The Kings River Handbook - Kings River Conservation District

8/2/2019 The Kings River Handbook - Kings River Conservation District

1/48

The

Kings River

Handbook

September 2009

Fifth Printing

Permission to reprint is granted with credit to the

Kings River Conservation District and Kings River Water Association

4886 E. Jensen Avenue

Fresno, CA 93725

559.237.5567

www.krcd.org

4888 E. Jensen Avenue

Fresno, CA 93725

559.266.0767

www.kingsriverwater.org


2/482

Contents

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 3

A SYNOPSIS OF KINGS RIVER HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 4

Beginnings

Initial Development, Disputes, Solutions

The Modern Era

ALONG THE KINGS RIVER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 15

The High Sierra

Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir

The River: Pine Flat to State Route 99

State Route 99 to Army and Island WeirsClark's Fork, South Fork and Tulare Lake

North Fork and James Bypass

KINGS RIVER WATER USERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 29

Agricultural Water Users

Urban Water Agencies

Water for the Fishery

Groundwater

Kings River Support Agencies

KRWA MEMBER UNITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 37

Upper River Agencies

Lower River Agencies: State Route 99 to Army and Island Weirs

South Fork Agencies: Army Weir to Empire Weir No. 2

Lower River Agencies: Empire Weir No. 2 and Tulare Lake Bed

Lower River Agencies: Island Weir to Mendota Pool

THE KINGS RIVER THROUGH HISTORY (TIME LINE). . . . . . . .Page 42

QUICK FACTS ABOUT THE KINGS RIVER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 45

THE KINGS RIVER'S PROFILE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 46

FEATURES ALONG THE RIVER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 47


3/48

Introduction

There is nothing in the world quite like the

Kings River. The magnificent mountain country

in which the river begins is among Earths most

rugged and spectacular. What water from the

Kings has created on the land is equally remark-

able, a garden of some one million acres that

today is an important part of the world's most

fertile and productive agricultural region.

It is a living lesson on the value of water in

a land of little rain. No resource is more precious

to the hundreds of thousands of people who live

and work in those portions of Fresno, Kings and

Tulare counties watered by the Kings. The riveris a stream rich in history. Its waters were often

troubled but, with patience and a spirit of coop-

eration, Kings River users fashioned voluntary

agreements on water rights, entitlements and

operations that benefited everyone and made

possible the development of the rivers greatest

modern storage and flood management asset,

Pine Flat Dam.

Today, faced with enormous population

growth and expansion of environmental values,

entirely new challenges are being met creatively

on the Kings River. Among these are studies,

policies, projects and facilities to enhance fish and

wildlife resources, including implementation of

the Kings River Fisheries Management Program.

Urban interests are increasingly and construc-

tively involved in the Kings River. New coalitions

of Kings River and municipal water agencies

have been brought together with the environ-

mental community and state experts to establish

important integrated regional water management

planning as a way of the future. Still other efforts

are aggressively addressing Central Valley water

quality concerns identified by state agencies.

3

Dealing with the issues of today and appre-

ciating the importance of the rivers beneficial

uses requires understanding of what has taken

place in the past as well as recognition of the riv-

er's varied facilities and complex operations.

These pages summarize the Kings River, its

abounding history, beauty, environmental

resources, operations, agreements, uses and

incredible value. Although not a large river of

commerce or transportation, the rivers waters,

for all of us and in so many ways, are life. This is

what the Kings River is all about.

Pine Flat Dam towers over a riparian forest and an anglertrying his luck downstream on a summer evening in 2009.


4/48

A Synopsis of Kings River History

The Kings River's rich history has had enormous impacts on the way our region

has developed, resulting in a vital and incredibly valuable agricultural heritage and

rapidly growing urban centers and settings. The past's mighty struggles have

ordained how the river is used beneficially today. This synopsis is not intended to be

a comprehensive Kings River history but is a summary based upon information con-

tained in previous Kings River historical abstracts, general histories of the central

San Joaquin Valley, contemporary newspaper accounts, and records of the Kings

River Water Association, its 28 member units and the Kings River Conservation

District.

4


5/48

BeginningsThe River and its Origins

History on the Kings River tendsto be measured from its discoverytwo centuries ago but those years area drop in times bucket. Time, ofcourse, did not begin on the Kings

when it was first viewed throughEuropean eyes any more than it didwhen human life that of the earli-est Indian tribe members beganalong its banks.

Like the mountains that spawnedit, the Kings is many millions ofyears in age. Its waters helped shapethe rivers Sierra Nevada watershed,between the ranges eternally risingridges, by carrying tiny particles ofrock down the mountains steepslopes. These magnificent geologicforces inevitably caused streams toform and to gather into a river insearch of always lower ground.

The rivers stretched westwardfrom the great mountains. The Kingsdevoted immeasurable epochs tospreading an alluvial fan across thevalley floor that not only drove awaythe ocean but also laid the necessaryfoundation to ultimately define a

new civilizations breadbasket.And in the eons in which all this

so slowly took shape, the river wasmostly a study in unvarying naturalhistory, supporting a fairly simpleecosystem and, eventually, a verysmall human population.

The River's Discovery

The native valley floor createdby the river over so long a processwas unlike the coastal valleys that

encompassed nearly all settlement inSpanish and Mexican California.Much of the valleys prairie wasmonotonous, dreary and frequentlyunpleasant. It appealed to fewexplorers and fewer would-be set-tlers.

Among its earliest visitors wasCaptain Gabriel Moraga and hisstraggling band of Spanish soldiers.

On January 5, 1805, Moraga's partydiscovered a previously unknownstream flowing from the foothillsonto the valley floor. Moraga campedalong its wooded banks. He and hismen were refreshed by its beautyafter so many miles of winter travelacross the tedious and desiccatedplains. The next day, January 6, wasthe Feast of the Epiphany. It was theinspiration for the rivers christening

as El Rio de los Santos Reyes River of the Holy Kings.

As for the Moraga expeditionsobjectives, what little is known waswritten by one of the Franciscans,Father Pedro Muoz. Moraga turnedto this Roman Catholic priest as achronicler of his journeys. Muozwrote during a subsequent expedi-tion in October 1806 that the sitewhere the naming took place (a loca-tion that has never been identified)

was a good one. He said, All themeadows are well covered with oak,alder, cottonwood and willow. Theriver abounds with beaver and fish.It is a location suitable for a mission,although there would also have tobe a presidio.

There were also abundant watersupplies, fertile nearby soils and suf-ficient aboriginal soulsthe areas

5

tribes of Indiansto convert toChristianity and to work in the fields.Father Muoz later estimated thenative population along the KingsRiver at more than 5,000 in morethan ten different tribes.

No missions would ever bedeveloped within the Central ValleyThe lands settlement would have towait.

Kings River runoff, such as this roaringthrough Cedar Grove, directly depends

upon each years Sierra snowpack.

A frozen reservoir of Sierra Nevada snow contains each yearsKings River water supply, unleashed by springs snowmelt.


6/48

The river's divine designationdid nothing to enhance first impres-sions of much of what would becomethe Kings River service area. Thosewho first saw the country consid-ered it to be desert and of little or novalue except for naturally wateredareas along the Kings and other riv-ers. On the Kings lower reaches

were the wetlands of the FresnoSlough-Summit Lake country andTulare Lake that teemed with lush-ness and life. Otherwise the plainswere devoid of vegetation, exceptfor seasonal grasses.

In 1850, Lieutenant George H.Derby, a U.S. Army topographicalengineer, surveyed portions of theKings River country and the south-ern San Joaquin Valley.

For the most part, Derby wrote,the land was barren, decomposed,(with) no trace of vegetation but afew straggling artemisias. . . , scorpi-ons, centipedes and a small butextremely poisonous rattlesnakeabout 18 inches long ... which, withthe gophers and ground rats, are theonly denizens of this unpleasant anduninhabited spot.

It was a land without water.

Kings River's Fluctuating Supply

The Kings River is burdenedwith a reality shared by all southernSierra Nevada streams. The Kings isprone to extreme annual swings inrunoff that directly relate to moun-tain precipitation. That reality, fromthe beginning of the Kings Rivercountry's settlement in the 1860suntil the present, has been occasion-ally good and just as frequently bad,depending upon how much winter

and spring rain and Sierra snowhappen to fall.

Annual Kings River runoff aver-ages 1,745,000 acre-feet. The river'sall-time minimum runoff, however,was only 391,700 acre-feet (in 1923-24), just 23.1 percent of average.

On the other extreme, the 1982-83 water year produced record run-off of 4,476,400 acre-feet, 264.5 per-

6

cent of average, only to be followedby an 11-year span that includedeight below-average years, includ-ing a critical six year drought, whichbegan in 1986-87.

In dry years, then as now, watersupplies were insufficient to fullyirrigate the nearly 1.1 million acres

of highly productive farmland thatis watered from the Kings. Sincereservoir capacity is generally insuf-ficient to accommodate all runoff inwet years, losses to the water-defi-cient service area through KingsRiver flood releases equate to 200,000acre-feet per year.

Initial Development,Disputes, Solutions

Tapping the Kings River

Initial Kings River service areasettlement began in the two decadesfollowing Californias 1850 statehoodin what is now known as theCenterville Bottoms of FresnoCounty. The first of these, which sur-vives today east of Sanger undermanagement of the Kings RiverWater District, is tiny Byrd Ditch,built in 1858. Others followed overthe next few years. Those primitiveditches were all destroyed or heavilydamaged in a massive 1867-68 flood.

Other canals soon followedThe first two of substance includedthe first version of the FresnoCanal, commissioned in 1870 byA.Y. Easterby and carried out byMoses J. Church and the LowerKings River Ditch, now known asthe Lemoore Canal. The canalsbrought Kings River water to

Easterby's property (east of whereFresno was established in 1872) viaMud and Fancher creeks. Between1872-74, the Fresno Canal wasenlarged and became capable ofconveying water onto more of theimmense, previously uncultivatedprairie between the Kings and SanJoaquin rivers.

The newly watered soils turnedout to be extraordinarily fertile. Theyburst into lush plantings (initiallymostly of wheat and barley) underthe hot, dry, valley climate. Immensecrops were produced. The worth ofirrigated land was swiftly estab-lished.

Over the next 15 years, dozens ofcanals were constructed down-stream, ultimately serving more thanone million acres and making possi-ble intense cultivation. Permanentplantings of grapevines and tree fruit

became common.Water from the Kings River

made it all possible.

Canals constructed over the years crisscross the valley deliveringwater to farms from Fresno to the Tulare Lake bed.


7/48

canals to dramatically reduce diver-sions or stop deliveries altogether.

It was not unusual for desperate,water-short farmers to arm them-selves and seize headgates to keepwater flowing to their land. Suchwater-supply uncertainty dimin-ished land prices, demonstrating thecritical significance of a secure watersupply in a land of little rain.

Such conditions inevitablyspawned long, complex legal battles.Litigation lasted more than fortyyears and included many scores of

lawsuits.There were a few signs of pro-

gressive change. One was the firstKings River water entitlement sched-ule, negotiated in 1897 by L.A. Nares.He managed the Fresno Canal andIrrigation Company and RanchoLaguna de Tache. The 1897 accordincluded only the most senior divert-ers the Fresno company and threelower river companies in KingsCounty, Peoples Ditch Company,

Last Chance Water Ditch Companyand Lower Kings River Ditch (nowthe Lemoore Canal and Irrigation)Company.

A small entitlement was provid-ed for the Laguna ranch, a 48,800-acre Mexican land grant (down-stream from modern Kingsburg)acquired along with other lowerriver riparian properties by the

7

Water Rights, Riparian Disputes

Chaos, controversy and courtfights ruled the Kings River fordecades. Organization and coopera-tion were minimal at best and non-existent at worst. It added up toconfusion that made it practicallyimpossible for most individual irri-

gators to know when their canalswould receive water or when theymight be shut off by upstreamusers.

More serious were challengesover water rights. Practically fromthe beginning, pioneer users wereplagued by a lack of agreement onwater use and entitlements, a situa-tion that soon deteriorated into amassive conflict caused by contra-dictory laws. Those who pioneered

the building of the river's dozens ofcanal systems simply posted theirwater claims under the doctrine ofprescriptive or appropriative right.The rule, dating from the water-usecustom of Mexican California, wassimple: First in time; first in right.

Those earliest irrigators soonfound themselves challenged bydownstream landowners whoseproperties bordering the river gaverise to claims of what were known as

riparian rights. California's firstLegislature in 1850, recognizing thatmuch remained to be legislated, hadadopted British common law toembrace situations not covered byfederal or state laws or Constitutions.The riparian doctrine of commonlaw provided that no one couldcause a stream to flow with dimin-ished quality or quantity past a givenpoint, a stipulation that stood inclear conflict with the doctrine of

prescriptive rights.In dry years, riparian owners

began demanding that the river'sflow remain undiminished alongtheir lands. In Lux vs. Haggin, an1888 Kern River case before the StateSupreme Court, riparianists wontheir case. In subsequent litigation,lower courts and the State SupremeCourt ordered many Kings River

Fresno company in 1892 to secureriparian rights then claimed by theLaguna Grant. The 1897 agreement

governed only the river's lowerflows, below 1,900 cubic feet per sec-ond. It was, however, a start. Dozensof lawsuits were dismissed. Theagreement was also generally recog-nized by all of the river's other usersThe original schedules numberswere included in later agreementsand remain in use today.

Riparian appropriation issueswere settled in a 1928 state election.Added was a state constitutional

provision, based on the realities ofexisting uses, making beneficial usethe measure of all water rights,whether appropriative or riparian. Itprovided that riparian owners wouldbe entitled to no more water thanthey actually need to serve a benefi-cial purpose.

The 1921 Agreement andWatermaster Kaupke

Efforts to resolve remaining dif-

ferences began a long, slow processin 1913.

Users realized that the KingsRiver's historic contentiousness sim-ply could not be permitted to con-tinue into the future. More impor-tantly, it was understood that a damat Pine Flat, needed to harness theriver, would never be possible untilagreements were reached on water

For many years after the 1888 riparian decision, the Kings Riverwater carried in many canals was illegally diverted.


8/488

rights and entitlements. By then,nearly all Kings River flows werebeing put to beneficial use within theservice area.

Extensive discussions on thePine Flat question led to early recog-nition that an umbrella Kings Riveragency would ultimately be neces-

sary. In 1916, a group of irrigationleaders known as the Committee ofThirty took as its name the KingsRiver Water Control andConservation District. Its objectivewas implementation of state legisla-tion a Kings River ConservationDistrict and Pine Flat Dam Act that had been passed in 1915. Thelaw was twice amended but an oper-ating conservation district did notmanage to become reality.

Progress continued, however; in1917, state irrigation district forma-tion legislation was enacted to sup-plant the old Wright Act of 1887, ameasure that authorized formation ofirrigation districts. The Kings RiversAlta Irrigation District, organized in1888, was the second district formedunder the Wright Act and that law'sthen-controversial provisions forpublicly administered deliveries ofirrigation water. Alta was California's

first irrigation district to actually pro-vide water service to users.

A public approach to adminis-tering water rights, managementand operations gained increasingappeal on the Kings River. Variouswater diversion schedules were pro-posed. In that spirit and buoyed byheadway which had been made,Kings River users asked the CaliforniaWater Commission to provide animpartial engineer to determine the

river's flows, diversions, canal capac-ities and historical uses. All wereneeded before a comprehensive enti-tlement schedule could be prepared.

Late in 1917, Charles L. Kaupke,a state water engineer, arrived inFresno and went to work gatheringdata. His efforts earned considerablerespect among the river's diversediverters. When the 1919 season

turned up dry, users unanimously

requested that Kaupke be assignedto act as Watermaster and arbitratediversion issues for the balance of1919. So satisfied were users thatKaupke was again appointedWatermaster in 1920.

Other engineers began assistingKaupke in developing a trial waterdiversion schedule, based upon theriver's mean daily flow. Mean dailynatural flow at the Fresno Countyfoothill community of Piedra hasalways been at the heart of KingsRiver uses, regulation, stream con-trol and storage. Kaupke's task wasto resolve problems, disputes andconflicting claims by finding solu-tions which complemented that mostbasic of measurements.

Resolution became a more criti-cal need when some lower riverlawsuits were set for trial onOctober 1, 1921. Most Kings River

diverters believed that the litigationwould not only be long and costlybut would negate much of the prog-ress on entitlements that had alreadybeen accomplished. A committeeconsisting of Kaupke, water engi-neer J.B. Lippincott and L.A. Nares(who had negotiated the first limitedwater schedule in 1897) hurried todraft an interim agreement.

On September 27, 1921, repre-sentatives of thirty-five agenciesaccounting for more than 95 percentof the total diversions and a grossarea of one million acres signed thepact. It requested the state Divisionof Water Rights to prepare a tem-porary schedule for the division andadministration of the waters of Kings

River for the calendar year 1922.

As a result, all pending waterrights litigation was postponed.Kaupke was again appointedWatermaster. His work was to befunded by $15,000 assessed on a pro-rated basis to the participating agen-cies. Another in a series of trial waterentitlement schedules was ready foruse in 1923. It was refined each yearthrough 1926 and eased much of theriver's turmoil.

The 1927 Agreement and KRWAsEstablishment

Year by year, the need for a per-manent settlement of the water rightswas becoming more apparent,Watermaster Kaupke later wrote.

Between 1923-26, a vigorous sec-ond effort was mounted to establisha conservation district legally capa-ble of selling bonds and building adam at Pine Flat. A Kings RiverWater Storage District board beganmeeting in 1925. As was the case in1915-16, however, the hoped-forpublic agency was never permanent-ly organized. District board delibera-tions did directly lead to a lastingKings River solution.

On May 3, 1927, a voluntaryagreement was reached among nine-teen diverters (providing water to958,000 acres). The agreement's enti-

tlement schedule was considerablyimproved from the trial schedules,reflecting hydrologic data that hadbeen developed over the previousseveral years. The greatest changewas development of separate sched-ules for each month, acknowledgingsignificant variations in runoff andactual diversions and demands frommonth to month.

Charles KaupkeKings River Watermaster from 1919-56


9/489

May (when daily mean flowsgenerally peaked) encompassed themaximum 1927 schedule, covering9,450 cubic feet per second; it repre-sented practical diversion capabili-ties and capacities of the units.Schedules of other months closelycorresponded to records of actualdiversions, while respecting and

incorporating the senior units rightto divert from the rivers low flows.The December table made alloca-tions only on the first 1,000 cubic feetper second.

The accord established the KingsRiver Water Association. KRWAassumed all duties that had beenperformed from 1918-27 by theCalifornia Water Commission andthe California Division of WaterRights. It was to be administered bya Watermaster, a role filled byCharles Kaupke until his retirementin 1956.

Considering the river's history ofconflict, the 1927 agreement was apivotal and remarkable accomplish-ment, even though it did not theninclude detailed schedules for eitherTulare Lake bed units or theCenterville Bottoms. However, rightsof those areas were recognized by

the nineteen original KRWA units(as the KRWAs member agencieshave always been referred to).

The Modern EraThe Corps, the Bureauand Pine Flat Dam

The agreement of 1927 was aturning point in Kings River history.More than any other circumstance,

the settlement cleared the way foreventual construction of Pine FlatDam.

The dam's need and actual sitehad been obvious as early as the1880s. At first, water storage andconservation benefits were theappeal for dam development. Thatchanged following disastrous 1906flooding. The high flows focused

attention on the need for flood con-trol. Despite that concern, the projecteluded two generations, largely as aresult of politics and the practicalproblem of who would shoulder thecost. When farm prices and propertyvalues began to plunge between1921-23, momentum on the damproject slowed.

On the Kings River, progress hasnever come easily or quickly. With

the Pine Flat project, many falsestarts followed.

So did a bureaucratic tug of warbetween two federal agencies. Itstarted in 1937. The Army Corps ofEngineers proposed to build PineFlat as a flood control project, dedi-cated to benefits on the Kings River.The U.S. Bureau of Reclamationviewed the proposed dam and reser-voir as an extension of its CentralValley Project, then in its initialdevelopment stages. PresidentRoosevelt complicated the situationby assigning the project's develop-ment to each. The two agenciesagreed Pine Flat should be built.They differed on basic issues, floodcontrol and conservation values,storage and operations, and, perhapsmost importantly, construction costsand local cost contributions.

Arguments raged through four yearsof hearings.

Kings River water users and theKings River Water Association sidedwith the Corps of Engineers. KRWA'smember units, holders of the Kingswater rights, wanted no part ofReclamation law restrictions or theCVP. State water engineers who con-ceived the CVP (before it was takenover by the federal government in

1935) eliminated the Kings from theirearly planning. They recognized thatthe river's entire flow was lawfullyand efficiently appropriated by theriver's users, except for infrequentflood flows.

In December 1944, Congressapproved a Flood Control Act autho-rizing Pine Flat Dam to be developedby the Corps of Engineers withKRWA units to pay for the irrigationstorage benefit once that amountwas determined. For that task,President Truman in 1946 assignedthe Bureau of Reclamation to negoti-ate the necessary contracts. KingsRiver users again fumed that PineFlat was being classified as aReclamation project, despite theexpressed will of Congress. Talkswent nowhere. Even after Pine FlatDam's construction was started by

Patient cooperation and progress finally broughtpeace to the rivers once troubled waters.


10/4810

the Corps of Engineers late in 1949,newly elected Representative Cecil

F. White made an unsuccessful buthighly controversial belated legisla-tive attempt to fully integrate theKings River and its valuable hydro-electric sites into the Central ValleyProject.

Meanwhile, the Corps ofEngineers moved ahead with its PineFlat planning. A basic operationaldecision, one that governs Pine FlatProject operations to this day, wasmade by the Corps in January 1952:

Flood control. The Corps wouldhave complete authority.

Conservation storage and releas-es. The Kings River watermasterwould be in control.

Pine Flat Dam was completed in1954 at a cost of $42.3 million, but theoften rancorous storage and repay-ment contract negotiating processwith the Bureau of Reclamationdragged on. KRWA and its units

joined the Corps of Engineers in con-tending that all of the new reservoir'sspace should be available for stor-age, limited only by Pine Flat's floodcontrol purposes and priorities. Eventhough the Corps' 1952 administra-tive decision appeared to imply thatthe Bureau of Reclamation's role wasstrictly that of a negotiating agent,KRWA's units knew that Pine Flat

Reservoir could not be used for irri-gation storage without a Bureau

agreement.The KRCDs Formation

In 1951, the contract situationand other water rights mattershelped prompt the third and ulti-mately successful effort to create theKings River Conservation District asa public agency that could act for theentire Kings River service area on avariety of river-related issues andpotential projects.

Aside from the ongoing Bureauof Reclamation struggle, there weresound reasons why KRCD's estab-lishment was viewed by Kings Riverinterests as necessary:

Contract Negotiations. No over-all public agency existed thatwas empowered to contract withthe United States on behalf of allwater users seeking storagerights in Pine Flat Reservoir. TheKings River Water Association,

then as now, was a private orga-nization. The Fresno IrrigationDistrict then served as trusteefor Pine Flat storage use by allriver units.

Water Rights. A public agencywas necessary to receive filingswhich had been made in 1927 bythe state for possible future usein what had been conceived as a

state-operated Central ValleyProject. The Bureau ofReclamation sought to receivethe unappropriated rights. Sodid KRWA before the waterassociation was told that, as aprivate organization, it could notbe granted the rights. Kings

River water users feared that thefilings might be used by theBureau of Reclamation to per-manently link the Bureau andReclamation law with the KingsRiver.

Power Development. A regionalpublic agency such as KRCDwould be better equipped thanan irrigation district to develophydroelectric projects at PineFlat Dam and on the North Fork.

The Fresno Irrigation District, astrustee for other river units, hadapplied to develop those proj-ects.

Conservation ImprovementsDevelopment of groundwaterrecharge facilities, reclamation,flood control and drainage proj-ects had been suggested as pos-sible future KRCD projects.

Special legislation to create

KRCD was backed by KRWA andthe river's units. It was approvedand signed into law on June 8, 1951.KRCD's organization was crafted toclosely resemble an irrigation dis-trict but with some restrictions on itsauthority. It was to include the KingsRiver service area. The district boardorganized on November 14, 1951KRCD voters confirmed the district'sformation in a referendum onDecember 18, 1951.

KRCD played a vital role in thePine Flat contract negotiationsBetween 1954-63, the district actedfor the river's users in contractingwith the Bureau of Reclamation for aseries of interim annual Pine Flatwater storage contracts. Each acre-foot of stored water cost local units$1.50. Over a period of nine years,$7.8 million was paid to the Bureau.

Pine Flat Dam in 1956, two years after its completionmade the Kings River dream a reality.


11/4811

on the Fresno Slough (in westernFresno County). The units agreed topay for 37.4 percent of Pine Flat'soperation and maintenance.Extensive efforts by the Kings RiverConservation District resulted inusers receiving full credit for $7.2million in interim contract paymentstoward their repayment obligation.KRWA assumed the duty of han-dling repayment accountability, aswell as overseeing water entitle-ments and deliveries and adminis-tering storage rights for memberunits.

At the same time, a new masterKings River agreement was approved.The units agreed among themselveson how the river should be operatedunder storage conditions. Thatincluded accounting for each unitsshare of reservoir storage and down-stream channel losses as well as aprocedure to account for Pine FlatReservoir flood releases. Maximum-

flow limits on the monthly waterschedules were eliminated.

While each Kings River waterrights accord represented importantprogress, the 1963 agreements weremost meaningful for finally puttingto rest vexing entitlement issues. ThePine Flat storage and repayment con-tracts gave the people of the KingsRiver service area exclusive and per-

petual rights to 1,006,500 acre-feet of

Pine Flat Reservoir's storage space(except for the project's flood controlrequirements).

The 1963 Kings River agreementand the issues it resolved at lastmade Watermaster Kaupkes 1949statement fully accurate. Peaceindeed finally came to the Kings,more than a century after the river'sbeneficial development began.

Full Appropriation

Formalizing the Kings' waterrights, like so many other parts of theriver's puzzle, required many yearsto accomplish.

Acting independently of oneanother, Kings River water usersbegan filing a total of nine applica-tions to appropriate Kings Riverwater not long after what was thenknown as the State Water RightsBoard (now the State Water ResourcesControl Board) was established in

1914. In time, more than 100 protestswere filed against these applica-tions.

As a result of the 1963 intra-association agreement, the KingsRiver applications were consoli-dated by a trust agreement onSeptember 16, 1964. The FresnoIrrigation District acted as trusteeon behalf of all KRWA members.

The construction of Pine Flat Dam created more stable supplyof irrigation water, flood control and recreation.

The 1949 and 1963 Agreements

A 1949 agreement extended theKings River's entitlement scheduleto specify details for diversion bySouth Fork and Tulare Lake bedunits, for the first time including theentire river.

The new agreement increased

the maximum flow allocation on themonthly schedules and providedthat any flows in excess of the newmaximum were to be divided, half tothe main Kings River and NorthFork units and half to the South Forkunits. (Only the Centerville Bottomsarea, lacking an administrative struc-ture, was omitted but its water rightsremained recognized; that territory'sKings River Water District was orga-nized in 1952.) The 1949 agreement

resulted in dismissal of the last threeKings River water rights lawsuits.

Charles L. Kaupke, the firstWatermaster, liked to say the litiga-tions conclusion meant There waspeace on the river for the first time inmore than eighty years.... It was thelargest peaceful settlement of waterrights on a major river to be recordedin the history of Western irrigation.That unfortunately proved to not beentirely accurate because Kings River

users still faced many more years ofcontroversial dealings with the U.S.Bureau of Reclamation. Also remain-ing were difficult entitlement ques-tions related to allocation of Pine FlatReservoir storage space, as well asissues involving downstream chan-nel losses that resulted from storagebehind the new Pine Flat Dam.

Agreements with the Bureau ofReclamation on permanent contractswere not finalized until December23, 1963, when all twenty-eight KingsRiver Water Association memberunits individually signed separatecontracts for shares of project repay-ment and storage space. Usersaccepted responsibility for repaying$14.25 million, a third of Pine Flat'sconstruction cost, and $750,000 toacquire Kings River water rightsclaimed by the Bureau of Reclamation


12/4812

The application was consideredby the State Water Rights Board dur-ing 15 days of hearings betweenApril 4 and July 20, 1967. The result,on November 30, 1967, was DecisionNo. 1290. It issued six water rightspermits, which included storage inPine Flat Reservoir, Lake Wishon,Courtright Lake and Tulare Lakealong with virtually all Kings River

water. The Water Resources ControlBoard declared on November 16,1969, that the Kings River's waterswere fully appropriated.

On May 18, 1984, some 126 yearsafter Kings River diversions began,water rights licenses were issued.KRWA became the trustee in thespring of 1988.

Reclamation Law Dispute

For KRWA and its member units,

Pine Flat Dam's completion andeventual progress on storage agree-ments did not mean an end to diffi-culties with the U.S. Bureau ofReclamation.

The Kings River Water Associationcontended that Pine Flat Dam's pri-mary purpose had always been floodcontrol. From an irrigation stand-point, the dam did little to increase

the water supply in most years. Itsprincipal benefit, aside from floodcontrol, was in regulating well-estab-lished, privately held rights, makingpossible the use of water when it wasmost needed for spring and summerirrigation. No longer was it neces-sary for KRWA's units to rely on therun of the river to divert theirwater entitlements.

Issues arose over whether or notfederal Reclamation law shouldapply to the Pine Flat project and, ifso, if repayment of project costs allo-cated to irrigation benefits wouldterminate Reclamation law acreagelimitations.

A 1961 Interior Department legalopinion reversed the United States'long standing policy and administra-tive practice that had relieved KingsRiver landowners of Reclamationlaw acreage limitations after theirlocal agency's Pine Flat Project repay-ment obligations had been met.

Imposition of Reclamation lawangered Kings River units and users.Essentially all Kings River servicearea lands were developed and own-ership patterns were established longbefore Pine Flat Dam was developed.Except for the Tulare Lake bed,

where the constant threat of severeflooding makes small-scale agricul-ture economically infeasible, farmingin nearly all of the Kings River ser-vice area has typically been on smallparcels.

The Bureau of Reclamation reject-ed then-pending contracts with

KRWA members but agreed to a testcase of issues.

In 1972, a U.S. district court ruledthat Reclamation law did not applyto the Pine Flat Project. Even hadReclamation law applied, it wouldhave been terminated by repaymentof irrigation storage costs.

A federal appeals court reversedthe decision, however, and in 1977the Supreme Court declined to hearthe case.

The issue was finally resolved byCongress in the 1982 ReclamationReform Act. That measure specifi-cally exempted the Kings River andother San Joaquin Valley Corps ofEngineers flood control projects(such as Terminus and Success damson the Kaweah and Tule rivers, andIsabella Dam on the Kern River)from acreage limitation restrictionsand other provisions of Reclamationlaw.

Flood Protectionand Power Generation

Although the U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers constructed flood con-trol works along the Clarks Forknorth of Lemoore beginning in 1943most downstream channel and leveeimprovement projects were under-taken starting in 1959 by the KingsRiver Conservation District. Theseprojects were directed at protecting

flood-prone lands in Kings and west-ern Fresno counties as well asimproving the river's capability ofcarrying flood releases from PineFlat Dam or uncontrolled flood flowsfrom Mill and Hughes creeks (whichenter the Kings downstream fromthe dam).

Work continued for the next six-teen years. Improved channel capac-

Midway between Piedra and the river's emergence onto the

valley floor, Cobbles Weir is the Kings' first diversion structure.


13/4813

ity preserved the amount of conser-vation storage space available forirrigation use in Pine Flat Reservoir.

Additional storage and powergeneration facilities became KingsRiver goals at an early date.

When Kings Canyon NationalPark was created in 1940, its bound-

aries excluded two potential reser-voir sites, in Cedar Grove on theSouth Fork and remote TehipiteValley on the Middle Fork. Thosesites were annexed into the park in1965 and removed from develop-ment consideration.

A KRCD master plan, adopted inthe early 1970s, proposed develop-ment of a Pine Flat Dam power plant,a Piedra afterbay reservoir (to re-regulate flows), a Dinkey Creek res-

ervoir (with two power plants), rais-ing Pine Flat Dam, a dam and powerplant at Rodgers Crossing (on theKings River above Pine Flat), and adam on Mill Creek (upstream fromits confluence with the Kings River).

Only the Jeff L. Taylor-Pine FlatPower Plant, which went into com-mercial service in 1984, has beendeveloped. KRCD sells the electricitygenerated at Pine Flat to the CaliforniaDepartment of Water Resources forpowering State Water Project pump-ing facilities. The plant uses onlyirrigation and flood control waterreleases (on a stream-flow basis)from Pine Flat Dam to generate elec-tricity.

KRCD's Dinkey Creek projectmoved to within two months of thestart of construction in 1986 whenplans were halted for lack of a pur-chaser for energy the project would

generate. That failure in part resultedfrom delays caused by environmen-tal litigation challenging parts of theDinkey Creek plan as well as a dis-pute between Pacific Gas and ElectricCompany and the California PublicUtilities Commission over relatedissues.

A Rodgers Crossing Reservoirand power project on the river

upstream from Pine Flat Reservoirwas studied intensely by KRCD

between 1972-87. Creation byCongress (through passage of theForest System Act in 1987) of a spe-cial upper Kings River federal man-agement area between the elevationsof 995 and 1,590 feet put the RodgersCrossing project into dormancy. Anact of Congress would now berequired for the dam's development.

On the North Fork, the potentialfor hydroelectric power develop-ment had been recognized in the

20th century's earliest years. SanJoaquin Light and Power Corporation(SJL&P) in 1927 developed the BalchPowerhouse, a stream-flow generat-ing plant, along with diminutiveBlack Rock Reservoir as a forebay.

More than 25 years of disputebetween Pacific Gas and ElectricCompany (SJL&P's successor), theBureau of Reclamation and Kings Riverinterests (represented by the Fresno

Irrigation District) delayed further NorthFork power development.

Work finally began on PG&E'sKings River project in 1955. Builtwere Courtright Lake, Lake Wishon,Haas Powerhouse (first undergroundpower plant in the United States),the Kings River Powerhouse at theupper end of Pine Flat Reservoir andother facilities, including enlarge-

ment of Balch Powerhouse. In 1984,the PG&E Helms Pumped Storage

Project and its underground generat-ing-pumping facility between LakeWishon and Courtright Lake werecompleted.

Two small off-stream reservoirsnear the General Grant Grove sectionof Kings Canyon National Park areremnants from the Kings watershed'slogging history. Sequoia Lake on MillFlat Creek was developed in 1889 andHume Lake on Tenmile Creek wascreated in 1909 to supply water for a

spectacular flume largely along theKings River that transported rough-ly milled timber to a mill in Sanger.Hume Lake Dam, designed by pio-neer engineer John S. Eastwood (whoconceived of the Big Creek hydroelec-tric project on the San Joaquin River),was the world's first multiple-archdam. Although both are still usedheavily for recreation, neither reser-voir plays any role in modern KingsRiver operations.

Fish and Wildlife

Water resource development andmanagement has expanded over thedecades to focus on maintenanceand enhancement of a healthy KingsRiver fishery. Kings River fisheryissues began gaining attention in the1950s, following completion of PineFlat Dam. On September 11, 1964,

KRCDs Pine Flat Power Plant, completed in 1984 wasthe first Kings River master plan project to be completed.


14/4814

KRWA and the California Departmentof Fish and Game (CDFG) entered intoa comprehensive agreement aimed atpreserving, protecting, maintainingand enhancing fish and wildliferesources downstream from PineFlat. The agreements key elementwas establishment of the first mini-mum flows for fishery purposes

below Pine Flat Dam.A great deal of environmental

debate, including a 1991 public trustcomplaint filed by anglers and otherriver interests, led to new attentionbeing focused on the Kings Riversfishery. Much of this centered on U.S.Army Corps of Engineers fish andwildlife studies directed at mitigatingeffects created by development ofPine Flat Dam and Reservoir.

Ultimately, this prompted aCorps project sponsored locally byKRCD (with backing by the KRWA)that from 2000-2003 created a turbinebypass system at the base of PineFlat Dam. The turbine bypass per-mits water to be released through thepenstocks, for fishery temperaturecontrol purposes, at times whenKRCD's Jeff L. Taylor-Pine FlatPower Plant is not in operation.

Next, an entirely new and broad-

er cooperative partnership was con-ceived, agreed upon and implement-ed. This was the Kings River FisheriesManagement Program, in which the

KRWA, KRCD and CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game estab-lished what was quickly recognizedas a model for consensus-based

adaptive management among water,fish and wildlife, and environmentalinterests. The programs agreementswere signed May 28, 1999.

Looking down from the top of the dam at the Jeff L. Taylor-Pine Flat Power Plant. Thelarge pipes emerging from the dam are penstocks carrying water to the turbines. The

smaller pipe system at the dams base is part of the new turbine bypass.


15/48

Along The Kings River

The Kings River rises in the highest Sierra ranges of Fresno and Tulare coun-

ties. It flows through scenic canyons before being tamed by a great reservoir. Its

waters are put to work in the generation of hydroelectric power and in irrigating a

million of the Earth's most fertile acres. A rapidly growing population relies heavily

upon the Kings River's resources for groundwater that the entire service area uses

for domestic purposes. Its anglers delight in matching wits with fish that call the

Kings River home. Its neighbors respect the river's unpredictable nature and its

ability to be transformed from friend to foe with powerful floodwaters that are not

always easily tamed, or by dry conditions that reduce its natural flows to a trickle.

The Kings' passage from mountains to valley is surprisingly involved. Many impor-

tant locations, structures and facilities, in an environment of splendid and inspiring

beauty, are to be found along its course.

15


16/48


17/4817

issues. In April 1987, Congress (inthe Forest System Act) approved acompromise plan to create a specialfederal management area betweenthe elevations of 995 and 1,590 feet.The law permits studies to be con-ducted but an act of Congress wouldbe required before there could beany reservoir development within

the management area. No such proj-ect is contemplated.

Another KRCD upper-river proj-ect, including a reservoir and twopower plants on Dinkey Creek aboveBalch Camp, nearly became realityduring the same period. Plans werehalted within two months of thescheduled start of construction in1986. Attempts to negotiate a power-sale agreement were unsuccessfulbecause of a dispute between thepower purchaser, Pacific Gas andElectric Company and the CaliforniaPublic Utilities Commission.

Two potential low-elevation reser-voirs an off stream site on MillCreek in Wonder Valley (southwestof Pine Flat Dam) and a PiedraAfterbay have never been devel-oped.

Wild and Scenic River

The mainstem Kings River andSouth and Middle forks are federallydesignated as a wild and scenic riverabove the elevation of 1,590 feet.

Pine Flat Dam andReservoir

Project Origins

Need for a large dam and reser-

voir at Pine Flat, in the Sierra Nevadafoothills 23 miles east of Fresno, forflood control and beneficial waterconservation storage was recognizedin the early 1880s. Decades of pre-liminaries were required. Pine FlatDam was authorized as a part of the1944 Flood Control Act. Althoughground was broken in 1947, con-struction did not begin in earnest for

another two years. The dam, anArmy Corps of Engineers flood con-trol project with compatible waterstorage conservation benefits, wascompleted in 1954.

Pine Flat Dam

An impressive concrete struc-ture, it spans a narrow canyon a few

miles above the Fresno County foot-hill community of Piedra. (Please seemap, Page 47.) The dam stands 429feet in height and, at its crest, is 1,820feet in width. Its construction cost$42.3 million, of which Kings Riverusers were assessed $14.25 million(most of which has been repaid) forthe 37 percent of the project deter-mined to be Pine Flat's storage con-servation benefit. The dam is oper-ated by the Army Corps of

Engineers.Pine Flat Reservoir

The lake impounded by Pine FlatDam is the largest reservoir on anysouthern Sierra stream. The one mil-lion acre-foot reservoir, when full,covers 6,000 acres and stretches 20miles into the oak forested foothillswith 67 miles of shoreline. Its grosspool elevation is 951.5 feet above sealevel.

Temperature Control Pool

Since the Kings River FisheriesManagement Program was estab-lished in 1999, KRWA's memberunits have modified operations tomaintain Pine Flat Reservoir storageof not less than 100,000 acre-feet,subject to conditions beyond reason-able control of the KRWA and itsmembers. This helps maintain apool of cool water for use in reser-voir and downstream fisheries undermany, although possibly not all, crit-ically dry conditions. Pine FlatReservoir previously had no mini-mum storage requirement.

Outdoors Activities

The Pine Flat Project created sub-stantial outdoors activities and fish-ery benefits (but without cost alloca-

tions for those benefits). Pine FlatReservoir and the foothill region pro-vide extensive recreational opportu-nities, including fishing. The reser-voir fishery is particularly prized byanglers. The lake is also popularwith boaters and water skiers. Whitewater rafters enjoy the river abovePine Flat. Nature lovers value thefoothill flora and fauna which thrivearound Pine Flat. Six campgrounds

Pine Flat Dam takes shape in 1950. The concrete gravity damwas built in blocks 50 feet wide and five feet high.


18/4818

are available and picnic sites may befound above the reservoir and alongthe river below the dam.

KRCD's Power Plant

The Jeff L. Taylor-Pine Flat PowerPlant, completed in 1984, is locatedat the dam's base. It is owned andoperated by the Kings River

Conservation District and is namedfor the Districts late long-timeGeneral Manager. The plants threeunits each have an installed capacityof 55 megawatts but generate onlywhen water is released to meet irri-gation demands or flood releaserequirements. No generation is pos-sible when Pine Flat Reservoir stor-age reaches certain low levels. Theplant's average annual energy out-put is 406 million kilowatt-hours. All

Pine Flat energy is purchased fromKRCD by the California Departmentof Water Resources for use in power-ing the State Water Project's pumps.

Water Entitlements

The river and reservoir are wholesums but, by right, their water hasmany masters. The Kings River WaterAssociations (KRWA) 28 memberunits (agencies) hold all rights to ben-eficial use of Kings River water. Thiswater is apportioned, reservoir storageis administered and diversions areadministered by a Watermaster whomanages the KRWA under complexagreements and water schedules.

Kings River entitlements are, in avery real sense, determined by theriver itself. Under the Kings Riveragreement, there are 12 water entitle-ment schedules one for each month.The amount of water each KRWAmember unit is entitled to divert is

based upon the calculated mean dailyfull natural flow at Piedra, as it wouldhave occurred if there were no dams.All of these flow levels and entitle-ments are listed on the water sched-ules. There are substantial differencesamong the monthly schedules divi-sions.

In Pine Flat Reservoir, KRWAmembers have contracted for 1,006,500

acre-feet of storage space. KRWAsmember units decide independentlywhether to store or release their respec-tive entitlements. As a result, Pine FlatReservoir functions very much like abank with 28 separate accounts. TheWatermaster's staff accounts for eachunits share of reservoir storage, andmanages Pine Flat Dam water releasesand deliveries to KRWA units' respec-tive points of diversion upon the unitsorders, although flood releases aredirected and administered exclusively

by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Flood Flows

Before Pine Flat Dam was devel-oped, Kings River flooding wasalways a threat. The Kings is proneto two types of flooding, rainfloodsand snowmelt floods. Downpours ofrain over the foothills and moun-tains can create extremely high peakflows but generally of brief dura-tion.

The maximum natural flow evermeasured or calculated on the KingsRiver occurred January 3, 1997 andamounted to 112,000 cubic feet persecond. This flow was only exceededin recorded history by an 1867 floodwhich, based upon observations andrecollections of valley pioneers,apparently surpassed any eventwhich has occurred since in both

volume and peak flow. No stream

gaging facilities were then in exis-tence.

Snowmelt runoff flows in theApril-through-July period do notreach such extreme peaks but yield amuch greater total volume of waterover a longer period. Pine Flat Damhas largely controlled flood flowsoriginating above the reservoirHowever, extraordinary snowmeltyears (such as 1969 and 1983) requirea concentrated and coordinatedeffort to dispose of huge volumes ofwater while minimizing flood dam-age potential along lower river chan-nels and in the Tulare Lake bedarea.

The RiverPine Flat to State Route 99

Fishing and Recreation

The nearly 30 miles of the KingsRiver from Pine Flat Dam to justbelow State Route 99 near Kingsburgare favorites with many recreationand outdoors enthusiasts.

Along the river in the Piedra areaare Fresno County's Choinumini andWinton parks. Between KingsCanyon Road (State Route 180) andthe Olsen Avenue bridge in Reedley

This upstream picture of Pine Flat Dam during construction shows the penstock intakestructure on the right that were built for the future construction of a power plant.


19/48

A happy angler displays a trophy-sizedtrout planted occasionally in the riverbelow Pine Flat Dam by the California

Department of Fish and Game.

19

tubing and canoeing are popularsummer river pastimes. A number ofFresno County undeveloped parksline portions of the Kings River,maintaining open space. Fishingaccess has been developed to theKings left (southeastern) bank, witha small parking area located alongPiedra Road, for anglers interested

in walking to a remote reach of therivers catch-and-release zone nearFresno Weir and the Friant-KernCanal that is popular for fly fishing.

Reedley Beach and other beachesat privately operated resorts thatline the river provide opportunitiesfor swimming. In the eight milesbetween Reedley and Kingsburgwhen the river's flow is sufficientlyhigh, boating and water skiing areenjoyed, activities possible on noother southern San Joaquin Valleystream.

River Below Pine Flat Dam

Below Pine Flat Dam and down-stream from the confluences withMill and Hughes creeks, the KingsRiver carries the entire release fromthe dam as well as the creeks' uncon-trolled flows. The channel's capacitybetween the dam and Kings CanyonRoad (State Route 180) is listed by

the Corps of Engineers as 50,000cubic feet per second (c.f.s.). Fromthat point to Peoples Weir (south ofKingsburg), the channel's listedcapacity is 13,000 c.f.s.

Minimum Fishery Releases

Since the Kings River FisheriesManagement Program became effec-tive on May 22, 1999, minimumreleases from Pine Flat Dam havebeen nearly double the previously

typically required minimum flows.KRWA members now provide

enhanced minimum flows of at least100 c.f.s. at Piedra. These enhancedflows, usually in late summer, falland winter months, help maintainwater temperatures and habitat fromPine Flat Dam to Fresno Weir (aboutnine river miles downstream) thatare suitable for trout. Flows of

between 35-45 c.f.s. (dependingupon the time of year) over FresnoWeir and into the lower river arenow required. From 1964-98, mini-mum releases were governed by anagreement between the KRWA andCDFG that required minimumflows of 50 c.f.s. (at most times) atthe head of the CentervilleBottoms.

Mill and Hughes Creeks

These tributaries enter theKings between one and three milesbelow Pine Flat Dam. Their flows,normally insignificant or even non-existent, are uncontrolled. In theheaviest storms, these and otherlow foothill streams are capable ofgenerating substantial peak flowsof usually brief duration. In extremecases, flow volumes can total manythousands of cubic feet per second.

A gaging station is located onMill Creek just upstream from theKings River. Hughes Creek contrib-utes a calculated amount equal to12 percent of the flows generatedby Mill Creek. The Watermasterapportions the two creeks' flowsbased on the river's water schedule.Some Kings River units gladly

accept their shares of water fromMill and Hughes creeks to helprecharge the valley's groundwaterreservoir. Flow remaining in thelower river also percolates into thewater table. Other smaller down-stream tributaries, such as Fish andWahtoke creeks, do not figure intoKings River water entitlements.

Cobbles Weir

Midway between Piedra and theriver's emergence onto the valleyfloor, Cobbles Weir is the Kings' firstdiversion structure. Water can bedirected through Cobbles Gate intothe 76 Channel off the river's left(south) bank, which is operated bythe Alta Irrigation District. The chan-nel conveys water four miles to theAlta headgate at Frankwood Avenue

near Minkler, the Alta IrrigationDistrict's actual point of diversioninto the Alta Canal, a conveyanceconstructed in 1882-83. When theAlta system is not operating, flowsare usually not permitted in the '76Channel.

Dennis Cut and Byrd Slough

Water conveyed in Dennis Cut, asmall channel that leaves the mainriver near Avocado Lake, also reach-es the Alta headgate. Dennis Cutserves various points of diversionwithin the Kings River Water District,including water released on a year-round basis back toward the riverthrough the Alta Wasteway (justupstream from the Alta headgate)and the Kings Rivers pioneer irriga-tion canal, Byrd Slough, through theCenterville Bottoms.

Avocado Lake

Along the left bank, Avocado

Lake occupies a former gravel pitthat supplied material during PineFlat Dam's construction. During con-struction, the Corps of Engineerscontinuously ran trains filled withgravel over a now-abandoned SantaFe branch rail line that was extendedfrom its terminus in Piedra to thedam site. Avocado Lake is now aFresno County park.


20/4820

Gould Weir

First of two Fresno Irrigation

District diversion points, both on theright (north) bank, Gould Weir poolswater for diversion into the GouldCanal, which in turn supplies waterto FIDs Enterprise Canal and thenorthern and northwestern portionsof the district. The canals were com-pleted in 1874. Gould Weir is locatedtwo miles below Cobbles Weir and amile upstream from the Friant-KernCanal.

Fresno Weir

Three miles northeast ofCenterville, a low-profile structureconstructed in 1905 and known asFresno Weir spans the river. It poolswater for diversion off the river'sright (west) bank into the FresnoIrrigation District's Fresno Canaland through the ConsolidatedIrrigation District's headgate. Theweir replaced earlier barriers of rockand brush that had to be replaced

after each round of high water. TheFresno Canal, which in 1870 pio-neered major Kings River irrigationdevelopment, conveys water toFancher Creek and into the Fresnodistricts central and southern por-tions.

The Consolidated Canal, with acapacity of 2,000 c.f.s., is the KingsRiver's largest single point of diver-

sion. Less than two miles down-stream, the Consolidated Canal

divides into CIDs two primary dis-tribution channels, the Centervilleand Kingsburg (C&K) and FowlerSwitch canals. A small amount ofwater conveyed for the Kings RiverWater Districts China Slough alsopasses through the Consolidatedheadgate. The C&K was built in 1878and the Fowler Switch in 1882-83.

Immediately upstream, the fed-eral Central Valley Project's Friant-Kern Canal crosses under the Kings

River through a 3,200-foot siphon asit delivers San Joaquin River wateralong the valley's east side. A controlstructure and channel known as theKings River Wasteway permit Friantwater to be delivered at Fresno Weirto the CVP's only long-term KingsRiver service area contractors, theFresno Irrigation District and theCity of Fresno, or any temporaryKings River service area users ofFriant water.

Centerville Bottoms

Located east and northeast ofSanger, this rich and beautiful deltacontains many wooded areas andcomplex, secluded sloughs suppliedby the Kings that ultimately flowback into the main river. The area isserved by the Kings River WaterDistrict's many small channels thatutilize 17 diversion points. One of

these, beginning near Annadale andMacDonough avenues east of Sanger,is historic Byrd Ditch, built in 1858 asthe Kings Rivers first canal. At thelower end of the Centerville Bottoms,the river turns and flows east for afew miles before bending south intothe Reedley Narrows (near theAdams Avenue alignment), a reach

in which the river is constrained bybluffs. There are no KRWA points ofdiversion from above the ReedleyNarrows to State Route 99 nearKingsburg.

Pioneer Settlement Sites

Centerville (on State Route 180,15 miles east of Fresno) was foundedon high ground in 1868 after the pio-neer town of Scottsburg, establishedin 1853 a mile to the southeast, was

washed away by floods in 1861 and1867. Eight miles downstream andbelow the modern alignment ofAdams Avenue was Poole's FerryThe ferry, a Kings River crossing onthe old Stockton-Los Angeles stage-coach road, was operated from 1852-55. At the site of today's OlsenAvenue bridge in Reedley wasSmith's Ferry, which operated from1855-74 along with a hotel.

Reedley

The only city through which theKings River flows, Reedley is insoutheastern Fresno County. A num-ber of attractive residential, resort,park and recreation areas (includingSmith Ferry Park, Reedley Beach andCricket Hollow Park) adjoin theriver, as does the campus of ReedleyCollege. Two miles below Reedley(at the Nebraska Avenue-Avenue424 alignment), the river crosses fromFresno County into Tulare County.

Kingsburg

Next, the river flows southwester-ly into the Kingsburg area. It providesa pleasing nearby backdrop for theKings River Country Club on Avenue400 (State Route 201) and nearby resi-dential areas east of the city. Kingsburg,located along State Route 99, is about amile north of the river.

Kings River water completely blankets the structure as it flows overFresno Weir, the operational boundary between the upper and lower river.


21/4821

State Route 99 to Armyand Island Weirs

Lower River Channel Changes

As far downstream as just belowState Route 99, the Kings Riverscourse of today would be familiar toanyone who had known that reach in

the pre-settlement era of the early1850s. Below State Route 99, howev-er, Kings River channels are com-pletely different than they were his-torically.

Under natural conditions, nearlyall Kings River flows were dischargedinto old Tulare Lake. A series of deltasloughs, streams and at least onelarger channel diverged across whatis now northern Kings County, flow-ing southwesterly into the lake, the

Kings natural terminus. Those aremostly gone now as a result of agri-cultural development decades ago.Lower Kings River water manage-ment changes made in the early twen-tieth century now permit Kings Riverwater to reach the Tulare Lake bedonly for scheduled irrigation deliver-ies or during rare much-above-aver-age water years when high floodrelease flows are necessary.

Except in flood times, little or noKings River flow managed to find itsway through what was known as theFresno Swamp on the valleysWest Side to reach the San JoaquinRiver. Floods and channel develop-ment changed all of that. While mostof the rivers old side channels nolonger exist, the river channel itself isfar more unified, even though somecontemporary lower river reachesdid not even exist in the 1850s.Although nature never intended itthat way, flood management andfarmland reclamation decisionsmade long ago now send most KingsRiver floodwater north to the San Joaquin River instead of south intothe Tulare Lake bed.

Peoples Weir and Pool

The abrupt transition betweenformer and present conditions begins

an entirely new channel that mayhave originated as a canal and been

further carved during an 1861 flood.The river itself eventually caused

a natural plug to form across theoriginal channel, now known as theOld River. Except at times of excep-tionally high flows, it has sinceremained dry. Under a 1967California Water Rights Board deci-sion, an Old River headgate wasconstructed on the Peoples Canaltwo miles south of Peoples WeirThe old channel, now operated by

the Kings County Water District,receives water for groundwaterrecharge purposes in good watersupply years. The channel meandersaround Burris Park and throughnortheastern Kings County beforereaching its confluence with DutchJohn Cut below State Route 43, eastof Laton.

Kings County Water Bank

In 2002-03, the Kings County

Water District purchased severalhundred acres of Old River channeland adjoining land within the for-mer Apex Ranch, which it has devel-oped into a groundwater bankingand recharge facility.

Cole Slough

Apparently a rather small canalin its original form, it emerged fromthe 1861 and 1867 floods as the pri-

at Peoples Weir. Largest of all suchKings River structures, the weir

spans the main channel 1 milessouth of the Fresno County commu-nity of Kingsburg and one miledownstream from State Route 99,just inside the northeastern corner ofKings County.

Created is a large pool fromwhich water may be diverted intothe Lakelands Canal, which flowsfrom the left (south) bank 25 miles tothe Corcoran area, or into the PeoplesDitch, which began service into what

is now Kings County in 1873. Thoseprivately operated canals deliverwater to users in a substantial por-tion of eastern Kings County, all theway to the Tulare Lake bed. The weiris generally the river's lower limit(when flows are at safe levels) ofboating and water skiing. Its poolextends about three miles upstreamto just above the Avenue 400 bridge,east of Kingsburg. Along with creat-ing a popular water recreation area,

the pool aids KRWA in managinglower river deliveries.

Old River

The original Kings River channelmakes an abrupt turn toward thesouth a few hundred yards belowPeoples Weir. In 1867, what isbelieved to have been the greatestKings River flood since initial settle-ment of the region, began deepening

Peoples Weir is the largest diversion structure on the Kings River.


22/4822

Weir through a short channel,Reynolds Cut, on Laton's easternedge.

Recreation

Kings River swimming, tubingand canoeing are popular summer-time activities in northern KingsCounty, although the cold and often

swift water is deceptively danger-ous. Some boating and jet-skiingalso takes place when water levelsare high. Near Laton, the Laton-Kingston Regional Park offers beach-es, play areas and picnicking.

Kingston

Located on the left (south) bankone half mile below Laton, now-vanished Kingston was an importantearly-day river town.

Originally known as Whitmore'sFerry, Kingston took its name about1858 when the site became the firstpoint on the Kings River to bebridged. A few years later, Kingstonbecame a Butterfield Stage station.The town declined rapidly in the1870s and ultimately became a ghosttown. Kings County's portion of theLaton-Kingston Regional Park nowmarks the site, a registered state his-torical landmark.

The Laguna Grant

Stretching 26 miles along theoriginal Kings River channel's rightbank (below the modern site ofKingsburg) was Rancho Laguna deTache, a 48,800-acre Mexican landgrant. The grant was made in 1846 toManuel Castro by Don Pio Pico, lastMexican governor of California. TheLaguna Grant's ownership wasincredibly complicated.

However, the ranch played apivotal role in the eventual settle-ment of Kings River water rightsand entitlements through its 1892purchase by the Fresno Canal andIrrigation Company. By that acquisi-tion, the Fresno company securedand gained control of the Grant'sriparian claims to Kings River waterIn 1897, the manager of the Fresno

erly extension of Cole Slough towardthe Laton area.

Last Chance Weir

On the main Kings River next tothe Kings Country Club near Laton,Last Chance Weir pools water fordiversion into the Last Chance WaterDitch Company's canal that since1874 has served portions of KingsCounty. For several miles below LastChance Weir, the Kings River serves

as the boundary between Kings andFresno counties.

Reynolds Weir

Spanning the end of Cole Sloughon the eastern edge of Laton,Reynolds Weir controls diversionsinto the Laguna Irrigation District'sGrant Canal and A Canal, as well asMurphy Slough and Liberty Canalthat supply the Riverdale IrrigationDistrict, Reed Ditch Company andLiberty Mill Race Company (all ofwhich are members of the MurphySlough Association), the Burrel DitchCompany and Liberty CanalCompany. Lands watered by thesevarious canals stretch from Laton tosouth, west and northwest ofRiverdale in parts of Fresno andKings counties. Water may also flowfrom Reynolds Weir back into themain Kings River below Last Chance

mary riverbed. Today Cole Sloughremains the Kings main coursebelow Peoples Weir and throughnortheastern Kings County, southand southwest of Kingsburg. Thereare no KRWA points of diversionbetween Peoples Weir and justupstream from Laton. The combinedcapacity of Cole Slough, the OldRiver and main Kings River chan-nels between Peoples Weir and Latonis listed by the Corps of Engineers as

11,000 cubic feet per second.Dutch John Weir and Cut

The main (Cole Slough) channeldivides one mile above Tenth Avenue(State Route 43). Downstream waterdemands and operational factorsdetermine which way water will bedirected. Dutch John Weir controlsflows into Dutch John Cut, the south-erly and larger channel (carved outof a small ditch off Cole Slough dur-

ing the massive 1867 flood event).Dutch John Cut joins the Old Riverjust below State Route 43, three mileseast of Laton, to become the mainKings River.

Cole Slough Weir

Cole Slough Weir is located afew hundred feet from Dutch JohnWeir upstream from State Route 43.It controls river flows into the west-

A rare big-water-year flow dampens the Kings original channel,the Old River, near Kings Countys Burris Park.


23/4823

canal system and the Laguna ranch,L.A. Nares, negotiated the first par-tial Kings River water entitlementschedules. Although incomplete,those efforts set the stage for broadernegotiations that ultimately led toagreements resolving Kings Riverwater rights and entitlement issues.

Lemoore Weir

Three miles downstream fromLaton is Lemoore Weir. There, one ofthe regions oldest and largest canalsystems was constructed by the LowerKings River Water Ditch Company inthe early 1870s. That system has beenoperated since 1902 by the LemooreCanal and Irrigation Company andserves much of the Lemoore area inKings County. The Lemoore head-gate is also the primary point of

diversion for the John Heinlen MutualWater Company, which serves asmaller area north and northwest ofLemoore but is also among the KingsRivers earliest diverters.

River Below Lemoore Weir

Two miles below Lemoore Weir,the river changes direction, curvingfrom west to south. At the ExcelsiorAvenue bridge, the river flows fullyback into Kings County before itcurves toward the west to Army andIsland weirs. The Corps of Engineers

lists the channel's capacity between

Laton and Army Weir as 9,100 cubicfeet per second.

KRCD Channel Maintenance

Protecting what has historicallybeen flood country is the Kings RiverConservation District. Its Riverdale-based flood maintenance staff main-tains the primary channels and leveesto ensure that the river's flood-carry-ing capabilities are maximized.KRCDs flood management work isconducted under a 1959 agreement

with the Corps of Engineers. That

federal agency in 1936 was given

overall responsibility by Congressfor the nations flood control.

Although KRCD is occasionallyinvolved with channel work in otherareas, its primary zone of responsi-bility begins on Cole Slough nearEighth Avenue in northeastern KingsCounty (southwest of Kingsburg)and continues down the Kings Riverto Empire No. 2 Weir near Stratfordon the South Fork and to McMullenGrade (State Route 145) on the North

Fork-James Bypass. Other channelsmaintained for flood operations byKRCD include all or parts of Dutch John Cut, Clark's Fork, South Forkthe Crescent Bypass, North Forkand Fresno Slough. During periodsof high water, KRCD provides round-the-clock levee patrols as needed toguard against flooding.

Clark's Fork, South

Fork and Tulare LakeArmy Weir

The Kings River is unique that inits lower reaches it divides. Thisseparation occurs in Kings County1 miles upstream from State Route41. Controlling the southerly channeinto the Tulare Lake bed region known in different stretches as

Boating and a variety of other water recreation take place each year alongthe Kings River, particularly between Reedley and Kingsburg.

Rafting down the river below Pine Flat Dam is an educational,and fun, experience for these Sanger High School students.


24/4824

making deliveries to units that divertwater at the two Empire weirs.

River Below Empire Weir No. 1

For 4 miles below Empire No. 1Weir, the South Fork meanders in apredominantly southerly directionThere are no KRWA points of diver-sion in this reach. High groundwater

insures that the channel is generallypooled.

Empire Weir No. 2

A mile southwest of Stratford(immediately below State Route 41),Kings River water reaches the TulareLake bed. Empire No. 2 Weir poolswater for diversion into the TulareLake, Kings River-South Fork andBlakeley canals. One of two TulareLake Basin Water Storage District

laterals from the California Aqueductmakes State Water Project deliveriesimmediately below the weir. LateralA also makes State Water Projectdeliveries to the Empire West SideIrrigation District and Kings County.The Stratford Irrigation District'sCrabtree Ditch begins at EmpireWeir No. 2, which marks the SouthFork terminus of KRWA authorityand KRCD channel and levee main-tenance.

RecreationBecause pools formed by the two

Empire weirs hold some water atnearly all times, they support warmwater fisheries. Each is popular withanglers. Water skiers occasionallymake use of the large Empire No. 1pool.

Clark's Fork and the South Fork isArmy Weir. It was constructedbetween 1943-45 for flood controlpurposes by the Corps of Engineers.A distinctive structure, Army Weiralong with nearby Island Weir on thediverging North Fork team up to cre-ate a key Kings River water manage-ment location. Located betweenArmy and Island weirs is the head-

gate of Laguna Irrigation DistrictsIsland Canal.

Clark's Fork

Clarks Fork leads from ArmyWeir southwesterly toward theTulare Lake bed. A short portion ofits channel downstream from thedivide was developed at the timeArmy Weir was constructed to con-nect with an older, natural channel.It soon came to have a natural ripar-ian look and environment afterreplacing and consolidating flows ofother, smaller, unregulated streamsand sloughs. Clarks Fork extends toreaches further downstream knownas the South Fork. West of StateRoute 41 are twenty-three individualpumping facilities that serve users inClark's Fork Reclamation DistrictNo. 2069, a KRWA member unit.Other KRWA member units taking

delivery of Kings River water nearbyare the Upper San Jose WaterCompany and John Heinlen MutualWater Company.

South Fork

A small channel along the ClarksFork Reclamation District's easternand southern boundary is the uppersection of the river's South Forkwhere there are seven individualpumping installations. One-half milesouth of the Hanford-Armona Road,this upper South Fork section com-bines with Clark's Fork. From thatpoint on downstream, it is known asthe South Fork. The Corps ofEngineers lists the South Fork'scapacity as 3,100 cubic feet per sec-ond below the alignment of theHanford-Armona Road.

Empire Weir No. 1

Located west of Lemoore (andsouth of State Route 198), EmpireNo. 1 Weir forms a large pool fordiversions into the Stratford,Westlake and Empire Westsidecanals, all of which were developedbetween the late 1890s and 1915. TheNo. 1 Pool is sufficiently sizeable tobe useful to the KRWA Watermaster'sstaff in re-regulating flows before

The Kings River reaches its figurativeend (above) channeled as a canal in thedeepest point of the old Tulare Lake bed

as it reaches an intersection with the TuleRiver Canal from the east.

Empire No. 1 Weir serves the Empire West Side

and Stratford Irrigation districts.


25/4825

Tulare Lake Bed

The South Fork terminates in atruly unique area, the Tulare Lakebed. An alluvial fan formed overtime by sediment deposited by theKings River from the east and ArroyoPasajero from the west historicallyblocked the flows of several south-

ern Sierra streams (including mostKings River flows) from flowingnorthwesterly through the valleystrough to the San Joaquin River. Atnow-vanished Summit Lake south-west of Riverdale, this natural damsspillway into Fresno Slough standsat 207 feet above sea level. Formedby this barrier was Tulare Lake, atone time the West's largest expanseof fresh water, covering up to 1,000square miles. Tulare Lake coveredmuch of what is now southern KingsCounty. Following the floods of1861-62 and 1867-68, Tulare Lakesgreatest observed highwater mark 216 feet above sea level wasattained.

Receding Lake

Upstream irrigation diversionsfrom all streams tributary to TulareLake caused the lake to begin dimin-ishing in the 1870s, although it filledand spilled through Summit Lake

for what proved to be the final timein 1878. Accelerating settlement andirrigation demands along the val-leys East Side during the 1880s andearly 1890s led the natural lake tobecome totally dry for the first timein 1898. That soon prompted cultiva-tion of the lakebed's rich soils forfarming and organization of recla-mation districts to create channelsand flood control levees. The lakereappeared during wet years but

completely dried in many subse-quent years. Farming quicklyreturned each time the lake receded.

Lakebed's Closed Basin

Despite flood control projectsdeveloped on the Kings, Kaweah,Tule and Kern rivers between 1949-62, the Tulare Lake bed's lack ofnatural outfall dictates that all flood

water entering Tulare Lake fromthose rivers and smaller uncontrolled

streams must remain until consumedby evaporation or irrigation ofunflooded basin fields. Kings Riverwater rights permit some KRWAmember units to store water inTulare Lake. Exceptionally heavysoils known as Corcoran clay pre-clude any significant percolation.

Flood Vulnerability

The area, served by the TulareLake Basin Water Storage District

and other public districts and mutu-al water companies that are allKRWA member units, remains high-ly vulnerable to occasional floodingand drought-caused water supplyshortages.

The result, economically andphysically, is that the Tulare Lakebed at an early date came to befarmed in very large tracts upon

which annual field crops are pro-duced. Small farmers could not pos-

sibly endure the periodic floodingthreats and financial burdens ofTulare Lake bed agricultural opera-tions even though the remaining 80percent of the Kings River servicearea is dominated by small- to medi-um-sized units with a diversity ofpermanent and field crops.

Kings River-South Fork Canal

Below Empire No. 2 Weir, theKings River-South Fork Canal flows

another ten miles into the TulareLake beds bottom as a South Forkextension. After meandering for afew miles, the canal is channeleddirectly south to the lowest point inthe Tulare Lake bed. There, it inter-sects the Tule River Canal, flowingfrom the east, in the basins lowpoint at an elevation of 179 feetabove sea level, twelve miles west ofCorcoran.

Tulare Lake, as it reappeared during the flood of 1969.


26/48

Irrigation Company, was responsi-ble for most of this construction.

Island Weir

The North Forks flows are con-trolled by Island Weir, a few hun-dred feet from Army Weir, upstreamfrom State Route 41. Along withmaking irrigation deliveries, theNorth Fork for many decades hasserved as the Corps of Engineers

primary means of disposing of PineFlat Dam flood releases. Under typ-ical flood operations, the first 4,750cubic feet per second of flood releasewater is directed by the Corps ofEngineers through the North Fork- James Bypass channel to the San Joaquin River and, ultimately, SanFrancisco Bay.

North Fork Below Island Weir

The North Fork flows directlywest from Island Weir along theroute of the early-day Zalda Canal.The larger channel, opened by floodevents and levee construction, sooncame to have natural riparian char-acteristics and gradually absorbedthe rivers lower and mid-level flowsDespite having had various namesin the past, the channel is now knownexclusively as the Kings RiversNorth Fork as far downstream as

North Fork andJames Bypass

Altered Channels

Although many of the lowerKings Rivers flow patterns havechanged significantly from naturalconditions found by the regionsearliest settlers in the 1860s, no reach

of the river has been so thoroughlytransformed as the North Fork- James Bypass channel that todayconveys Kings River flood releaseflows to the San Joaquin River.These complex transitions beganwith the original North Fork, a farshorter and much smaller channelthan the present North Fork. Theearlier North Fork diverged fromthe river immediately downstreamfrom modern Excelsior Avenue on

the right (west) bank. It flowed westand northwest for only a few milesand apparently was used for dis-tributing irrigation or stock grazingwater before being closed in 1865.

Evolution of North Fork

Under natural conditions thatexisted prior to the areas originalirrigated agricultural development,only very limited amounts of Kings

26

River water typically reached acrossthe rivers extensive delta to thetrough of the valley and FresnoSlough and generally only duringtimes of high water.

That was destined to change. In1872, a new ditch was opened thatbecame known as the Zalda Canal.Floods in 1879 and 1884 substan-tially enlarged the canal for about

four miles, enabling connections tobe made with other channels.Starting in 1909, other changesoccurred. The Zalda ReclamationDistrict dredged a two-mile-longchannel and constructed levees,from upstream of todays 22ndAvenue to the Laguna de TacheGrants western boundary, whereCrescent Weir is located today, southof Riverdale. The head of anothernearby stream, Beall Slough, wasclosed in 1910.

In 1914-15 Zalda ReclamationDistrict No 801, StinsonBurrelReclamation District 1605 andCrescent Reclamation District con-structed levees on both sides of whatis now known as the North Fork. L.A. Nares, who then managed theLaguna de Tache Grant, LagunaLands Ltd. and Fresno Canal and

Island Weir, upstream from State Route 41 (north of Lemoore), marks the North Forks beginning.


27/4827

Summit Lake Country

South of Lanare in western FresnoCounty, the North Fork reaches thetrough of the San Joaquin Valley andarcs northwesterly, crossing intoFresno County at Excelsior Avenue.This was originally a portion of theSummit Lake country. A region of

tules and channels, this area connect-ed Tulare Lake and the South Forkover the Kings River's alluvial fanthrough San Jose Slough, SummitLake and other channels with FresnoSlough. That stream wound throughwhat was known as the "FresnoSwamp" to the San Joaquin River. Thearea began to dry after Tulare Lakedropped below the "summit's" 207-foot elevation following the 1878 floodseason. Agricultural development andreclamation followed and was com-plete by 1920. A few trees remain tomark the historic site of SummitLake.

Stinson Weir

Three and a half miles northwestof Lanare on Fresno Slough is StinsonWeir, point of diversion for theStinson Canal and IrrigationCompany's canal. Under normaloperating conditions, the StinsonCanal is KRWA's last North Fork

system point of diversion (althoughother historic points of diversionstill exist downstream).

James Bypass

East of Helm, the primary NorthFork channel retains its flow-carry-ing characteristics but again changesnames at State Route 145 (McMullenGrade), where the Kings RiverConservation District's levee andchannel maintenance ends. From

there to Mendota Pool, the 12-mile-long James Bypass is channeledthrough a man-made course, part ofa flood control project developedbetween 1913-15. Downstream fromStinson Weir, the main channel car-ries water only during flood releaseoperations or exceptionally highunregulated natural discharges fromMill and Hughes creeks.

McMullen Grade, State Route 145.For the five miles below Island Weir,there are no KRWA points of diver-sion. The Corps of Engineers liststhe channel capacity through thisreach at 6,300 cubic feet per second.

Crescent Weir and Flood Flows

A few miles southwest of

Riverdale and four miles below StateRoute 41 is Crescent Weir whereNorth Fork flood release flows aretypically measured and confirmed.Beginning at Crescent Weir are theCrescent Canal Company's ditchand Laguna Irrigation District'sSummit Lake Ditch. In all reachesbelow Crescent Weir, the main chan-nel's capacity is listed by the Corpsof Engineers as 4,750 cubic feet persceond. The first 4,750 cubic feet per

second of Pine Flat Dam's floodrelease (or whatever flow is deemedproper by the Corps) is conveyed tothe San Joaquin River. When theCorps of Engineers determines thatflood releases cannot be fully accom-modated beyond Crescent Weir, theCorps of Engineers may order thebalance of the flood release divertedinto the Clark's Fork-South Fork sys-tem for disposal in the Tulare Lakebed.

Crescent Bypass

The Crescent Bypass also beginsat Crescent Weir. This five-mile-long channel can be utilized underextreme flood conditions to movemore water into the Tulare Lake bedby bypassing the smaller ClarksFork. The Crescent Bypass has onlyrarely been used since its construc-tion in the 1920s, even though itschannel was improved by KingsRiver Conservation District as partof the Corps of Engineers plan forlower river flood control. In 1969and 1997, the bypass transportedflood water into the Tulare Lakebed. In 1983, it was briefly utilizedby Tulare Lake interests as a keylink in a unique pump-back opera-tion devised to evacuate flood waterfrom Tulare Lake into the SanJoaquin River.

Old Fresno Slough

The small original (and natural)Fresno Slough channel meanders forseveral miles, from southeast of San Joaquin to north of Tranquillity, afew miles west of James Bypass.Historically, there was no definedchannel through the first reaches of

the "Fresno Swamp" country down-stream from Summit Lake. Thatchanged wh

Documents

The Kings River Handbook - Kings River Conservation District