden.” To the north, the mission’s
outlying station at San Antonio de Pala had “ a vineyard and orchard of various fruits and of olives, for which
there is sufficient irrigation, the water being from the stream which runs in the vicinity.” Other nearby wheat,
corn, and bean fields also were irrigated. Even the struggling Mission San Miguel owned “ a small spring of
warm water and a vineyard distant two leagues.” Finally, at Mission San Francisco Solano in Sonoma, the
first actions upon siting the mission itself were described as cutting logs, putting up fences, and digging
irrigation ditches. 16
Other missions had far more elaborate systems. The main canal that delivered water to the gardens at Mission
San Antonio de Padua, for example, was about three miles long. Segments of this ditch were excavated into
the sides of limestone cliffs, where others were masonry lined or earthen. The system employed a stone and
mortar dam 150 feet long, 12 feet high, and tapering from five feet at the base to three feet across the top, to
divert water from the Arroyo of San Miguel ( Mission Creek) into the conveyance canal. 17 Mission San
Diego’s dam was 245 feet long and 12 feet high, with a stone- lined diversion canal six miles long. Indians at
Mission San Gabriel built over 20 miles of aqueducts, and the missionaries at the San Bernardino branch
mission directed the construction of the Mill Creek zanja between 1820 and 1830. As late as 1902, it was
reported that “ traces of an old irrigation ditch belonging to the Mission Soledad exist to this day.” 18 Dams and
aqueducts still exist at Mission Santa Barbara.
The pueblos, or towns, established during this period also constructed irrigation works. The canal known as
the Zanja Madre in Los Angeles is probably the best known. In the 1770s, this canal diverted water by way of
a temporary brush and wicker weir from the Los Angeles River for the little camp that became the Pueblo of
Los Angeles. Beginning at a point across from present- day Elysian Park, two miles north of the pueblo, the
channel followed natural contours to bring water to the community fields south of town. The Zanja Madre
was used for both domestic and irrigation purposes, and the head of each household in the pueblo was
Figure 3: Remains of Mission San Diego stone dam
( California Room, California State Library)
December 2000 Water Conveyance Systems in California
11
“ required to contribute a certain amount of time to its upkeep.” 19 The pueblos at San Jose, San Diego,
Branciforte ( Santa Cruz), and San Francisco also were located around water courses, which in Spanish and
Mexican legal tradition were held and controlled for the benefit of the pueblo inhabitants. These pueblo
farmers irrigated crops similar to those grown by the missionaries, principally corn, beans, wheat, and barley.
Several varieties of melons and squash, along with peppers and herbs augmented the settlers’ diet, but most of
the experimental orchards and vineyards planted before 1850 were put in at the missions. 20
After successfully throwing off Spanish rule in 1823, Mexicans continued the general pattern of settlement in
California established during colonial times. To a great extent the Mexicans left the Central Valley alone, and
only late in their rule did the government grant ranchos, mostly to foreigners, primarily along the San Joaquin,
Cosumnes, American, Feather, and Sacramento rivers in Sacramento and San Joaquin counties. By contrast, in
both the Spanish and Mexican period the southern and central coast range was dotted with ranchos granted to
settlers, or with missions and their estancias. Activities on these holdings centered around providing for self-sufficiency,
sustaining the much reduced missions, but focused primarily on the hide and tallow trade. 21
Settlements established under Spanish and Mexican rule as missions, pueblos, and ranchos formed the basis
for many modern towns and cities. 22
Once Mexico won its independence from Spain, the new nation secularized the missions in California in
1833. Gaining control of the mission lands, the Californios retained some of the mission Indians as laborers
but shifted their activity to center more on the hide and tallow trade. For the next 20 years or so agriculture,
and especially irrigated agriculture, generally declined as rancheros focused on cattle raising. 23 Rancheros,
both Mexican and foreign born, took advantage of large Mexican government land grants to develop huge
herds of cattle for the hide and tallow trade; a limited trade in wheat, wine, and other goods formed an adjunct
to this activity. The granting of ranchos increased dramatically after the secularization of the missions.
Between 1835 and 1845 Mexico made almost 700 concessions of land, “ many of which included the most
fertile ex- mission tracts.” 24 The ranchos encompassing former mission fields had some success with irrigated
agriculture, as did the few who experimented with establishing citrus orchards and vineyards. Rancheros did
not, however, invest time and labor in constructing irrigation works because their primary endeavor was in the
relatively simple and highly profitable hide and tallow trade. Typically each rancho had a small house garden
( and, in fact, establishing a garden was offered as proof of a valid title to a rancho grant), but even substantial
rancho establishments often lacked an irrigating system of any size. 25
The period of Mexican rule came to an end when Americans claimed California at the conclusion of the war
with Mexico in 1846- 47. By this time, almost half of the non- Indian inhabitants of California were Americans
who had either settled in coastal towns or established farms in the Central Valley away from Mexican
control. 26 In the decades that followed, Americans gained control of former mission and rancho land and
developed more extensive irrigated agriculture in addition to stock raising.
American Period Irrigation
A diverse physical environment with inherent limitations faced the growing number of farmers at the
beginning of the American period. In the generally dry climate, water for irrigation was often either
unavailable or unreliable. Furthermore, 80 percent of the state’s precipitation falls between November and
March, missing the growing season of many crops. Although the porous soils, limited technical knowledge,
high costs, scarce machinery, and conflicting concepts of water rights discouraged many early attempts to
develop water supplies for irrigation, California’s potential agricultural abundance spurred continuing efforts.
The nature of each region’s geography and climate often dictated its rate of development. Southern California
farmers dealt early with a limited water supply, low annual rainfall, and porous soil by building lined canals
and pioneering storage facilities. Areas to the north, such as the Sacramento Valley, had sufficient rainfall for
dry farming, so farmers were much slower to accept the expense and difficulties of installing irrigation works.
In general, as local farmers learned about the limitations imposed by the climate and landforms of their own
particular areas of the state, they constructed more successful systems. Because each area dealt with different
variables, irrigation developed in different ways and rates throughout California.
Water Conveyance Systems in California December 2000
12
The principal agricultural area of California is the great Central Valley, which lies between the Coastal
Ranges and the Sierra Nevada. The entire valley is approximately 400 to 500 miles long, varies from 20 to 60
miles in width, and covers approximately 17,000 to 18,000 square miles. The southern half of the Central
Valley, known as the San Joaquin Valley, declines gently in elevation from south to north. At the northern
end, the Sacramento Valley slopes gradually from its higher northern end to the south. The southernmost
portion of the San Joaquin Valley forms a closed basin with no outlet to the sea, where once great natural
lakes have been drained for farmland. The Central Valley is bisected by its two major rivers, the southward-flowing
Sacramento and northward- flowing San Joaquin, and is watered primarily by tributaries flowing west
down from the Sierra Nevada on the east. The valley was gradually filled by flood plains and many compound
alluvial fans of soft, rich earth, gently sloped, easily plowed, and easily irrigated. The configuration of the
Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers in the historic period left at their confluence an oddity— an inland delta
with deep, peat soils, influenced by the tides and faced more with problems of drainage than irrigation.
Outside of the Central Valley, irrigated acreage in California is scattered in coastal and mountain valleys and
portions of the desert southeast. The next largest areas of irrigation, the Los Angeles Basin and the Imperial
Valley, are much smaller than the Central Valley. Other smaller, more geographically isolated areas that
irrigate crops include the Palo Verde, Salinas, Santa Clara, San Benito, and Napa valleys; bottom lands along
rivers such as the Oxnard Plain; lands along the northern coastal rivers; and the drained Tule Lake area of the
United States Bureau of Reclamation’s ( USBR) Klamath Project. Despite a smaller total acreage, these farms
produce nationally important high- value vegetable and fruit crops. While the great majority of irrigation
acreage lies in the Central Valley, Californians practice some irrigation in almost every other part of the state.
Development of Irrigated Agriculture
The gold rush greatly stimulated California commerce, agriculture, manufacturing, lumbering, and countless
other economic pursuits. New incentives were created for transportation development and California’s
population underwent explosive growth. People in booming gold rush era mining towns like Grass Valley,
Placerville, and Columbia, and expanding trade centers like Sacramento, Marysville, Stockton, and San
Francisco, produced a market for agricultural products. This demand resulted in the steady spread of farms,
ranches, and small towns along navigable waters and their tributaries all over the state. 27
Cattle raising, the predominant agricultural pursuit of the 1850s and early 1860s, demanded little irrigation,
and from the 1860s to the 1890s, dry- farmed wheat ruled the interior valleys of California. Wheat growers
were slow to acknowledge the need for water distribution systems because dry farming provided such
bountiful wheat crops that irrigation was seen as an unnecessary expense. 28 The lure of high returns from
comparatively little investment in labor and equipment led many early farmers to try their luck without
irrigation, but local water shortages and widespread droughts finally convinced many of the desirability of a
secure water supply. The devastating drought and flood cycle of 1863- 1865, unstable wheat market, soil
exhaustion, and unreliable precipitation took their toll. Irrigation offered renewed hope in times of distress.
“ Throughout the arid West during the last third of the nineteenth century,” noted agricultural historian Donald
Pisani, “ support for irrigation grew out of immediate water shortages, not from a desire for comprehensive
water resource planning or scientific farming; most farmers were not willing to commit themselves to
agriculture as a long- term investment.” 29 Wheat production in California began declining in the 1890s, and
more farmers turned to irrigated crops. Once they began to see the benefits of investing time and money on
irrigation systems, the number of systems increased. However, the long- term success rate for these early
systems was low, and financial, legal, and legislative problems plagued irrigation organizations through the
turn of the century.
The total irrigated acreage in the state grew from 60,000 acres in 1860 to nearly 400,000 acres by 1880, an
increase of more than 650 percent. State Engineer William Hammond Hall’s 1880 survey of the developed
regions of irrigated agriculture ( Table 1) showed that the San Joaquin Valley represented approximately 47
percent of the statewide total, with San Bernardino and Los Angeles counties accounting for almost 21
percent. On the other hand, the heavily dry- farmed Sacramento Valley had only limited irrigation.
December 2000 Water Conveyance Systems in California
13
Table 1. Hall’s 1880 survey30
Location Irrigated Acres
San Bernardino and Los Angeles counties 82,485
San Joaquin Valley 188,000
Sacramento Valley, on Cache Creek 13,400
Sierra foothills 9,000
Irrigation Institutions
Californians developed a number of institutions or communal arrangements to build extensive irrigation
systems, which were normally beyond the financial capability of individual landowners. These institutions fell
into four general types: private water companies, land colonies, mutual water companies, and irrigation
districts. Of these types, the irrigation district represented the largest acreage and was crucial to the successful
development of large- scale irrigated agriculture in California.
Private Water Companies
Beginning in the 1870s, private investors began to construct canals on a large scale, developing commercial
irrigation companies that owned the canal system but not the irrigated lands. This system was often used in
the early years of irrigation development in California for the development of lands under single ownership.
By constructing an irrigation system and providing water at a specified rate, a developer or speculator could
sell otherwise relatively valueless lands at irrigated land values. Profits were largely secured from the increase
in land values rather than returns from operation of an irrigation system. Many commercial irrigation systems
in California were later acquired by organizations of the local landowners, who would form an irrigation
district in their service area and then purchase the canals serving it. 31 In a few cases in the twentieth century
the USBR became involved in areas where private ventures had failed, such as the Stony Creek area in the
Sacramento Valley or in the Imperial Valley.
Land Colonies
Land colonies are most often thought of as utopian, ideological, or ethnic institutions, where groups would
join together to form a cohesive community. The long tradition of such colonies in California stretches from
the Anaheim Germans of 1857, to a Polish utopian community that came to Anaheim almost 20 years after the
Germans, to Thermalito in Butte County in the 1880s, to the Allensworth black settlement in Tulare County in
1908, and running through the modern communes of the 1960s and 1970s.
The original developers frequently sought homogenous social groups for each colony for an easier adjustment
to the communal aspects of irrigated agriculture. Also, the colony offered social comforts to farmers, since
small farms in close proximity to each other eliminated the isolation endured by so many pioneer farmers.
Although settlers in such colonies obtained access to water through colony ditch systems as part of their land
purchase agreements, ownership of the water system itself typically remained in the hands of the capitalist-developers
of the tracts. 32 Because the colony company laid out the canal system and sold agricultural lands
with irrigation works intact, the colony canal systems had a high degree of uniformity in canal shape, canal
size, control structures, diversion works, and other engineering features.
In part related to a nationwide publicity campaign waged by the California Promotion Committee, the
California Development Association, and the publicity departments of the Southern Pacific and the Atchison,
Topeka & Santa Fe railroads, 33 land speculators and developers set up colony companies around the state,
especially in the early twentieth century. Often linking their land and water systems in a structure similar to
that used by mutual water companies, these land colonies of the 1900- 1920s differed materially from
nineteenth century efforts. Driven by the prospect of speculative profits, they emphasized the economic
prospects of specialized farming on small acreage and were devoid of the “ communitarian” spirit of the
earliest colonizers. Customers were left to their own devices once contracts of sale were completed, and their
Water Conveyance Systems in California December 2000
14
survival often depended on their ability to exploit groundwater resources in the absence of surface irrigation
systems.
Mutual Water Companies
Mutual water companies were cooperative organizations of landowners. They were started by a developer
who transferred water company stock to each new purchaser in proportion to the number of acres to be
irrigated. When all the land was sold, landowners held the water company stock and hence control of the
water. In other cases, landowners wishing to develop an irrigation system bought stock in a water company,
and that company used the capital from stock sales to acquire water rights and build a water system. Operating
funds for the company were derived from assessments on the stockholders or charges for the water delivered.
Ownership of stock was voluntary, and the company could not force others to be included. 34
This marriage of land and water proved a powerful marketing tool for lands in arid California, most
particularly in the south. Although usually considered a Southern California institution, mutual water
companies were established in almost every region of the state around the turn of the century.
Irrigation Districts
Conflicts over control of agricultural water supplies under California water laws led to passage of the 1887
Wright Act, which provided for the formation of irrigation districts under the democratic control of the water
users. The act, while not initially successful, survived several amendments in the years that followed, and
after 1915, allowed the establishment of irrigation districts throughout the Central Valley and elsewhere in the
state. 35 This achievement did not come easily.
Following the California Supreme Court’s decision in Lux v. Haggin, in which the court upheld riparian
rights, supporters of irrigation development had been forced to go to the legislature for relief. Assemblyman
C. C. Wright introduced the Wright Act, to establish publicly controlled districts with sufficient legal powers
to take land and water from powerful Central Valley riparian landowners. Wright and his supporters hoped
that these vast tracts might be transformed into community- controlled irrigation districts. The Wright Act
passed in 1887, and almost immediately on the heels of its passage came the organization of the Modesto,
Turlock, and Tulare irrigation districts, followed soon thereafter by the Browns Valley and Alta irrigation
districts.
Under the new law, irrigation districts were public corporations, empowered to issue bonds and condemn
property, to levy and collect taxes, and to maintain and operate irrigation works. The districts were given the
power to condemn in order to gain access to waterways that might otherwise be blocked by riparian owners.
The law also provided for a board of directors to be elected from among the residents of the district. 36
The Wright Act prompted the formation of numerous irrigation districts and led to increases in irrigated
acreage in the late 1880s and 1890s. Forty- nine irrigation districts were organized between 1887 and 1896,
most of them located between Stockton and Bakersfield. However, by the late 1920s, only seven of the
original districts were still in existence, among them the Modesto, Turlock, and Tulare irrigation districts.
Farmers often found that irrigation districts faced formidable barriers. Unsympathetic large landowners and
owners of riparian water rights fought district organization with a flood of costly law suits. For a time it
seemed the enemies of the irrigation district law had won. In fact, John D. Works, a judge, US senator, and
expert on California water law, declared the district idea dead by 1900: “ The law of irrigation districts has
ceased to be of general interest. The law has proved such a dismal failure, in its practical workings, that it is
not likely that the formation of any new districts under it will ever be attempted.” 37
From 1897 to 1909, not one new irrigation district was formed. However, Works’ dire prediction proved
premature. After 1909, when the Oakdale and South San Joaquin Districts were formed, there was a general
revival of irrigation district activity in California. One of the primary reasons the act was more successful
after 1909 was the increased population, particularly in the Central Valley, finally large enough to support
December 2000 Water Conveyance Systems in California
15
district formation. In addition, Progressive Era legislation passed in 1911- 1913 increased state supervision
over district organization and financing and made investment in irrigation district bonds more attractive.
The Wright Act created the Irrigation Bond Commission, composed of the attorney general, the
superintendent of banks, and the state engineer. The duty of these officials was to pass upon the feasibility of
proposed districts. If a favorable verdict were rendered, the bonds were registered at the office of the state
comptroller and were considered legal investments for insurance companies, banks, or trust funds. Optimism
regarding increased immigration and markets that would follow the opening of the Panama Canal contributed
to a marked increase in district organization in 1915. New communities turned to irrigation development, and
the only practical way of financing construction was through organization of irrigation districts. 38
Under the impetus of increased demand during World War I, agricultural production reached a new peak in
1920. In each year from 1917 to 1925, five or more districts were organized; in 1920 alone, 18 districts were
formed. Many of these districts found the required funding for construction of their systems by a marriage of
convenience with private power companies. Companies like Pacific Gas & Electric and San Joaquin Valley
Light and Power helped finance large irrigation reservoirs to feed district canals in return for the power
generated. By 1930, there were 94 active districts in California, and the land watered by these agencies
mushroomed to 1.6 million acres. Irrigation districts provided more than 90 percent of the surface water used
for irrigation in the San Joaquin Valley before the Central Valley Project came on line in the 1940s. 39
Among the most successful districts in the San Joaquin Valley were the Modesto, Turlock, Merced, and
Fresno irrigation districts; and other examples can be found across the state. Success of the first three was
based in part on development of storage reservoirs equipped with hydroelectric generation facilities which
sold power within their districts or to local utilities. The increased demand for storage and coordination of
interests on larger streams stimulated the development of water storage and conservation districts in the late
1920s. Plans for combining group interests under the sponsorship of state and federal agencies to manage
basin- wide water resources became a characteristic of water management in California in subsequent decades.
In general, the heaviest concentration of irrigation districts was found in the San Joaquin Valley, followed by
the Sacramento Valley. The largest single district in terms of acreage was the Imperial Irrigation District in
the Imperial Valley. Scattered irrigation districts were located in Northern California, with much smaller and
more isolated districts in Southern California. As Californians learned how to build, finance, and legislate for
more successful irrigation, they brought more and more land under irrigation. Irrigation throughout the state
grew rapidly through the first two decades of the twentieth century before slowing again as the amount of
unclaimed water decreased and available land was utilized ( Table 2).
Table 2. Growth of irrigated acreage in California40
Year Irrigated Acreage
1870 70,000
1880 400,000
1889 1,004,000
1899 1,445,000
1902 2,644,000
1919 4,220,000
1929 4,720,000
1939 5,070,000
1950 6,599,000
By 1950, the Central Valley held two- thirds of the irrigated acreage in the state, and “ no other hydrographic
area [ contained] as much as 10 percent of the total.” 41 The area irrigated in the San Joaquin Valley grew
further after the main canals of the Central Valley Project began deliveries in 1951- 52, and after completion
of the California Aqueduct in the early 1970s.
Water Conveyance Systems in California December 2000
16
Regional Developments
Southern Coast
The Spanish and Mexican missionaries who were the first to build water conveyance systems in the south
coastal area had constructed relatively small irrigation canals during the late 1700s and early 1800s. Later
settlers sometimes incorporated these older systems into their own irrigation works. The Lugo family acquired
San Bernardino’s Mill Creek zanja, which they sold to Mormon farmers in 1851. Other Southern California
settlers built the Duarte ditch in 1854, using some of the San Gabriel Mission’s channel in the upper stretches
of the works. Works built in 1841 on the San Gabriel River were still in use as late as 1960, as part of the
Azusa water system. 42 These irrigation systems existed at the margin of an agricultural industry dominated by
large- scale stock raising and dry farming of wheat during both the Mexican and early American period, from
the 1820s until about 1870.43
Bordered on the north and east by rugged mountains and a formidable desert, and insulated by distance from
the growth generated by gold discoveries of the Sierra Nevada foothills, with limited land transportation
routes and an arid climate, the Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and San Diego river basins developed slowly. Spanish
missionaries had planted small groves of oranges and other citrus fruit in this area in the 1770s, but without
adequate transportation, there was little market for the crops. After the arrival of the Southern Pacific Railroad
that linked Southern California with the rest of the nation in the 1870s, and the introduction of the Navel and
Valencia oranges, citriculture boomed. Settlers were quick to develop irrigation systems once they identified
profitable crops and markets. Beginning in the 1880s, Southern California farmers proved the value of
irrigation when combined with marketable varieties of citrus fruit and railroad transportation.
The low rainfall necessitated development of irrigation systems, and porous soils stimulated farmers to line
their canals when possible. While these canal systems were labor intensive and difficult to build, they were
essential in this region where dry farming was uncertain at best. By 1880, State Engineer W. H. Hall listed
more than 82,000 irrigated acres in Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, about 23 percent of his
statewide inventory. In the following decade southern Californians built the Bear Valley, Cuyamaca, Hemet,
and Sweetwater reservoirs, developing the first extensive irrigation storage in the state. 44
In order to develop these water systems, southern Californians organized colonies or turned to private water
companies, mutual water companies, and irrigation districts. Private land and water companies, like those
organized in San Diego and San Bernardino counties, built a number of systems to provide their service areas
with water or enhance the value of lands they hoped to sell. The San Diego Land and Town Company built
Sweetwater Dam in San Diego County and conducted water to its customers through a 58- mile network of
iron pipes. State Engineer Hall noted that, “ No water rights are sold by the company, but water is delivered to
all who make application for it.” Land without water sold for $ 100 per acre, as opposed to $ 300 per acre for
land supplied with water.
The San Diego Flume Company had a system under development in 1888, with plans to serve the entire valley
of the San Diego River, some 75,000 to 100,000 acres. The water would be delivered through a 36- mile- long
flume, completed by 1888, and a set of pipes running nine miles from the end of the flume to the city. North
of San Diego, near Hemet, the Lake Hemet Water Company provided irrigation to a 10,000- acre tract of land
controlled by its parent, the Hemet Land Company. The land company gave one share of water company stock
with every acre of land, providing irrigation water from May to December of each year, along with year- round
domestic supplies. Shareholders had to pay $ 2 per share each year for their water, and could not sell shares
without company approval. 45
In San Bernardino County, the structure of valley soils led to development of a large number of systems. In
1888, State Engineer Hall noted that prehistoric torrents had created boulder and gravel ridges at the mouths
of canyons, so that streams flowing out of the mountains percolated through the soil into buried river channels
no longer visible on the surface. Often tightly capped, these channels gave rise to artesian fields covering 20
square miles of the lowest portions of the 100- square- mile valley and provided a substantial subsurface flow.
December 2000 Water Conveyance Systems in California
17
Further, the long gentle slope of the valley from both the north and south to its center made development of
gravity- fed irrigation systems comparatively simple. 46
Irrigation had been conducted in the area since the 1850s on a limited basis, but by the time of Hall’s survey
in 1887- 88, a web of water companies and conveyance systems had grown up centered around San
Bernardino, Ontario, Etiwanda, and settlements to the west and south. The North Fork Canal, which Hall
described as having been an “ insignificant, rough little earthen farm ditch” in 1858, by 1888 had evolved
through relocation, enlargement, and rebuilding, into a “ commandingly placed permanent structure and
notable irrigation property.” Other important systems included such conduits as the South Fork Ditch, the
Sunnyside Ditch, Redlands Ditch, and J& B Ditch. Like other ditch systems in the area, they were controlled
by the irrigators themselves who were also shareholders in Redlands, Lugonia, and old San Bernardino.
Around Riverside were the Riverside Water Company, Gage Canal ( Figure 4), and Vivienda Water Company,
each with its own set of canals or canals and pipelines. 47
Of irrigated land colonies in Southern California, the
Anaheim Colony, organized in 1857 by Germans living
in San Francisco, remains one of the most famous.
Anaheim was chosen for its farming potential, and care
was taken to obtain sufficient water rights. The colonists
remained in San Francisco until 1860, investing
regularly to pay for improvements. In the first years of
the colony’s establishment, the resident manager
installed seven miles of main ditch, 25 miles of laterals,
and 450 miles of subsidiary ditches to serve the 1,165
acres within the colony boundaries, and arranged for
planting of vineyards and orchards. At the end of the
development phase, 1857- 1860, the colonists drew lots
for parcel assignments and moved into the colony. 48
Beginning in 1882, George Chaffey used the system of
linking land and shares in a mutual water company to
develop Ontario and Etiwanda. 49 Ontario is perhaps the
most noted example of mutual water company
development. Chaffey, a Canadian- born hydraulic
engineer and entrepreneur, adopted the concept of
selling land in Ontario by including a mutual water
company share with each acre purchased. Chaffey
purchased existing water rights, a group of small water
systems, and land in November 1882. He worked out an
agreement with the San Antonio Water Company to purchase the company’s works and water rights. The
water company would provide one- tenth of a share for each “ miner’s inch” of water purchased, providing
Chaffey with 3,500 shares to distribute. ( Water delivered in ditches, canals, and flumes was measured in the
miner’s inch, which was eventually standardized to 1.5 cubic feet or 11.25 gallons per minute.) The water
came from a tunnel driven into the hillside north of the company’s lands. It was carried in a cobbled and
cement- paved canal to a distribution chamber, then directed into a system of pipelines serving individual
parcels. 50
In Etiwanda, Chaffey acquired land and purchased existing water rights, then designed a system of flumes,
short canals, and pipelines to the tract that allowed each landowner access to a ready supply for their lands.
Hall noted in 1888 that “ the landowners now control the Water Company.” The water supplied was derived
in part by tunnels driven into the cienagas ( marshes), and into water- bearing gravels in the adjacent canyons.
The Hermosa Water Company was a neighboring tract operated on much the same basis, taking its water from
canyon springs and distributing it through iron pipe. 51 A number of these mutual water companies, such as the
Fontana Mutual Water Company in San Bernardino County, can still be found in Southern California.
Figure 4: Gage Canal, ca. 1900
( Mead 1902, Bulletin 119: Plate 16)
Water Conveyance Systems in California December 2000
18
Farther to the west, private systems and mutual water companies led to development of irrigable lands in the
Pomona, San Dimas, San Gabriel, San Fernando, Los Angeles, lower San Gabriel, and lower Santa Ana areas.
Some of the systems being used in 1888, like the Old Settlement Ditch, dated to the early 1840s; in other areas
land and water companies adapted existing systems or constructed new canals, dams, and tunnels. In these
areas, the “ new” systems of the 1880s tended to install, wherever possible, concrete pipe or lined irrigation
canals. For example, the Pomona Land and Water Company, a combination of four smaller water companies,
installed 240,013 feet of various- sized cement and iron pipe, delivering to 200 irrigation outlets. 52
Southern Californians did not place as firm a reliance on irrigation districts as did irrigators in the San Joaquin
Valley. By 1929, there were 82,096 acres served by 18 irrigation districts in Southern California; this total
was roughly equivalent to that covered by the Modesto Irrigation District ( 81,183 acres) alone, and about a
third of the 241,300 acres within the Fresno Irrigation District. Only one of the Southern California districts,
Walnut, was established in the nineteenth century ( 1893). Of the remainder, four were established between
1911 and 1918, and 11 were established in the 1920s. The districts either acquired existing water company
works and rights, erected pumping plants to exploit groundwater supplies, or purchased water directly from
water companies or municipal works. 53
Most of the south coastal counties ( Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego) saw generally increasing
agricultural growth for 60 years, from the 1880s through 1940.54 Not until post- World War II suburban
expansion began consuming cropland did the number of irrigated acres substantially decline. Los Angeles
County is typical of metropolitan growth trends in Southern California. As the city and suburbs grew quickly
eastward after World War II, encroaching on farm land, total agricultural acreage dropped correspondingly. In
1934, Los Angeles County reported a high of over 100,000 acres in fruit and nut orchards. That figure
dropped by about 11,000 acres by 1944, another 11,000 acres by 1949, and totaled only about 46,000 acres in
1955.55 As urban growth in Southern California has spread, a number of irrigation systems have been
absorbed into suburban water supplies.
Sierra Nevada and Foothills
During the height of hydraulic gold mining in California, miners and ditch companies built hundreds of miles
of canals, mostly in the Sierra Nevada foothills. Gold deposits in the northwestern part of the state, although
not as extensive, also attracted many gold seekers who constructed systems in the Klamath, Trinity, and upper
Sacramento River basins. One of the by- products of these systems was the development of local irrigated
agriculture.
Even though the terrain and soils of the Sierra foothills were not as suited for large- scale irrigation as those in
the great Central Valley, miners in the area created a strong demand for produce. The 1856 Miners and
Business Men’s Directory, Tuolumne County gave an example of this symbiosis between miners and a nearby
farmer in the mining town of La Grange, Stanislaus County:
Mr. J. D. Morely, who resides three miles below the village has within the last three years, by
ditching and fencing, enclosed 700 acres of these rich agricultural lands. Last season his ranch
produced 7000 bushels of wheat; 900 bushels of barley, and 60 tons of Hay; a quantity of stock
and 500 fowls, for all of which he finds a ready market almost at his door. 56
For the most part, farmers used water from mining ditches to grow crops for local markets. Limited by the low
volume of crops produced, relatively limited agricultural areas, short growing season, and poor transportation
facilities, foothill growers had a hard time competing with valley farmers. 57
Although mining and agriculture shared a common need for water, the two activities were in fundamental
conflict over land use priorities. Mining ditch superintendents considered selling water for irrigation a
nuisance. Even though irrigators paid higher rates than miners, water for irrigation was distributed in such
small amounts that water rates did not pay for maintenance and repairs of irrigation ditch extensions. Until the
mid- 1860s, foothill agriculture was “ poorly developed, small- scaled, and merely tolerated by miners around
the camps” because the search for gold was paramount. As the supply of easily mined gold diminished,
agriculture grew modestly, assisted by federal legislation in 1866 that required miners to prove that the public
December 2000 Water Conveyance Systems in California
19
land they wanted to mine was more valuable as a mining prospect than a farm. When the Comstock Lode was
discovered in western Nevada, silver miners became the next market for foothill farmers, who took advantage
of the improved trans- Sierra roads built during this period to deliver their produce to Nevada markets. 58
The basic factor that restricted the expansion of irrigation in the foothill region was the cost of water delivered
by systems originally designed for mining operations, not agricultural use. Miners and mining investors built
their canal systems to carry water, often over long distances, to areas chosen for their mining potential, not for
agricultural production. With high- maintenance systems delivering water to agricultural land only by chance,
most farmers found profit only in small vegetable gardens and some orchards and vineyards.
Even though the mining ditches provided some water, the main historical agricultural activity of the Mother
Lode region was cattle raising, with only limited orchard and vineyard development. State Engineer Hall
estimated in 1880 only 9,000 acres were served by mining ditches. This number grew in later years, when the
end of hydraulic mining brought a drastic decrease in mining use of water. Former mining ditches, like those
owned by the Excelsior Water and Mining Company, served irrigation exclusively after 1896. In later state
surveys, which included the foothills with statistics for the Central Valley, the foothills accounted for only
about six percent of the valley’s irrigation through 1960. Browns Valley Irrigation District was the only
Wright Act era district to survive into the 1920s in the foothills. It did so primarily through a cooperative
arrangement with Pacific Gas & Electric Company, by which the power company could run the irrigation
district’s water through its powerhouses in return for financial assistance. 59
Although the region never achieved the kind of production and prosperity of other areas of California, the
Sierra Nevada foothills have supported a small enduring agricultural population. This continues today with
Sierra Nevada foothill vineyards and orchards. These are predominantly dependent upon groundwater
supplies for irrigation; only in a few areas, such as around Grass Valley- Nevada City- Auburn ( Nevada
Irrigation District, 1921), and Placerville ( El Dorado Irrigation District, 1925), have irrigation districts
survived to the present. Like irrigation districts in the Central Valley, El Dorado Irrigation District purchased
an existing canal and company, in this case based on mining canals, as the basis of its water system. The
Nevada Irrigation District, on the other hand, filed water rights claims with the state and then worked out
conveyance agreements with Pacific Gas & Electric Company to serve major portions of its area. 60
San Joaquin Valley
Stimulated largely by arid conditions, settlers in the San Joaquin Valley were among the first American- era
farmers in California to put in works specifically for irrigation. During the late 1850s and 1860s, their short,
roughly made, earthen ditches diverted water by means of temporary brush dams constructed across the lower
courses of the streams running west out of the Sierra. The earliest of these ditches were built in the vicinity of
Visalia in 1852- 1853; others spread out through the Kaweah River and Kings River deltas in the 1860s.
Farther north in the valley where grain could be dry farmed, irrigation development was slower. The great
floods of 1862 and 1868 destroyed most early ditch systems, but San Joaquin Valley farmers continued to
experiment with irrigation. By 1870, most of the approximately 60,000 irrigated acres in California were
small diversions in Southern California and irrigation from former mining ditches in the Sierra foothills.
Farmers had also begun to irrigate bottom lands along the streams in the southern San Joaquin Valley. 61
Like other Californians, most San Joaquin Valley settlers in the 1850s through the 1870s were not particularly
interested in investing time and money in irrigation, preferring cattle raising and dry- farm cultivation of small
grains to meet the economic opportunities created by the gold rush. The area was sparsely settled, and
speculators like James Ben Ali Haggin and cattlemen such as Henry Miller and Charles Lux amassed large
land holdings by acquiring swamp and overflowed lands and other public lands in the valley, on which they
raised livestock. These holdings were typified by largely absentee ownership, seasonal labor demands, a high
degree of mechanization, no crop rotation, employment of mostly dry- farming methods, and speculative
returns from an unstable international wheat market. The San Joaquin Valley became the center of
California’s wheat belt in the 1870s. Wheat growing continued to expand, relying almost entirely on dry
farming, and reaching its peak in the early nineties. 62 Although few wheat farmers were irrigating, some
valley land barons, like Miller and Lux, invested in large- scale irrigation of pasturage for their primary
Water Conveyance Systems in California December 2000
20
business of stock raising. Miller and Lux watered large areas in the 1860s and 1870s, 150,000 acres of their
700,000 acres in California. 63
The area around Fresno was the center of early irrigation in the San Joaquin Valley. The earliest attempts at
irrigation development in Fresno County occurred at pioneer riverbank settlements, where water was readily
available and easily transported. The earliest efforts occurred along the Kings River at Centerville, one of the
oldest settlements in the county. 64 Centerville settlers could irrigate land with minimal effort by brushing the
natural channels to serve as irrigation canals, beginning in 1868 or 1869, shortly after present- day Centerville
was settled. Calling themselves the Centerville Canal and Irrigation Company, a group of local landowners
cleared a natural channel, generally called the Centerville Channel, to provide dependable irrigation water.
The headgate was simply the point of departure from the main stem of the Kings River, several miles
upstream from Centerville. 65 In the fall of 1869, James B. Sweem built “ Sweem’s Ditch” to provide water
power for his grist mill, located about four miles north of Centerville. 66 Sweem’s Ditch was a branch, drawing
its water from the Centerville Ditch. 67
With these modest conduits— Centerville Ditch and Sweem’s Ditch— the people of Centerville laid the basis
for modern irrigation in the county. The energy and resources for extending canals to the Fresno plains came,
however, not from the people of Centerville but from landowners to the west, especially A. Y. Easterby and
Moses Church. During the 1860s, a group of San Francisco investors headed by Isaac Friedlander amassed
tens of thousands of acres of Fresno County land. The key early settlers of Fresno, such as Thomas Kearney,
A. Y. Easterby, and Frederick Roeding, purchased much of their original holdings from Friedlander’s
“ German Syndicate.” Easterby purchased 5000 acres on the Fresno plains. In 1870, he hired Moses Church to
bring Kings River water to this acreage. Church, a Napa sheepherder, was residing in Centerville at that time,
seeking pasturage for his flock. 68
In mid- 1870, Church purchased Sweem’s Ditch with the intent of diverting its water to the essentially dry bed
of Fancher Creek, which in turn connected with Easterby’s acreage. Church and Easterby subsequently
purchased the Centerville Canal and began constructing a connector with Fancher Creek. To continue this
work, they and others organized the Fresno Canal and Irrigation Company. 69 They were successful in bringing
water to Easterby’s land, and it was the fertility of Easterby’s crops that enticed Southern Pacific Railroad
executives to locate a major railroad transfer nearby, at what would become the city of Fresno.
The arrival of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1872, coinciding with completion of the first leg of the Fresno
Canal, Easterby’s Fancher Creek conduit, set in motion a great flurry of activity to develop and use the water
of the Kings River. The modern canal system operated by the Fresno, Consolidated, and Alta irrigation
districts was begun during the 1870s and 1880s, with a variety of private parties taking the lead ( Figure 5). By
the turn of the century, these smaller irrigation companies had been absorbed by a few large private parties,
and in the case of Alta, by an irrigation district. By the early 1920s, essentially all irrigation works on the
Kings River were controlled by local special- purpose districts.
The Kings River and Fresno Canal system was begun in 1872, shortly after the first leg of the Fresno Canal
was completed. Investors in this system sought to irrigate land north of the Fresno Canal system, diverting
through the Gould and Enterprise Canals. During the mid- 1870s, this company fell under the ownership of Dr.
E. B. Perrin, a major figure in land development in nineteenth century Fresno County. By the late 1870s,
however, the company lost access to much of its water in an adverse court battle with the Fresno Canal and
Irrigation Company ( the Fresno Canal) which then bought Perrin’s company. 70 These canals are now part of
the Fresno Irrigation District and Consolidated Irrigation District. Conveyance systems like these were
incredibly costly, and only a few early investor- speculators had the capital to fund them.
One arrangement for irrigating land was through communal land colonies. A number of these colonies were
established in the area around Fresno in the San Joaquin Valley. In the 1870s, developers such as William
Chapman and Moses J. Church created the prototype Central California Colony and its successors in clusters
around the towns of Fresno, Selma, Dinuba, Kingsburg, and Reedley. Eventually, more than 20 important
colonies were located in Fresno County, with over 800 miles of canals and over 2,000 miles in branches.
Colony companies such as the Fresno Canal and Irrigation Company laid out roads and town centers, planted
December 2000 Water Conveyance Systems in California
21
shade trees, established nurseries for the culture of raisins and wine grapes, and divided the agricultural land
into 20- acre plots.
In the first decades of the twentieth century, many private enterprise irrigation systems in the San Joaquin
Valley, as in Southern California, were acquired by irrigation districts formed by local residents. The most
common absorption occurred when local citizens formed an irrigation district covering the area served, and
then purchased the commercial canals serving it. Among the examples of such changes in irrigation
organization are several nineteenth century commercial irrigation companies that were later acquired by the
Fresno, Consolidated, Madera, and Merced irrigation districts. 71 Some private enterprise irrigation and water
companies have survived into the present, including the Lemoore Water & Irrigation Company, with its main
Melga Canal, located in Kings County. 72
The irrigation district remains the single most important institution for water conveyance in the San Joaquin
Valley. It was in the San Joaquin Valley that the Wright Act was born, promoted by local irrigators, and the
valley was home of the three original Wright Act districts. Some of the later districts formed after the turn of
the century, particularly those in northwestern portion of the valley like East Contra Costa, Byron- Bethany,
Westside, Banta Carbona, and West Stanislaus, used canals and lift pump systems that were later built on a far
grander scale by the Central Valley Project and State Water Project on their aqueduct systems. San Joaquin
Valley irrigation districts, along with more modern counterparts like water conservation districts and
groundwater management districts, provided a powerful measure of public control over water use. Department
of Water Resources records show that in 1995 there were 122 agencies providing water in the counties
forming the San Joaquin Valley. 73
After irrigation districts took over in the 1910s and 1920s in the San Joaquin Valley, they typically replaced
the wooden headgates, control structures, and diversion works with concrete structures. 74 Many canals remain
earth lined, however, although areas with high seepage losses or problems with high groundwater tables
installed linings in their originally earth- lined conduits. For example, even some of the largest canals of the
Fresno Irrigation District, passing though urban Fresno, remain unlined except where washouts or seepage
Figure 5. Cobble and brush dam, Fresno Canal, ca. 1898
( Grunsky 1898, Water Supply Paper No. 18: 46)
Water Conveyance Systems in California December 2000
22
Figure 6. Headworks and dam, Moore Ditch, ca. 1900
( Chandler 1901: 22)
problems require repairs. On the other hand, canals and laterals in the Modesto and Turlock irrigation districts
have been lined since the 1920s. 75
Sacramento Valley
The Sacramento Valley, the northern part of the California’s Central Valley, receives substantially more
rainfall than the San Joaquin Valley. Consequently, Sacramento Valley farmers continued to dry farm wheat
much longer than their counterparts in the San Joaquin Valley, and development of irrigation systems was
slower than on farms to the south. The Sacramento Valley was not, however, immune to drought. Farmers
there suffered the same basic dilemma that faced California agriculture in general— even when there was
enough water, it did not fall during the season most crops needed it. Nevertheless, few attempts at irrigation
went forward between 1850 and 1870.76
Yolo County farmers were among the first to build irrigation canals in the Sacramento Valley, beginning in
the 1850s. Jerome Davis supplied water to his orchards and vineyards at present- day Davis, and James Moore
built an irrigation ditch in 1856 in Capay Valley. The original Moore ditch measured eight feet wide on the
bottom, had a depth of eight feet, and side slopes of 1.5 to one. In 1863, the ditch was enlarged to 16 feet on
the bottom with the same depth and side slopes. The ditch had no permanent diversion dam. Each year the
first freshet washed out the previous year’s brush and gravel dam, which was replaced as the creek subsided.
Other engineering features were crude wooden structures, such as the headgate described by the state
engineers as “ a ponderous box with posts of hewn oak and gates... requiring 2 to 3 men to handle them”
( Figure 6). Moore owned 1,000 acres of riparian land adjacent to Cache Creek, and by the early 1870s, his
system served about 15,000 acres. The ditch was managed by a zanjero who attended to the necessary repairs,
divided the waters among irrigators, and collected water fees. The ditch originally cost $ 10,000-$ 12,000 and
brought in annual receipts between $ 3,000 and $ 7,000.77
Other Sacramento Valley farmers
were not so successful during the
first few decades after the gold rush.
Will S. Green, who owned
thousands of acres near the Sutter
Buttes, promoted a large- scale
irrigation scheme during the 1860s
which would have watered 600,000
acres between the Tehama- Colusa
county border and Cache Slough in
Solano County. He secured little
public support and was unable to
finance the huge undertaking. 78 In
his 1880 irrigation survey, State
Engineer Hall noted only 13,400
irrigated acres in the Sacramento
Valley, on Cache Creek in Yolo
County.
The Stony Creek area on the dry
northwestern side of the Sacramento
Valley illustrates the struggling and
limited nature of irrigation efforts in the late nineteenth century. W. T. Clarke and C. W. Landis, of the United
States Department of Agriculture ( USDA), described a total of 39 canals taking water from Stony Creek in
1902. The ditches were located mostly in Glenn County, with a few in Colusa and Tehama counties. The
irrigation works were mostly relatively short, earthen channels, a mile or two long. A few, like the Lemon
Home Ditch, Orland Canal, and Fruto Land and Water Company Ditch, were more substantial, running from
five to 10 miles long.
December 2000 Water Conveyance Systems in California
23
Figure 7. Orland Project lateral, ca. 1914
( US Reclamation Service 1914: Plate 20)
The Stony Creek Irrigation Company constructed the Orland Canal as a private enterprise in 1891- 1892.
Clarke and Landis reported in 1902 that its average cross section was 10 feet by two feet, with a grade varying
between 3.2 feet and five feet per mile. At the time of this survey, the ditch was capable of serving 20,000
acres, but only 225 acres of alfalfa and fruits were being irrigated. At the same time, four of the 39 ditches
using Stony Creek were not in use in 1902. Orland area farmers formed the West Side Irrigation District in
1888, but as was common with most other districts of the period, its organizers could not sell the bonds to
finance its activities and the district failed. 79
Despite such financial concerns, more Sacramento Valley farmers were planning irrigation projects by the
1880s, particularly once the Wright Act passed. The Central Irrigation District, organized several months after
passage of the Wright Act, sought to irrigate a large tract in Glenn and Colusa counties on the west side of the
Sacramento River. The district failed after completing several miles of main canal. In 1903, the Central Canal
and Irrigation Company purchased its works, with plans to irrigate a more limited area, and intending to build
new works to increase deliveries. This company passed through several hands and became embroiled in
substantial legal controversy until it was finally absorbed into the 121,592- acre Glenn- Colusa Irrigation
District, organized in March of 1920.80
By 1929, there were 15 irrigation districts in the valley between Redding and Sacramento. Of these, eight
were established between 1916 and 1919, a period of great expansion of the California rice industry, and the
remainder between 1920 and 1926. Some districts served large areas, particularly those contiguous with the
massive Glenn- Colusa district, while other small districts served essentially suburban areas like Fair Oaks and
Carmichael near Sacramento. In most cases, the districts absorbed existing works and systems, or were
successors to land and water companies. The suburban systems, in particular, were related to suburban
“ colony” development. They generally had the majority of their systems in pipe at an early date. 81
Shortly after the USDA’s
survey of Stony Creek
and the Orland area, the
US Reclamation Service,
predecessor of the US
Bureau of Reclamation
( USBR), began studying
the feasibility of plans for
an irrigation system for
the same area ( Figure 7).
This irrigation system
was one of the first 25
reclamation projects
selected for construction
by the newly created
service as part of its
mission to help
Westerners improve their
land. 82
Farmers served by the
earthen ditch system of
the USBR’s Orland
Project began irrigating
some crops in 1911, and
by 1916, the initial
system was largely complete. The biggest problem faced by project farmers was seepage loss, so in 1917,
landowners agreed to increased project charges in exchange for an additional agreement with the USBR for
Water Conveyance Systems in California December 2000
24
lining the canals. Day labor directed by the USBR lined 64 of the 146 miles of canal in the Orland Project by
early 1922.83
During this time, irrigation from wells also played an important role in Sacramento Valley agriculture. Wells
were often the source of water for small ditches serving individual farms. Irrigation districts continued to be
important after 1930, and today there are approximately 70 agencies providing irrigation water in Sacramento
Valley counties. 84
Central Coast, Sonoma to Ventura Counties
Spanish and Mexican settlement had a lasting effect on the settlement of California’s central coastal area.
Many of the ranchos were located along the coast, strung along between the missions in the valleys on or near
El Camino Real. The early rancheros, like the missionaries, raised stock and dry- farmed agriculture in these
areas. After secularization of the missions, petitioners quickly filed to obtain vast tracts of mission rangeland
in coastal counties and on fertile river bottoms like the Salinas Valley. About half of the 70 ranchos granted in
Monterey County were located to take advantage of the rich lands in the Salinas Valley. At the southern end
of the coastal region, cattle country took up half of Santa Barbara County, and former rancho land in the
rolling hills of western and central San Luis Obispo County still supports huge herds of cattle. Extensive
irrigation systems were not needed for this type of agriculture based on large- scale stock raising and dry-farmed
grains. 85
Agriculture along California’s central coast developed in adaptation to each local area’s unique climate,
geography, and hydrography. The vineyards in the counties north of San Francisco Bay utilized soil
considered poor quality for other crops and often received enough rain to go unirrigated. The Salinas Valley
and other humid coastal zones supported crops that benefited from dense ocean fogs. While foggy weather
does not extend very far inland, farmers in this zone could grow unirrigated crops that were able to use
airborne moisture, such as artichokes and strawberries in the Salinas Valley and tomatoes and lima beans in
Santa Clara and Santa Barbara counties. 86 Another characteristic of central coast agriculture was the
prevalence of groundwater obtained from wells and delivered through pipelines, subsurface irrigation, and
sprinkler systems. Because this unique system of specialty crop agriculture did not rely on surface irrigation
conveyance, canals were comparatively rare in this region. 87
Early viticultural development came to Sonoma, Napa, and Santa Clara counties in the 1860s and 1870s, as
experienced European wine makers arriving in California began planting vineyards in the central coast area.
Missionaries and gold rush farmers had established vineyards of mission grapes, but this variety was
susceptible to pests and did not produce very good wine. Ironically, viticulture in the cooler central coast
counties produced higher quality wines in poorer soil, unirrigated in some areas, than the more established
southern vineyards.
California’s most famous wine grape grower, Colonel Agoston Haraszthy, experimented with many locations
before choosing 560 acres in Sonoma County for his Buena Vista Ranch. Haraszthy invested time and effort
in early California viticulture by importing 200,000 samples representing 1,400 varieties of European grape
vines in 1860. French vintners Etienne Thee and Charles Lefranc founded Almaden Vineyards in the Santa
Clara Valley, and other French growers located their operations in San Jose. Northern European wine makers
such as Charles Krug made names for themselves in the Napa Valley. Many of these pioneering wineries were
successful ventures that have survived and expanded into other coastal areas. 88
Following a statewide trend during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, farmers along California’s
central coast also turned to various specialty crops. Small plum, prune, peach, apricot, and pear orchards had
been planted at the missions and set a precedent for later orchardists. Santa Clara and San Benito farmers put
in orchards of many varieties, but by the end of the 1920s, other nationally important specialty crops took the
place of deciduous fruit in these areas. Salinas Valley became the largest supplier of lettuce in the nation,
along with substantial production of broccoli, artichokes, strawberries, celery, and other row crops. The
transformation of Monterey County, from 60 acres of lettuce and 95,000 acres of grain in 1920 to the nation’s
December 2000 Water Conveyance Systems in California
25
Figure 8. Salinas Valley irrigation ( Hamlin 1904: Plate 2)
specialty vegetable center two decades
later, illustrates the basic trend of
coastal valley agriculture. Farmers
quickly accepted these profitable new
crop types and turned away from dry-farmed
grain. 89
These farmers, however, relied more
upon groundwater than surface
diversions for their irrigation supply. In
1900, Charles Marx with the
Reclamation Service reported that
among his observed instances of
irrigation in the Salinas Valley, 15 were
from wells, nine pumped from the river,
and four employed canals. The canals
irrigated an aggregate of only 4,860
acres. They were earthen, ranged from
25 to 40 feet across at the top and 20 to
30 feet across at the bottom. The three
Marx observed carrying water were five
feet deep; one canal did not irrigate that
year. In Marx’s view, of the 70 water
rights filings made in Monterey County
for the Salinas River, only 10 actually
appropriated water. Homer Hamlin
confirmed these findings when he
surveyed the Salinas Valley for the US
Geological Survey a few years later in
1902. Hamlin listed 270 wells. His
water supply report also included a map
illustrating lands irrigated by canals and
showing that this land was located
solely within the boundaries of various
Salinas Valley ranchos ( See Figure 8
and Table 3). 90
The coastal range county of San Benito
illustrates the general progression from
dry- farmed grains to more specialized
agriculture. By 1920, farmers there were
beginning to recognize the possibilities
of diversified agriculture, but most still
depended heavily on dry- farming. Those
who did irrigate obtained water from
wells, bringing the pumped water to
crops through either temporary flume
and pipe systems or in permanently
installed underground pipe systems. San
Benito County communities advertising
surface irrigation systems included:
Ausaymas: “ Some orchardists irrigate
Water Conveyance Systems in California December 2000
26
by damming [ Pacheco] creek.”
Union: “ Irrigation is by gravity ditch system” and pumping.
Tres Pinos: Other than “ irrigation canals which flow along the west side of the Tres Pinos Section,
irrigation is from wells.”
County officials were eager to point out the area’s production of specialty crops like cherries, blackberries,
strawberries, grapes, nuts, sugar beets, and tomatoes, but they could not have forecast the explosive growth of
vegetable crops that began in the mid- 1920s. 91
Even with the turn to production of vegetable crops, surface irrigation development in San Benito County
remained small compared to Central Valley or Southern California systems. The San Benito Land and Water
Company, for example, began serving farmers in the vicinity of Paicines from their concrete diversion dam,
main canal, storage reservoir, and approximately 20 miles of distribution laterals in the 1890s. When water
supplies were low, the company conveyed the stored water into the natural channel of the stream, diverting it
back into a system of laterals for conveyance on either side of the San Benito River. According to a 1919
promotional pamphlet, this service “ changed hay and grain land into orchard, berry, and alfalfa land.” What
the promoters failed to note was that a large area of the county still depended on dry farming. Furthermore,
the company’s system could not meet the demand for water, and irrigators supplemented their supply with
many private pumping plants. A subsequent drop in groundwater levels led local farmers to approve the
formation of the Hollister Irrigation District in 1923. The engineer hired by the new district found that the
area would be better served by a water storage district and underground water management, rather than a
surface system. The district, however, apparently failed to survive. 92
Table 3. Salinas Valley irrigation canals ca. 1902*
Canal Name Statistics ( Built / Length / Dimensions)
Salinas Canal 1896- 1897 / 9 miles long / 40' top, 30' bottom, 5' deep. Diverts winter and spring
only; irrigates 3,500 acres on San Bernabe Rancho; crops mostly sugar beets and
barley.
San Lorenzo Canal 1896 / 8.5 miles long / 30' top, 20' bottom, 5' deep. Diversion point is temporary
dam, diverting during winter only; roughly 800 acres irrigated.
Arroyo Seco Canal No. 1 1897 / 4 miles long / 35' top, 25' bottom, 5' deep. Serves about 300 acres east of
the Arroyo Seco channel on the Arroyo Seco Rancho.
Arroyo Seco Canal No. 2 1899 / 4 miles long / 27' top, 17' bottom, 5' deep. Diversion point is temporary
dam; canal serves 4,000 acres of the Arroyo Seco Rancho.
Arroyo Seco Canal No. 3 1901- 1902 / 14 miles long / 28' top, 20 bottom, 4' deep. Irrigates about 2,000
acres on the Soledad Rancho south of the Salinas River.
Gonzales Canal 1899 / 7.5 miles long / 32' top, 16' bottom. Temporary diversion dam constructed
of sand and brush; irrigates 2,700 acres; primary crop is grain, but last season
irrigated about 500 acres of alfalfa, beets, and beans.
Brandenstein Ditch Abandoned by the time of Hamlin= s field research in 1902; six- mile- long main
canal ( originally surveyed as 50' wide and 3' deep); eight to 10 miles of laterals
unidentified; not on map.
* Total acreage irrigated by canals reported by Hamlin in 1902: 12,800.93
The limited development in this area of the state is reflected in the small number of irrigation agencies
existing today. In the area between Sonoma on the north and Ventura on the south, there are only 20 agencies
providing irrigation water; of these, eight are in Ventura County alone. Santa Clara and Marin counties
reported only one each; Napa, Monterey, San Benito, and San Luis Obispo counties reported none. 94
December 2000 Water Conveyance Systems in California
27
Northern California
Northern California supports relatively little irrigation outside of the Sacramento Valley and the Sierra
Nevada foothills, because the terrain is generally too rugged for large- scale irrigated agriculture. This portion
of the state is mountainous, with the Coast Range, Klamath Mountains, Cascade Range, and Sierra Nevada
crowding around the northern end of the Sacramento Valley. The Modoc Plateau fills the northeastern corner
of the state with lava beds and hills, at an average elevation of 4,500 feet. Any need for irrigation is further
reduced by the fact that this area is, overall, the wettest in the state. The rainfall feeds the Klamath, Trinity,
Mad, and Eel rivers which drain to the Pacific Ocean; the McCloud, Shasta, and Pit rivers draining to the
Sacramento Valley; and the Susan and Truckee rivers draining into the Great Basin. 95
Nonetheless, some irrigated agriculture has developed, especially on the Modoc Plateau where there is more
tillable land and less annual precipitation, about 15 inches per year. Irrigation has also been employed in a few
Northern California valleys. Pit River ranchers have been irrigating small acreages since the late 1800s, and
Shasta Valley farmers in Siskiyou County brought water to about 43,000 acres by the early 1920s. In the area
around Macdoel, Yreka, and Scott Valley, irrigation systems composed of long main canals and complex
lateral systems irrigated local pasture and farm land. Several irrigation districts, such as the Grenada and the
Big Springs, were formed to take over unsatisfactory private water systems. In the Hot Spring Valley
Irrigation District, on the other hand, the only works owned by the district was Big Sage Dam. This dam
served to regulate and augment flows on the Pit River; local ranchers built simple timber diversions in the
river to flood their fields. 96
The northern irrigation districts were organized to irrigate alfalfa, grain, and pasture land, which they still do
today. As support for stock raising, and not in high- value crops, their basic organization appears to be more
informal in this region. For exa