1
10
49
-
https://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/files/original/f4abaf59964c0b255800ac8f59bf2268.jpg
4018992d4cb0828518d8682d35c86efb
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Photograph Collection
Description
An account of the resource
Photographs from the 1860's to the 2000's, documenting the history of Santa Cruz County.
See the <a href="https://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/restrictions-on-use">About</a><a> sectionfor the library's reproduction policy and restrictions on use.</a>
Various sources were used to identify persons, events, and places. Citations to print sources were abbreviated. See the <a href="https://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/sources-used-to-identify-photographs">About</a><a> section for a list of sources used.</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Still Image
A static visual representation. Examples of still images are: paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type "text" to images of textual materials.
Original Format
If the image is of an object, state the type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Photo
Physical Dimensions
The actual physical size of the original image.
5" x 7"
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
LH-bap-003
Title
A name given to the resource
PG&E Crew at Brookdale
Subject
The topic of the resource
Storms
Description
An account of the resource
Storm pictures of 1974
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Anderson, Bruce
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Bruce Anderson Photography
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1974-01
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1970s
Brookdale
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Image
Language
A language of the resource
En
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
PHOTO
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
This photograph is the property of the Santa Cruz Public Libraries, California.
<a href="http://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/restrictions-on-use/">Restrictions on Use</a>
Disasters and Accidents
Public Works
-
https://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/files/original/4857ef8f3bb6876d344e3d6d721d5ef8.jpg
352704df93e988a4740a10f760b7cd17
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Photograph Collection
Description
An account of the resource
Photographs from the 1860's to the 2000's, documenting the history of Santa Cruz County.
See the <a href="https://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/restrictions-on-use">About</a><a> sectionfor the library's reproduction policy and restrictions on use.</a>
Various sources were used to identify persons, events, and places. Citations to print sources were abbreviated. See the <a href="https://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/sources-used-to-identify-photographs">About</a><a> section for a list of sources used.</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Still Image
A static visual representation. Examples of still images are: paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type "text" to images of textual materials.
Original Format
If the image is of an object, state the type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Color
Physical Dimensions
The actual physical size of the original image.
7" x 5"
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
LH-WD-004
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1983-01-03
Title
A name given to the resource
City workers using a crane on the Riverside Avenue bridge
Description
An account of the resource
City workers using a crane on the Riverside Avenue bridge to try to loosen a log jam. The photo is taken during one of the storms of 1983 that caused the San Lorenzo River to flood.
<a href="http://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/sources-used-to-identify-photographs/">Source of information:</a> Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant
The original photograph is no longer available, according to the Santa Cruz Water Department, 9/2016.
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
Santa Cruz (City)
1980s
Relation
A related resource
<a href="/omeka/items/show/134506">History of Floods on the San Lorenzo River in the City of Santa Cruz</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
This photograph is courtesy of the City of Santa Cruz Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant.
<a href="http://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/restrictions-on-use/">Restrictions on Use</a>
Subject
The topic of the resource
Floods
San Lorenzo River
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Image
Language
A language of the resource
En
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
PHOTO
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bullock, Randy
Bridges
Disasters and Accidents
Public Works
-
https://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/files/original/489838c6ed1d3ed68c7beeaec3643e5a.pdf
de6aa3b5d3ca95f815f4cdb6cbd52338
PDF Text
Text
History of the Central Water District
In 1949, local residents began meeting at Pleasant Valley School to discuss the dire shortage of potable water in the
area. They organized a committee, headed by Lester Morrison, to sponsor the formation of a county water district to be
called Central Santa Cruz County Water District.
In November of 1950, voters adopted a proposition to organize the District and the Santa Cruz County Board of
Supervisors adopted a resolution declaring the District duly formed. Boundaries of the new District were contiguous
with the Oakdale and Pleasant Valley School Districts.
The five members of the first Board of Directors were Roy R. Day, Harry M. Gregg, John Karchesz, Lester Morrison and Ed
Wennerholm. Board meetings were originally held at Pleasant Valley School, then at a cabin on the premises of Harry
Gregg. Finally, the regular meeting place was changed to the pumphouse on Cox Road, the present site of the District
office.
In August of 1951, voters authorized the sale of general obligation bonds for construction of a well, storage and
distribution facilities. Bonds in the amount of $140,000 were issued July 1, 1953, to be paid off through 1990.
Meanwhile, in April of 1953, Central Santa Cruz County Water District entered into an agreement to lease, for $25 per
month, the Valencia Water Works from Jesse and Fern Nicholson, with an option to purchase the facilities and assets. In
September of 1953, after the availability of an adequate water supply had been determined, the Valencia Water Works
was purchased by the District for $1,500.
In its annual report of 1952, Valencia Waters Works numbered its customers at 24. By December, 1953, Central Santa
Cruz County Water District was serving 80 customers.
In early 1978 the District entered into an agreement with Soquel Creek County Water District providing for an intertie
connection on Huntington Drive for use of either district in an emergency.
In July of 1978, the District applied for a loan and grant under the California Safe Drinking Water Bond Law of 1976, for
facility improvements. The application contained a project cost of $1,385,520, which was reduced, in March of 1979, to
$1,123,520; of this amount, $156,000 was the District's share. Completed improvements included the construction of
Well #10, the Valencia Booster Pump Station, a telemetering system, and approximately 24,560 feet of mainline piping.
Construction commenced in 1978, and in November of 1982 the remaining portion of the loan and the uncompleted
portion of the original project were canceled. In all, the District borrowed $653,806.03 in State funds, including
$19,042.89 in administrative fees.
On December 10, 1980, the name of the District was shortened to the Central Water District.
1
�Sources
Excerpted from: Annual Report, Central Water District, 1988-89, unpaged.
The content of this article is the responsibility of the individual author. It is the Library's intent to provide accurate local history
information. However, it is not possible for the Library to completely verify the accuracy of individual articles obtained from a
variety of sources. If you believe that factual statements in a local history article are incorrect and can provide documentation,
please contact the Webmaster.
2
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Santa Cruz History Articles
Description
An account of the resource
Original articles by library staff and by local authors and material from historical books.
Articles on Santa Cruz County history, many with illustrations, are available here.
The Santa Cruz Public Libraries is grateful to our local historians and their publishers for giving permission to include their articles. The content of the articles is the responsibility of the individual authors.
It is the library's intent to provide accurate information. However, it is not possible to completely verify the accuracy of individual articles obtained from a variety of sources. If you believe that factual statements in an article are incorrect and can provide documentation, please contact the library.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Original Format
If the image is of an object, state the type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
AR-078
Title
A name given to the resource
History of the Central Water District
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Central Water District
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Excerpted from: <i>Annual Report, Central Water District, 1988-89</i>, unpaged.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
En
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
ARTICLE
Subject
The topic of the resource
Water Supply
Water Companies
Central Water District
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
Santa Cruz (County)
Aptos
Public Works
-
https://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/files/original/6f7b967bd8b983a8ff3f56d279eb3979.pdf
5a65e94fdcb9c8372f86429268f5a2c3
PDF Text
Text
History of the Sewerage System of the City of Santa Cruz
History
Santa Cruz was originally incorporated as a city in 1866 under a special act of the State Legislature. With the
construction of transportation facilities, Santa Cruz became an attraction to tourists because of its fine beaches and
beautiful scenery. The San Jose–Capitola Turnpike, constructed about 1870, permitted easier access to the city and
encouraged growth. Between 1860 and 1870, population of Santa Cruz increased from 950 to 2,561. By 1880 the
population had increased to 3,898.
First Sewerage System
First sewers were laid in Santa Cruz in the 1880s in the Mission Hill area. Sewage flowed from the collection sewers
through a ditch into Neary's Lagoon. As other sections of the town developed, additional sewers were laid.
By 1917 the sewerage system had been extended to serve about 75 per cent of the city. The remaining 25 per cent was
served by vault privies. The portion of town west of the San Lorenzo River, except for the beach area, was sewered to an
outfall discharging to the Pacific Ocean at Woodrow Avenue and West Cliff Drive. Flow to the outfall was by gravity
except for that from the business district. Sewage from the business district was pumped to the outfall from a collecting
sump located near the site of the present sewage treatment plant. The rest of the town was sewered to several septic
tanks which discharged to the San Lorenzo River, to Branciforte Creek, or to Monterey Bay.[1]
Wastes from these systems were carried by river flow and tidal action onto the popular bathing beaches at the mouth of
the river.[2]
Quarantine of Mouth of San Lorenzo River
On July 18, 1917 a special report to the California State Board of Health was prepared by the Bureau of Sanitary
Engineering. A portion of this report concerning the mouth of the San Lorenzo River is quoted below:
The most serious condition arises from the practice of bathing in the San Lorenzo River from the mouth on upstream a
distance of about 1,000 feet. A large sand bar has formed there and the water, being warmer than that of the bay, is
preferred by many. A bath house where suits may be rented is operated for the benefit of persons bathing in the river.
The natural flow of this stream in the summer is very small and it is the tidewater sweeping back and forth that makes
this use of the stream possible. It is this tidewater also that is depended upon to remove the sewage entering the river
from nine septic tanks immediately above. Moreover, on the incoming tide the discharge of the East Side sewer at the
mouth of the river is naturally swept back over this bathing beach.
This must be recognized as being a serious menace to the public health and the use of the river in Santa Cruz for bathing
should be forbidden. It is recommended that the State Board of Health issue an order quarantining the river for bathing
purposes at any point within the effect of tidewater and that the local authorities be instructed to enforce the order. Such
1
�a quarantine should continue in effect until improvements are made in the method of sewering the City that will
eliminate the menace.
As a result of this recommendation, the California State Board of Health on August 15, 1917, advised the Santa Cruz City
Health Officer to quarantine the San Lorenzo River against bathing for a distance of 1,000 feet above the point where
the waters of the San Lorenzo River entered into Monterey Bay....
The mouth of the river remained quarantined until 1928 when the screening plant, interceptor sewers, and outfalls were
constructed.
A portion of Monterey Bay beach in Santa Cruz was also quarantined for a short period in 1925 by the State Board of
Health because of contamination resulting from discharge of raw sewage in the vicinity.[3]
The city in 1925 retained consulting engineers Charles Gilman Hyde and Walter C. Howe to make a comprehensive study
of sewage collection, treatment and disposal. Their study was followed by completion in 1928 of the network of
intercepting and trunk sewers which serve most of the city today [1963], some 35 years later. The consultant's work
showed that treated sewage could be discharged to Santa Cruz harbor through a submarine outfall without endangering
public health or creating a nuisance and that this would be the most economical of the feasible alternatives. The citizens
of Santa Cruz, opposed to any discharge which might threaten the beaches bordering the harbor, protested with such
vigor that the council selected a more expensive alternative for treatment and disposal. The major structure, housing
sewage screens and pumps, still serves as the pumping station for the present plant at Neary's Lagoon. The land section
of the outfall line, laid in tunnel beneath the bluff between the lagoon and the ocean, is still in service.[4]
The City decided to construct the screening plant because it was thought by the officials that such a plant would be
more economical to operate and present less of an odor problem than the other types proposed. The screening plant
was constructed in 1928 at the site of the present sewage treatment plant.
At the same time the screening plant was constructed, interceptor sewers were laid to collect the sewage from the
various collection systems within Santa Cruz and convey it to the plant. The consulting engineers recognized the
problem of storm water entering the sewers. In their report to the City appear the following statements:
It is an established fact that some of the older sewers, especially those in low ground, and many of the house
connections, have been very poorly laid and permit unduly large amounts of ground water to enter. Certain sewers are at
times surcharged on that account.... A careful investigation should be made at times of high ground water to determine
where the worst leaks occur. Such places or sections of sewers should be repaired as opportunity and money therefor
becomes available.
In the future, all house connections and all public sewers must be more carefully laid and every precaution taken to
produce tight joints.
The interceptors were designed to handle flows larger than those normally expected for the design period. Disposal for
the entire sewer system was through the outfalls which are still in use today [1954].
Bypassing Facilities
From the time the interceptor sewers were constructed in 1928 until 1950, a number of bypasses were installed in the
sewer system to allow escape of excess flows.
About 1928 bypasses were installed near (1) Neary Lagoon, (2) the intersection of Center and Laurel Streets, and (3) the
intersection of Forest and Soquel Streets. The Neary Lagoon bypass was so constructed that it never functioned
properly. Eventually the City plugged it with concrete. The Center Street installation allowed overflow from the sewer
system to enter a storm sewer. Because City officials feared flow in the opposite direction from the storm drain to the
sanitary sewers, thus increasing the hydraulic load on the sewer system, the bypass was removed in 1948. The Forest
2
�Street bypass was also connected to a storm drain. During certain occasions, the sanitary sewer became clogged and
raw sewage flowed to a ravine where odor problems resulted. To prevent recurrence of such a condition, the bypass
structure was removed in 1950.
In 1938 an overflow manhole was constructed on East Cliff Drive between Pearle and Jessie Streets to prevent overflows
to streets in the vicinity of Holland's Auto Court. Being at a low point in the collection system and of an overflow type, it
occasionally permitted discharge of raw sewage to San Lorenzo River during summer months as well as during the rainy
season. For this reason, it was replaced in 1948 by a valve-operated bypass under the Ocean Villa Bridge on East Cliff
Drive.
Two other bypasses were constructed, one under the Soquel Street Bridge discharging to Branciforte Creek, the other at
the intersection of Laurel and California Streets discharging to Neary's Lagoon. The former was plugged with concrete in
1946. The latter was eliminated in 1952 when the Laurel Street relief sewer was laid.
Three bypasses which permitted discharge of raw sewage from the West Cliff Area and a portion of the Mission Hill Area
directly to the outfall line in the tunnel have been eliminated: one on Beach Curve (Bethany Curve) in 1946; the second,
near the intersection of Columbia and Santa Cruz Streets, in 1947; the third, near the intersection of Bay and Centennial
Streets, in 1948.
In 1950 the valve-operated bypass behind the Garibaldi Hotel was constructed to discharge to the San Lorenzo River. Its
elevation, however, is such that flow from the sewer to the river by gravity is impossible when the river level is high.
At the present time [1954] only the bypasses under the Ocean Villa Bridge and behind the Garibaldi Hotel are still in
existence. From Twin Lakes pumping station, raw sewage is bypassed at times of large flows to Woods Lagoon.[5]
Since 1946, construction of relief sewers in the most critical areas has made it possible to reduce the number of bypass
locations but not to eliminate bypassing.[6]
Difficulties with Outfall Sewers
Almost since the time the outfalls were originally constructed, the City of Santa Cruz has experienced difficulties with
them. One of the outfalls was broken by 1931. In 1933 it was repaired but a few months later was leaking again. By 1940
both outfalls were broken about 500 feet from shore. Since that time one of the outfalls has been displaced to such an
extent that it discharges at a point only about 300 feet from the beach.
Diarrhea Outbreak
In August, 1946 a sewer near the intersection of Mountain View Avenue and Logan Street became blocked, and sanitary
sewage was diverted temporarily into a storm drain. The sanitary sewer was then flushed, the flushings being allowed to
enter a tidal pond about 100 feet long, 25 feet wide, and 2 feet deep. After children were observed wading in the
contaminated water, the basin was filled with sand and disinfected with chlorine solution. Of the children who played in
the water, 75 were stricken with diarrhea.
Proposal of the City to Reconstruct Its Sewage Treatment Plant
Prior to 1941 both submarine outfalls had broken, the outfall sewer between the screening plant and the ocean had
ruptured causing sewage to flow onto the beach, a number of bypasses were being used, and hydrogen sulfide was
attacking the screening plant and causing odor complaints. To find the best solution to these problems, the City hired
Harry N. Jenks, consulting sanitary engineer, to investigate, prepare a report, and make recommendations concerning
needed improvements to the sewerage system. In January, 1944, having received the report and recommendations of
the consulting engineer, the City of Santa Cruz submitted an application to the State Board of Public Health for a permit
to construct enlargements and improvements to the system. Specifically the application requested permission to
3
�substitute treatment involving vacuator flotation, separate sludge digestion, sludge lagooning, and chlorination of the
effluent for screening. Final disposal was to be accomplished by pumping through outfall lines to the Pacific Ocean.
In the engineering data accompanying the application, the consulting sanitary engineer submitted the following
comments:
In the operation and maintenance of the Santa Cruz sewer lines and the screening and pumping plant, as well as the
ocean outfall including the tunnel line, it is evident that the system has reached a critical point in respect to dependability
of service and capacity. The entrance of water into the sewers, either in the form of ground water or surface drainage
from roofs and streets, so overtaxes the sewer lines during the rainy seasons that widespread overflowing of manholes
occurs during each storm, with consequent nuisance and danger to health. This condition prevails despite the bypassing
of substantial amounts of sewage from the system into San Lorenzo River, and into the ocean, without screening or other
treatment....
During the course of the investigations it became apparent that it is impracticable to remedy the leaky condition of the
sewer system as a whole. Mitigated solely by the construction of a selected number of new sewer lines to replace or
relieve certain existing sewers, the problem of excessive wet weather flows will have to be met by handling these flows as
they come.
Also, so far as disposal is concerned, it appears that experience at Santa Cruz teaches the inadvisability of attempting to
maintain indefinitely an ocean outfall beyond a point offshore sufficient to ensure reasonably adequate dispersion of a
well-clarified and disinfected sewage treatment plant effluent. In other words, by suitably increasing the degree of
sewage treatment it should be possible to offset any progressively increasing operating deficiencies of the outfall tunnel
and line into the Pacific Ocean.
Taking into account the general financial situation and the relative urgency of the needed rehabilitation of various
portions of the sewerage and sewage disposal system, it is quite certain that the city cannot undertake the required
improvements except on a unit basis, beginning with the outfall system and continuing through the treatment works to
and including the main sewer lines themselves.
State Board of Public Health First Permit
MUpon receiving the application, the State Bureau of Sanitary Engineering investigated the proposal of the City of Santa
Cruz. In its statement to the State Board of Public Health, the Bureau emphasized the unsatisfactory conditions existing
at that time in Santa Cruz insofar as sewage treatment and disposal were concerned. In his report to the State Board, C.
G. Gillespie, then Chief of the Bureau, made the following comments about the outfalls:
Due to the heavy seas, these outfalls have been disrupted and not only broken at a distance of about 600 feet offshore,
but they have moved laterally so that the main outfall in use now discharges almost 600 feet easterly from its original
alignment and the west pipe appears to have moved about 100 feet westerly. There the depth of water is about 15 feet.
Furthermore, sewage of a considerable section of the town between the screening plant and the ocean cliffs has been
diverted directly into the outfall sewer. Raw sewage from this area amounting to something like 500,000 g.p.d. [gallons
per day] is disposed of to the ocean without screening treatment. Furthermore, the outfall sewer at the ocean cliffs has
broken and at high tides or unusual sewage flow a considerable portion of the sewage, both screened and raw, spills
overboard directly at shore. These conditions should be remedied at once and in event of a choice of projects, in our
opinion these improvements should precede those applied for.
He recommended that permit be granted as applied for with the usual provision that there be no nuisance or menace to
health in the sewage treatment or in the disposal of sludge or effluent. He further recommended that the City be urged
to consider carefully a relocation of the proposed improvements and that sludge drying be considered in place of sludge
lagooning.
4
�On May 9, 1944 the State Board of Public Health granted a permit to the City Council of Santa Cruz as applied for. A
portion of the permit letter is quoted below:
No protests having been made and in view of the desire of the city to make this change, permit has been granted as
applied for on the provision that no nuisance or menace to health shall be caused by the operation of this treatment
plant or disposal of effluent, and on the special provisions that in the event the disposal of sludge by lagooning methods
causes a nuisance, drained sludge beds or some better method shall be at once substituted. It is also required that
present defects in the outfall system and consequent pollution of the shore line be remedied prior to the above
improvement.
In view of the critical location of this sewage treatment plant, it is recommended that the city give special consideration
to a location for these improvements on the north side of the existing swamp so that better isolation from neighbors may
be obtained.
Bond Issue
In 1946 a bond issue was presented to the people of Santa Cruz, as follows:
Shall the City of Santa Cruz incur a bonded indebtedness in the aggregate principal amount of $400,000 for the object
and purpose of acquiring, construction and completing the following municipal improvement, to-wit:
A sanitary sewage disposal system, including primary treatment plant by vacuum flotation and with outfall tunnel bypass
sewer line, lift stations and siphons, reconstruction of existing sewers, new lateral and intercepting sewers, pipes,
machinery, pumping equipment, and other works, property or structures necessary or convenient for sanitary sewage
disposal system?
…The bond issue was passed.
State Board of Health Second Permit
Final plans and specifications for the construction of the project were submitted to the Bureau of Sanitary Engineering
on June 20, 1947. Because certain modifications had been made in the proposed treatment, the permit was reissued by
the State Board of Public Health. The permit granted on October 30, 1947, was subject to the following conditions:
1. No sewage or sewage effluent, sewage sludge or scum or supernatant sludge liquor, or any matter or substance
offensive, injurious or dangerous to health shall be discharged from the plant or disposed of into waters of
Monterey Bay or onto adjacent shores in such manner, quality or quantity as to be a public health nuisance,
offensive, injurious or dangerous to the public health;
2. Fecal matter, sewage, grease, garbage, solid matter, sludge or oily sleek recognizable as of sewage origin from
the sewerage system of Santa Cruz shall not be permitted along the shores of the Monterey Bay, or in its waters,
except that unavoidable discoloration or oily sleek from said sewer system may be permitted around the outlet
of the outfall;
3. There shall be no noxious or offensive odor, gases or fumes, of sewage origin in the water or along the shores of
the Monterey Bay, or in the air outside the tract of land upon which said sewage treatment plant is located, such
that they may constitute a public nuisance;
4. No condition or conditions due to this sewage treatment and disposal shall exist or be permitted to exist which
may constitute a hazard to the health of human beings or animals, or which may constitute a public nuisance
under the laws of the State of California;
5. The sewage plant effluent shall be disinfected by chlorination equipment such that the quality of water along
the shores of Monterey Bay will be safe and suitable for recreation during the bathing season and will conform
5
�to the bacterial standards as established by the State Board of Public Health as modified from time to time for
safe recreation;
6. Additional treatment works, changes in outfall or improvement of operation shall be provided when required by
the State Department of Public Health.
Construction Since 1946
Construction of the sewage treatment plant was completed in 1949.
The Mission Street relief line has been laid. This line extends along Mission Street from Western Drive to Fair Avenue,
along Fair from Mission to Oxford Way, along Oxford to Beach Curve and hence to the sewage treatment plant. On
Mission the relief sewer is 10 and 12 inches in diameter; on Fair and Oxford, 21 inches; the remainder, 16 inches.
The 10 and 15 inch diameter Laurel Street relief sewer laid in 1952 extends along Laurel Street from California to Myrtle
Streets, along Myrtle to Jennie Street, then east to a point where it discharges into the 30 inch sewer at Neary
Lagoon.[7]
Although leaks in the onshore portion of the outfall were repaired, it was not possible to restore the original submarine
outfall lines. Numerous bacteriological analyses of water samples from beaches onshore from the outfalls revealed
contamination in excess of limiting values established by the State Health Department for bathing waters. Replacement
of the outfalls with a new line extending 2,000 ft offshore was completed in 1958. No physical difficulties have been
experienced with the new outfall.
In 1956, a bond issue in the amount of $450,000 was passed principally to finance construction of relief sewers in
several parts of town and to complete replacement of the submarine outfall. As of July 1, 1963 the outstanding principal
amount was $210,000.
Remedial work accomplished in past years has served to eliminate overflowing at many upstream locations in the
system. Principal trunks leading to the plant, however, do not have sufficient capacity to handle peak wet weather flows.
Overflows and bypassing during storm periods are still normal occurrences. Pumping capacity at the plant cannot be
expanded without concurrent reconstruction both of plant units and the land section of the outfall. The present
treatment unit cannot accommodate flows over 10 mgd, while rates over about 16 mgd cannot be pumped through the
land portion of the outfall without the danger of rupturing the pipeline.
On May 25, 1963, while the present survey was in progress, the Regional Water Pollution Control Board, recognizing that
the treatment plant was not meeting existing requirements and had not met them for some time, instructed its staff to
prepare a cease and desist order. The Board advised the city that its requirements were not being met and that a cease
and desist order would be considered at a subsequent meeting. The following items are taken from the conclusions of
the May 1963 staff report to the Regional Board:
1. The Board's requirements for the City of Santa Cruz's waste discharge specify limitations of: (1) 150 ppm of
suspended solids; and (2) 2.5 ml/l of settleable solids.
2. The data clearly indicate that the City's waste discharge has exceeded these requirements in more than 20% of
the samples analyzed since 1960.
3. Requirements specify a bacterial limitation for the shore waters in the vicinity of the outfall of less than 10
coliform organisms per milliliter in at least 80% of the samples analyzed.
4. The City's own test results indicate that the bacterial limitation was exceeded in more than 20% of the samples
analyzed since 1962.
5. The requirements were exceeded in from 25 to 58% of the samples analyzed during the middle of the 1962
recreational season when maximum public use of the beach and shore waters could be anticipated.
6
�6. The City's present waste treatment facilities are incapable of providing the degree of treatment necessary to
meet the Board's requirement.
Authorization of Survey and Report
Recognizing the need for long-range sewerage planning as well as the need for correction of existing deficiencies, the
City Council, on March 27, 1962, authorized the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the consulting
engineering firm of Brown and Caldwell. Executed on April 10, 1962, the agreement provided for an engineering study
and the preparation of a report covering all phases of the work thus undertaken.[8]
Footnotes
1. A Report on Public Health Aspects of the Sewerage System and Waste Discharges of the City of Santa Cruz;
Prepared for Raymond C. Leer, M.D., Health Officer, Santa Cruz County; By State Department of Public Health,
Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, March, 1954; p. 5.
2. A Study of Sewage Collection Treatment & Disposal for Santa Cruz and Vicinity; A Report Prepared for City of
Santa Cruz, California; Brown and Caldwell; Consulting Engineers; San Francisco, California, 1963; p. 2.
3. A Report on Public Health Aspects of the Sewerage System and Waste Discharges of the City of Santa Cruz, pp.
6–7.
4. A Study of Sewage Collection Treatment & Disposal for Santa Cruz and Vicinity, pp. 2–3.
5. A Report on Public Health Aspects of the Sewerage System and Waste Discharges of the City of Santa Cruz, pp.
7–10.
6. A Study of Sewage Collection Treatment & Disposal for Santa Cruz and Vicinity, p. 3.
7. A Report on Public Health Aspects of the Sewerage System and Waste Discharges of the City of Santa Cruz, pp.
10–14, 16.
8. A Study of Sewage Collection Treatment & Disposal for Santa Cruz and Vicinity, p. 4.
Sources
This article is excerpted and compiled from: A Report on Public Health Aspects of the Sewerage System and
Waste Discharges of the City of Santa Cruz, 1954 and A Study of Sewage Collection Treatment & Disposal for
Santa Cruz and Vicinity, 1963.
The content of this article is the responsibility of the individual author. It is the Library's intent to provide accurate local history
information. However, it is not possible for the Library to completely verify the accuracy of individual articles obtained from a
variety of sources. If you believe that factual statements in a local history article are incorrect and can provide documentation,
please contact the Webmaster.
7
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Santa Cruz History Articles
Description
An account of the resource
Original articles by library staff and by local authors and material from historical books.
Articles on Santa Cruz County history, many with illustrations, are available here.
The Santa Cruz Public Libraries is grateful to our local historians and their publishers for giving permission to include their articles. The content of the articles is the responsibility of the individual authors.
It is the library's intent to provide accurate information. However, it is not possible to completely verify the accuracy of individual articles obtained from a variety of sources. If you believe that factual statements in an article are incorrect and can provide documentation, please contact the library.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Original Format
If the image is of an object, state the type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
AR-170
Title
A name given to the resource
History of the Sewerage System of the City of Santa Cruz
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
City of Santa Cruz
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Excerpted and compiled from: "A Report on Public Health Aspects of the Sewerage System and Waste Discharges of the City of Santa Cruz", 1954 and "A Study of Sewage Collection Treatment & Disposal for Santa Cruz and Vicinity", 1963.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1954, 1963
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
En
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
ARTICLE
Subject
The topic of the resource
Sewers and Sewage Disposal
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
Santa Cruz (City)
Public Works
-
https://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/files/original/e3183218a34d2664b32673fd33f76224.pdf
7d30e0edfed02f1f0d7e2b6785988d70
PDF Text
Text
History of the Santa Cruz City Water Department
By Santa Cruz City Water Department
Historical Background
For Santa Cruz, the beginning of water supply development took place in 1792 when the Padres of the Mission Santa
Cruz directed the Mission's Indian residents to dig a ditch from the natural springs near the present University of Santa
Cruz entrance to the Mission site. That ditch and the adjacent path became High Street. Especially useful during the
summer months, this small aqueduct enabled the Padres to occupy a location of superiority above the village and yet
not be burdened with the labor of gathering water from the river a hundred feet below.
For the next half century, this water supply system is known to have supplied the Mission's building and household
needs but reached its limit in 1844 when the Mexican-appointed mayor [alcalde], Don Manuel Rodriguez, apportioned
the aqueduct water to eight landholders and the Mission by decree.
During this time, community growth in the "Flats" (Pacific Avenue area) sustained by water from freshets, shallow wells,
and the river, advanced to proportions which made it profitable for Mr. E. M. Morgan to take up rights to water from
the San Lorenzo River and install some pipework in exercise of his franchise to serve the City of Santa Cruz subsequent
to its incorporation in 1866.
Mr. Morgan's franchise and water works were purchased in 1876 by Mr. H. K. Lowe, a San Francisco financier. Mr. Lowe
then organized the Santa Cruz Water Company with a capital stock of $100,000, and Mr. Morgan, with 50 shares and his
knowledge of the system, was hired as Superintendent at a salary of $80 per month. Before the year was out, a lower
reservoir holding 350,000 gallons had been built at the foot of School Street and another on High Street holding 200,000
gallons. The town had a distribution system installed by a crew of 100 men, and had installed steam pumping equipment
on the river to fill both reservoirs. By November 1876, 200 customers were being served and 100 more were being
connected. A $50,000 bond issue was authorized in July 1878, and a second of the same amount was sold in May of the
following year.
The company developed other water sources as the town grew. By late 1876, it had installed a diversion on Branciforte
Creek that could deliver water to the School Street reservoir by gravity. In September 1881, it applied for and received
an appropriation of 500 miner's inches from Majors Creek and Coho Creek. This accomplished, the company sold the
"pump works" (house, lot, and boiler) on the San Lorenzo River for $800, "there being no further use of the San Lorenzo
River."
In August 1886, the company and its entire holdings were sold to the City of Santa Cruz for $85,000, financed through
the City's sale of Bonds to the Bank of Santa Cruz, the Anglo-Californian Bank, and to Mr. Lowe. However, as the result of
a suit by a Mr. Steen, the Superior Court ruled that the "Mayor and the Common Council" did not have the authority to
issue bonds. The whole transaction was voided and the bond issue was retracted.
1
�The company was now deeply in debt and so sold its holdings to Mr. F. A. Hihn who, between 1890 and 1916, operated
and expanded the system to the Seabright area.[1]
Santa Cruz is situated at the mouth of the San Lorenzo River, but this stream does not furnish an adequate source of
supply of domestic water in exceptionally dry years. In 1890, after unsuccessful attempts to purchase an existing private
water company, the City bought the water rights on Laguna Creek and undertook the construction of a dam, reservoir,
and pipeline extending about twelve miles to Santa Cruz. In 1916, the purchase of the water company was finally
effected, and the two systems were consolidated under municipal ownership. One of the sources of supply thus
acquired is still in use, though the others have been abandoned. In 1923, funds were provided by general obligation
bonds for a 39 million gallon reservoir and improvements to the distribution system and, in 1928, a pumping plant on
the San Lorenzo River was constructed. In 1950, Santa Cruz authorized another general obligation bond issue in the
amount of $600,000 for improvements to the transmission and feeder mains of the water system.[2]
In 1958, revenue bonds in the amount of $5,500,000 were authorized to provide additional storage facilities, to
construct a modern water treatment plant, and to augment existing pipelines, pumping facilities and related system
works. These bonds, the 1959 Water Revenue Bonds, were sold in two series: $3,000,000 Bonds of Series A in 1959, and
$2,500,000 Bonds of Series B in 1960. Proceeds from these sales were used to construct major facilities, principally the
Newell Creek Dam, Loch Lomond Reservoir, and the Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant. In 1963, additional revenue
bonds in the amount of $1,300,000 were authorized by the voters and were sold later that year for more improvements
to the system, including acquisition of land for Zayante Reservoir, development of new facilities to serve the University
and adjacent area, and modifications to the existing system.[3]
At the time the $1,300,000 revenue bonds were sold, $5,335,000 subordinated Refunding Water Revenue Bonds also
were offered. These bonds were issued to take advantage of a lower borrowing rate than the average of the revenue
bonds sold in 1959 and 1960. Since the earlier issues were not callable until June 1. 1970, proceeds from the refunding
bonds were used to purchase sufficient U.S. Treasury 4% bonds which, together with reserves and revenues, were used
to retire the outstanding bonds issued in 1959 and 1960 on January 1, 1971.[4]
The City Water Commission had given considerable study to the long-range financing and development plans of the
water system. As a result of the Commission's deliberations, a recommendation was made to the City Council that a
comprehensive 12-year program be presented to the voters in the form of a water revenue bond issue. The City Council
accepted the Water Commission's recommendation and placed on the April 1967 municipal election ballot a proposal
authorizing the issuance of $9,600,000 in water revenue bonds. The voters approved this measure by a 3 to 1 vote, and
the City is now in a position to sell revenue bonds for improvements as they are required. Of this authorization,
$2,100,000 was earmarked for the purchase of Zayante watershed land and $3,400,000 was earmarked for the
construction of Zayante Dam.
Proceeds from the sale of the First Series 1967 bonds were used for various system improvements, including expansion
of the Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant, acquisition of Zayante watershed land, purchase of the Beltz Water
Company, and transmission main improvements. Proceeds from the Second Series were used in the construction of the
Beltz Iron Removal Plant and additional watershed land acquisitions for the Zayante Project. Third Series Bond proceeds
were used for the construction of the Felton Diversion Station and Bay Street Reservoir Roof projects. There remains a
balance of $4,400,000 in authorized but unsold bonds.[5]
On July 1, 1967, following a year of negotiations, the City took ownership of the Beltz Water Company, a private water
utility. The main extension agreements entered into by Beltz Water Company with developers were assumed by the
City. This purchase added approximately one square mile to the service area and the 1,500 customers represented
about $100,000 in annual revenue in 1967 dollars to the City water system. The acquisition also provided the City with
an additional ground water supply source.[6]
2
�Two additional water systems were purchased during calendar year 1969: Rolling Woods Utilities, Inc., for $33,250 and
the Pestana Water System for $36,615. These systems were serving subdivision developments on the fringe area of the
City of Santa Cruz Water System and provided 360 additional customers and $40,000 in revenue to the City's operation.
The systems were integrated into the existing water system without additional personnel.
In 1984, $11,700,000 were obtained through Certificates of Participation, a private source of funding. These funds were
to be used for:
Refurbishing the Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant, bringing it up to modern standards.
Constructing needed additional treated water storage tank serving the Pasatiempo/Carbonera and Rolling
Woods areas.
Replacing deteriorated water transmission and distribution mains, primarily a one and three quarter mile
section of the Coast Main from Bay Street Reservoir west.
Doubling the capacity of the Beltz Water Treatment Plant from one to two million gallons per day.
Constructing a new water quality laboratory.
Providing for additional groundwater exploration.
Installation of a permanent aeration system in Loch Lomond.
Several other maintenance and construction projects.
Water Supply
The City has available both surface and underground sources of water, with the former by far the most important. Three
main production systems are now in use, each arising from the source of water available at the time facilities were
acquired or constructed. The systems included those designated Coastal Streams, San Lorenzo River, and Loch Lomond,
which together accounted for nearly 90% of production in 1985-86. The Beltz Wells, reclaimed filter wash water, and the
Tait Street Wells accounted for the balance.
The Coastal Streams comprise water diverted from Laguna Creek, Reggiardo Creek, Liddell Spring and Majors Creek,
located approximately six miles northwest of the westerly city limits. Laguna Creek was acquired as a source in 1890,
Liddell Spring in 1913, and Majors Creek in 1916. Water from this system flows by a combination of gravity and low lift
pumping to the Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant. The production from this source has varied from 593 to 1,240 MG
(million gallons) (1,819 to 2,807 acre-feet) in recent years and has supplied almost 28% of City needs. Without storage
reservoirs, the safe yield is limited to the flow during a dry year, or to an estimated 443 MG (1,360 acre-feet) in 1931,
the driest year on record.
The San Lorenzo River flows through the City and the water intake from this source is located on the west bank of the
river near the northern City limits. The intake was redesigned and relocated from the east bank of the river to the west
bank in 1984. At the same time all electrical controls and switch gear were converted to modern equipment and raised
above historical flood levels. Surface diversion rights date back to 1924. Three wells are also situated here, at depths
between 85 and 104 feet, and produce water at the rate of 2 MGD (million gallons per day). Water from the San Lorenzo
system is pumped to the Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant, a distance of nine-tenths of a mile, where it is processed.
The safe yield of the San Lorenzo system, using the 1931 year, is 2,017 MG (6,190 acre-feet) from this surface flow and
147 MG (450 acre-feet) from wells.
The Loch Lomond system was financed by the 1959 bonds. Newell Creek, a tributary of the San Lorenzo River, was
dammed about ten miles north of the city limits to create the Loch Lomond Reservoir. Drawing from a watershed of over
eight square miles, and with storage capacity of 2,812 MG (8,600 acre-feet), run-off that was previously lost to the
ocean is now usable. The Newell Creek Dam is an earthfill barricade, 190 feet high and 750 feet in length. Completed in
the Fall of 1960, impounded water first ran over the spillway in March 1963. The California Division of Safety of Dams of
the Department of Water Resources has investigated the seismic safety of Newell Creek Dam. They concluded that the
3
�structure is safe against the maximum probable earthquake of 8.4 on the San Andreas Fault but that the capacity of the
spillway needed to be increased. Model studies of the spillway, completed in 1984, determined that the required
additional capacity could be obtained by raising the height of the westerly wall of the spillway. This work was completed
in 1985. The City is entitled to storage of 8,300 acre-feet of water here. The San Lorenzo Valley County Water District
has a right to receive up to 12-1/2% of the safe annual yield of the reservoir, and fish releases require 244 MG (750 acrefeet) per year, much of which can be recovered at the San Lorenzo intake downstream. Using the driest year, the safe
yield to the City from the reservoir, and thus the Newell Creek system, is estimated at 749 MG (2,300 acre-feet) per
year.
With the acquisition of the Beltz Water System in 1967, the City obtained a further source of groundwater. With
proceeds from the sale of the 1967 bonds, First Series, the City completed construction of a 1 MGD iron and manganese
removal treatment plant in the Beltz area which receives water from #1, #2, #4, #5, #6, and #7 Wells. These wells have a
combined capacity of 2 MGD per day. Well #4, out of production for several years, was reconstructed in 1985. With the
acquisition of the Pestana Water System serving the Santa Cruz Gardens subdivision, three minor wells were obtained
which are being kept on a standby basis for use if required.
At the end of fiscal year 1984–1985, the consulting firm of Kennedy-Jenks had completed design of necessary
improvements to the Beltz Treatment Plant to double its capacity to match the combined output of the Beltz area wells.
Construction of the new facilities was nearly complete by the end of fiscal year 1985-86. These improvements will bring
its capacity to 2 MG, providing an additional 1 MGD capacity to meet peak demands in the Beltz service area and match
existing well capacity. This system can contribute 245 MG of water to the system.
It became evident in 1983 that groundwater was to play an increasing role in City water supplies. At that time, an
accelerated search was begun to find and develop more groundwater supplies. Test drilling began in the summer of
1985. Four locations within the service area are being investigated: along the North Coast, north of town in the industrial
area, the general area around Harvey West Park, and in the Live Oak area.[7]
During the year [1984–1985], the City retained the services of Luhdorff and Scalmanini of Davis, California, to perform
an in-depth evaluation of existing hydrogeologic data to determine feasibility of development of additional groundwater
from the North Coastal and Live Oak areas. After considerable study, the consultant recommended an extensive
program of field exploration, including test drilling of two sites on the North Coast and two sites in the Live Oak area.
The City Council authorized the consultant to perform this work, with the exception of one test well site in the Live Oak
area, which [was to] be explored at a later date.
In addition, Luhdorff and Scalmanini was retained to evaluate existing Beltz Well #4, which [was] inoperable, to
determine the cause of failure and to recommend and implement measures to rehabilitate the well and place it back in
service. This project was successfully completed by abandoning the existing well and installing a completely redesigned
replacement well of larger capacity and yield on the same site.[8]
Under an agreement with Soquel Creek County Water District and the City, the USGS performed a safe yield study of the
Soquel-Aptos aquifer system. The study was completed in the spring of 1979, and concluded that the yield of the basin
for domestic use was far less than had been earlier supposed. Earlier USGS estimates had placed the yield at 7,500-acrefeet for the entire basin, which is shared with Soquel Creek County Water District, private irrigators, and others. The
recent USGS estimate of safe yield indicated that only approximately 4,400 acre-feet is available for domestic use from
the basin. Total withdrawals were estimated to be approximately 6,000 acre-feet which indicated that groundwater was
being mined at the rate of approximately 1,600 acre-feet per year.
Meanwhile, the Soquel Creek County Water District was proceeding with its own analysis of the USGS Report, utilizing
the services of Luhdorff and Scalmanini, consulting engineers from Sacramento, California. This firm scrutinized all of the
published material pertaining to groundwater conditions, including Muir's USGS Report, Hickey's earlier USGS Report,
and Thorup's review. The conclusions reached in this effort were that no evidence of seawater intrusion could be found,
4
�existing data was insufficient to determine basin yield accurately, and that extensive groundwater monitoring should be
initiated to keep track of groundwater conditions to spot and head off possible problems.
This still leaves open the question of groundwater basin yield for the purpose of determining supply system capacity.
According to Luhdorff and Scalmanini, this question cannot be resolved until additional monitoring data has been
collected and analyzed. Safe yield estimates previously determined are conservative and will be used until more data is
available.[9]
The City's water rights to the Coastal Streams were obtained by purchase of riparian water rights of downstream
landowners at the time Laguna Creek and Liddell Spring were developed and by use prior to 1914, the date of the State
Water Commission Act. Rights on Majors Creek, acquired through purchase of a private water company, were
established in 1881, when a predecessor company purchased downstream rights.
Since water from the Coastal Streams has been continuously used by the City, these rights are established as
appropriative rights. Appropriative rights to the San Lorenzo River consist of License No. 1553 dated June 9, 1924, to
divert 4.0 MGD, License No. 7200, dated July 10, 1963, to divert 3.9 MGD, and Permit No. 16601, dated July 23, 1973, to
divert an additional 977 MG to offstream storage. Newell Creek water is covered by License No. 9847, dated September
17, 1971, which provides for 1,825 MG of storage per annum in Loch Lomond. The San Lorenzo appropriation covers the
calendar years while the Newell Creek License is for the water year from September 1 to July 1.
The Felton Diversion Station on the San Lorenzo River diverts water from the river during high flow periods for offstream storage in Loch Lomond Reservoir. This facility has added 977 MG of water production annually.
The sum of safe yields from existing supply sources in the driest year on record now totals 4,578 MG, summarized
below:
Water Supply Safe Yield Summary
Source
Yield (in millions of gallons)
Coastal Streams and Springs
San Lorenzo River, Santa Cruz
Tait Wells
Loch Lomond
Beltz Wells
San Lorenzo River, Felton
443
2,017
147
749
245
977
4,578
The Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant, constructed with 1959 Bond proceeds and expanded with 1967 First Series
Bond proceeds, when completed had a rated capacity of 24 MGD and could be operated at 36 MGD for short periods.
Since it has been completed, water quality requirements have stiffened and the plant's present capacity is 16 MGD, with
temporary peaking capability just under 20 MGD. Construction began in the summer of 1986 to modernize the plant and
restore its capacity to the original values. The principal plant facilities are an operations building, six flocculation tanks,
three sedimentation basins, six rapid sand filters, and storage tanks for filtered water, used wash water, and sludge.
Telemetering equipment remotely controls and monitors principal supply and distribution facilities, including operation
of pumps to bring raw water from Loch Lomond and visual indications of distribution reservoir storage levels. The
operations building and all channels and pipelines are designed for future expansion to a rated capacity of 36 MGD. Land
adjacent to the plant has been acquired to permit expansion as needed.
5
�The treatment plant can receive water produced from all sources except the Beltz Wells. Six pumps located at the Felton
Booster Pumping Station can bring 11 MGD from Loch Lomond, and capacity in the pipeline will allow for an increase to
17 MGD with the installation of additional booster pumps when new water sources are developed.
Treatment at the plant consists of pre-chlorination, post-chlorination, chemical coagulation, filtration, pH control, and
taste and odor control. A coagulant aid is used to permit high-rate filtration with dual media filters. The Water Quality
Laboratory, which is licensed by the State Department of Health as a non-commercial laboratory, has expanded its
capability for testing the chemical and physical properties of water. Routine tests are now made for all of the
constituents listed in Title 22, California Administrative Code, including calcium, magnesium, fluoride, nitrate, silica, total
hardness, sulfide, total alkalinity, dissolved solids, carbon dioxide, dissolved oxygen, taste and odor, pH, temperature,
color, and turbidity.
Treated water from the Graham Hill plant flows into a filtered water storage tank with a capacity of 1 MG. Other
covered storage facilities in the distribution system include the 39 MG Bay Street Reservoir, which is also concrete-lined,
and several storage tanks holding a total of 8.5 MG. Total distribution storage capacity equals 43 MG.
The City's distribution system serves an area of approximately 30 square miles and contains some 300 miles of pipeline.
Elevations within the area range from sea level to about 1,000 feet, with most of the services below the 180-foot level.
These are served by gravity from the Bay Street Reservoir, Delaveaga tanks or other smaller storage facilities. Water for
service above this level is provided by booster pumping stations and reservoirs located at eight sites, the highest at base
elevation 982 feet above sea level.[10]
Mean annual runoff at the San Lorenzo River was 104,700 acre-feet between the years 1894 and 1947, the period
covered by the State Water Resources Bulletin No. 1, Water Resources of California. In a dry year, in which total runoff is
approximately 15,000 acre-feet, river flow during the months of August and September average only 6 cubic feet per
second. This meager flow, contrasted with the maximum flood flow recorded of 30,400 cubic feet per second in
December 1955, shows the importance of adequate water storage capacity to the City.[11]
During the 1970s a number of events transpired that affected regional water planning and spurred interest in an
updated comprehensive water planning and land use document. The 1976–1977 drought strained local water supplies
to their limit and raised people's level of awareness of the need for water conservation. Some local water districts
stopped allowing new water connections to their systems due to perceived or actual shortages of supply. At the same
time, a few water districts found themselves in the position of competing for use of the same water resources. A County
water crisis seemed possible, and the need for cooperative management of a limited critical resource was becoming
imperative.
In 1978, the people of Santa Cruz County adopted a growth management policy ordinance which, among other things,
required that the Board of Supervisors each year set an overall growth rate for the year to come. The ordinance also
required that future growth be directed into well-defined urban areas. In 1979, the people of the City of Santa Cruz also
adopted a growth management ordinance. In 1980 and 1982, the County adopted an updated General Plan and Local
Coastal Plan, respectively. These land use policies, adopted by the two major land use agencies in North Santa Cruz
County, had the potential of affecting population trends in ways unforeseen by previous land use and water planning
documents.
By late 1979, there was a clear need for an updated County Water Master Plan in order to consider more recent
information and trends in population growth, water demand, and water supply availability, and in order to relate water
supply planning to the growth management system then in place in the County of Santa Cruz. A Water Summit Group
was formed as a multi-agency committee consisting of representatives of local water purveyors and planning agencies.
An initial study of existing water supplies and demand projections indicated that potential water shortages could occur
by 1990, and that sufficient data was not available to provide an adequate basis for future planning.
6
�In December 1981, the Water Summit Group recommended that the County's water purveyors and land use agencies
should jointly oversee the preparation of an updated Water Master Plan. Their mission should be to develop, as a
cooperative project, an effective water management program within Santa Cruz County that treats water as a
countywide resource and that contemplates the management of future demand for water, by actions of the land use
agencies, as a part of the overall Water Management Program.
In December 1982, the member agencies of the Water Summit Group contracted to fund the Water Master Plan Study,
and appointed representatives from each agency to the Water Policy and Planning Task Force. The Task Force was
authorized to oversee and manage the preparation and completion of the North County Water Master Study. The Task
Force selected the consulting team of EIP/HEA—a joint venture of EIP Associates and HEA, a division of J. H. Kleinfelder
& Associates—to conduct the required technical studies.
The work was completed and a final report filed in June 1985. In the course of the work 23 background reports were
prepared covering the areas of Groundwater Assessment, Surface Water Assessment, Resource Problems Analysis,
Water Supply Alternatives Analysis, and Water Demand Analysis.
Its final conclusions were that water demands will continue to increase in the future and additional sources of supply
will be needed by Santa Cruz and Scotts Valley. These additional needs would be modest and could be satisfied by
conservation, full development of existing supplies, cooperative projects between agencies, and groundwater.[12]
Footnotes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Santa Cruz City Water Department Annual Report: 1985-86, pp. 2–4.
Santa Cruz City Water Department Annual Report: 1978-79, p. 4.
Santa Cruz City Water Department Annual Report: 1985-86, pp. 4–5.
Santa Cruz City Water Department Annual Report: 1978-79, p. 4.
Santa Cruz City Water Department Annual Report: 1985-86, p. 5.
Santa Cruz City Water Department Annual Report: 1978-79, p. 6.
Santa Cruz City Water Department Annual Report: 1985-86, pp. 5–8.
Santa Cruz City Water Department Annual Report: 1984-85, p. 9.
Santa Cruz City Water Department Annual Report: 1983-84, p. 9.
Santa Cruz City Water Department Annual Report: 1985-86, pp. 8–9.
Santa Cruz City Water Department Annual Report: 1978-79, p. 11.
Santa Cruz City Water Department Annual Report: 1985-86, pp. 10–11.
The content of this article is the responsibility of the individual author. It is the Library's intent to provide accurate local history
information. However, it is not possible for the Library to completely verify the accuracy of individual articles obtained from a
variety of sources. If you believe that factual statements in a local history article are incorrect and can provide documentation,
please contact the Webmaster.
7
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Santa Cruz History Articles
Description
An account of the resource
Original articles by library staff and by local authors and material from historical books.
Articles on Santa Cruz County history, many with illustrations, are available here.
The Santa Cruz Public Libraries is grateful to our local historians and their publishers for giving permission to include their articles. The content of the articles is the responsibility of the individual authors.
It is the library's intent to provide accurate information. However, it is not possible to completely verify the accuracy of individual articles obtained from a variety of sources. If you believe that factual statements in an article are incorrect and can provide documentation, please contact the library.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Original Format
If the image is of an object, state the type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
AR-172
Title
A name given to the resource
History of the Santa Cruz City Water Department
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
City of Santa Cruz Water Department
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Excerpted and compiled from: "Santa Cruz City Water Department Annual Reports".
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1986
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
En
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
ARTICLE
Subject
The topic of the resource
Water Supply
Santa Cruz City Water Department
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
Santa Cruz (City)
Public Works
-
https://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/files/original/4c3f1d1dca7d2e57ae6fce073872e503.pdf
be6adb27b1f2c53688120bd1c4304323
PDF Text
Text
The Co-Operative Electric Company
Santa Cruz, California
1904-1908
By Mike Dalbey
The content of this article is the responsibility of the individual author.
It is the library’s intent to provide accurate information, however, it is
not possible for the library to completely verify the accuracy of all
information. If you believe that factual statements in a local history
article are incorrect and can provide documentation, please contact the
library.
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
The C o- Operative Electric C ompany
Santa C ruz, C alifornia 1904- 08
Mike Dalbey
mdalbey@cruzio.com
I.
Introduction
p.2
II.
Company Name
p. 5
III.
Corporate Structure and Financing
p. 7
IV.
Power Plant Infrastructure
p. 11
V.
Business History Chronology
p. 25
VI.
Appendix
p. 33
Page 1 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
I. Introduction
This paper describes key aspects of the brief history of the Co-operative Electric Company1.
The COEC illustrates several trends in electric power development that were occurring nationally at the
beginning of the 20th Century. Foremost among these was the progressive absorption of small local
utility companies by, and consolidation with, ever-larger regional utilities; a trend that culminated in the
integrated electrical power “grid” we have today.
The most unique feature of the COEC, which might be particularly interesting to Santa Cruz historians,
was its close association with the Santa Cruz Beach, Cottage, and Tent City Company2. This was
sufficiently intimate to blur the distinction between what was referred to as an “isolated plant”, and an
electric utility company “central station”. (See below for further discussion of this distinction.)
COEC Power Plant
Plunge Baths
Figure 1. The Santa Cruz Beach, Cottage, and Tent City immediately after its construction in
1904. Note the smokestack and domes of the COEC power plant. Courtesy of Santa Cruz
Public Library3.
Several circumstances attest to the intimate connection with the Beach Company. The two companies
were incorporated in the same year, and shared several major stockholders (see Section III, below). The
Referred to hereafter as “COEC”.
Referred to hereafter as the “Beach Company”.
3
“The tourist accommodations known as 'Tent ...,” SCPL Local History, accessed June 20,
2017, http://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/items/show/9790.
Identifier LH-0588
1
2
Page 2 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
COEC power plant was constructed immediately adjacent to the Beach Company’s plunge baths, and
shared its building with the “Hammam” or Turkish baths4. The Beach Company was a major COEC
customer, both of electricity and of heat generated by the COEC plant. Moreover, the power plant
building was architecturally integrated with the Beach Company buildings by its “onion domes”, similar
to those decorating the original casino building and presenting an odd contrast to the visually dominant
smokestack (Fig.1). Surely it was the only electric power plant anywhere that ever had such oriental
embellishments.
The questions I find most intriguing about the foundation of the COEC are these:
1. Why didn’t the Beach Company buy power from an existing local utility?
2. Why was a separate electric utility company incorporated, rather than just building a plant dedicated
solely to supplying the needs of the Beach Company?
3. Did the COEC plan to develop hydroelectric power?
4. How was the COEC affected by the public utility regulatory environment existing at the time?
The reader will find that a lack of definite answers to these questions does not deter me from
unburdening myself of my favorite speculations.
1. Why didn’t the Beach Company buy power from one of the three local electric utilities that existed at
the time?
Three electrical plants were supplying electric power to Santa Cruz in 1904. It seems that the Beach
Company should have been able to buy power at a favorable rate in a competitive market. However, the
reality of the electric power market in Santa Cruz was much different than it would first appear. One of
the existing plants, the Santa Cruz municipal lighting plant, was dedicated to running the DC arc lighting
system did not have excess capacity. Furthermore, its generating equipment was not compatible with
supplying power for incandescent lighting. The Santa Cruz Electric Light and Power Company at this
time functioned only as a distribution company. They were no longer producing power, but instead
purchased it from the Big Creek Power Company. In practical terms, then, the power market was a virtual
monopoly by the Big Creek Power Company, and the Beach Company could probably not have secured
the favorable rates that a truly competitive market might have offered. Moreover, if the Beach Company
had purchased their electric power from a utility company, they would still have needed their own boilers
for heating. The requirement for heating, together with the desire to avoid buying electric power in an
un-competitive market, are the two factors I can identify which would justify the decision to generate
their own power. Therefore, the COEC can be partially construed as an example of corporate “upstream
vertical integration”.
2. Given that the Beach Company would generate, rather than buy electric power, why incorporate a
separate utility company to sell power to outside customers rather than simply build a dedicated “inhouse” electric plant?
Discussions of the early electric power industry widely characterized generating plants as belonging
either to the class of “central stations”, or to a class referred to as “isolated plants” (or “private plants”).
Central stations are corporate or municipal entities generating electricity for distribution to the general
public, and during the 20th Century came progressively to dominate electric power generation. Isolated
The building, which had been edited beyond recognition in form and function, was demolished in November,
2016 to make way for construction of a new main entrance to the Boardwalk. (Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk press
release dated 8/30/2016).
4
Page 3 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
plants usually generated electricity for the exclusive use of their owners, and were typically located
within or adjacent to the building or group of buildings they supplied, such as manufacturing plants,
hotels, municipal buildings, or large department stores5. A cogent summary of this topic is found in
Census Bureau studies dating from that time.6
One reason for establishing the COEC as a separate corporate entity may have been that the COEC
directors believed that production capacity of hydroelectric power by the Big Creek Power Company
was insufficient to satisfy rapidly growing demand. (Who would be in a better position to appreciate this
than Fred Swanton?) Indeed, in 1905 the Big Creek Power Company constructed a steam-powered
electric plant (in Watsonville) to augment their hydropower capacity7. Not long thereafter, they began to
purchase some of their power from the newly founded P.G.&E Company. It may be, then, that the COEC
founders intended to eventually develop the COEC into a viable electric power company.
Another, more obscure motive to incorporate a separate company that could sell power to domestic and
commercial customers throughout Santa Cruz may have been the perceived need to utilize their capacity
uniformly throughout the year. A major problem confronting the management of early electric utilities
grew from the idiosyncratic nature of their product, which unlike any other industrial commodity, must
be transmitted and used instantaneously by the customer. Additionally, customer demand, particularly
for lighting, is highly variable. This leads to the disagreeable situation of a utility burdened with the
investment and fixed cost of a plant that operates at full load for only several hours a day, or at only
certain times of year. The load imposed on the COEC by Beach Company would have been particularly
variable, with high demand on summer evenings. The load for domestic lighting, peaking in the winter
months, would complement the demand by the Beach Company. Combining the loads imposed by the
two customers would have mitigated demand variation and improved the overall financial position of the
COEC.8
3. Did the COEC plan to develop hydroelectric power?
There is circumstantial evidence that the COEC planned to build a hydroelectric plant on the San
Lorenzo River. This would be consistent with the surprising emphasis placed on water rights, etc. in its
Articles of Incorporation (see Section III, below). The Sentinel briefly described a “plan” floated by Fred
Swanton on behalf of the COEC, to dam the San Lorenzo River and build a power plant at Rincon Flats9,
10
. This reportedly advanced to the stage where “water rights and property had been secured”11. I have
found no further mention of this plan within the lifetime of the COEC, nor any explanation why it was not
I remember that my elementary school (Lyman Trumbull School, Chicago, built 1908) had an isolated plant with
boilers, a steam engine, and dynamos; though only the boilers were in use when I was a student there in the 1950s.
6
U. S. Bureau of the Census, Central Electric Light and Power Stations, 1902 (Washington, 1905)
https://ia801406.us.archive.org/34/items/centralelectric00goog/centralelectric00goog.pdf
U. S. Bureau of the Census, Central Electric Light and Power Stations, 1907 (Washington, 1910)
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015028113432;view=1up;seq=7
7
Electricity in the City of the “Holy Cross”.
Journal of Electricity, Power and Gas, San Francisco.
Vol. 15, No. 5; May, 1905; p. 167.
8
For further discussion of this topic (under the heading of “load factor”) see:
Louis C. Hunter and Lynwood Bryant
A History of Industrial Power in the United States, 1780-1930. Vol. 3: The Transmission of Power
MIT Press, Cambridge Mass, 1991.
9
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 6/28/1904, p.1.
10
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 6/29/1904.
11
Apparently from the H. Cowell estate.
5
Page 4 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
pursued further. The most probable explanation is that the rebuilding of the Beach Company properties
after the catastrophic fire in 1906 (See Section V., below) consumed all the available capital.
4. What public utility regulatory environment existed at the time?
The COEC needed a franchise from the City to erect poles and to run wires on city streets to supply their
external customers. This would not have been required if the COEC were to have provided power
exclusively to the Beach Company buildings.
Apparently this was overlooked by the COEC and the City alike until June, 1904, when the COEC was
stringing wire on Pacific Ave. in fulfillment of their contract to provide incandescent streetlights for the
summer. An employee of “a rival company”12 stopped them from using the utility pole at Pacific and
Cooper streets. Fred Swanton, on behalf of the COEC, objected to the City Council that this company
had “taken advantage of a technicality”; an argument that prevailed, as the Council allowed the COEC
to string wires “on all poles along Pacific Ave. belonging to the City”.
I have not located documentation that a wider franchise was ever formally granted. I suspect that it
would have been readily obtained amidst the climate of civic enthusiasm that propelled the
development of the Beach Company.
On the other hand, the COEC did not need a state-sanctioned license to operate a public utility. The
California State Railroad Commission13, which had been established by the State Constitution of 1879,
did not assume responsibility for regulating electric utilities until after 1910. Incidentally, this meant that
the 2 existing private utility companies could not apply to the Commission for relief from competition by
COEC, as they would have been able to do later. This situation fostered the growth of numerous
competing small local utilities throughout California before 1910.
12
13
Santa Cruz Electric Light and Power or Big Creek.
Eventually to become the California State Public Utilities Commission.
Page 5 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
II. The Company Name
Searching for information on the COEC in databases, or on the internet, is problematic because of the
bewildering variety of names used in print media:
Co-operative Electric Company14
Cooperative Electric Company15
Co-operative Light Company16
Co-operative Electric Light Company17
Co-operative Light and Power Company18
Co-operative Electric Light and Power Company19
Tent City Co-operative Electric Light Company20
The first name listed above is the correct “legal” name of the COEC as bestowed in its articles of
incorporation21.
Similarly, I have found the power generating facility of the COEC referred to variously as:
“the power house at the casino”22
“the power house at the beach”23
“the old beach power house”24
“the old co-operative powerhouse”25
“the Co-operative power house”26
“the Electric light sub-station on the beach”27
These designations contribute to confusion between the COEC power plant (est. 1904), and the power
plant of the Coast Counties Electric Light and Power Co. that was built directly across the street from it in
1908.
Electric utility co-operatives were a significant development of the New Deal, and played an important
part in the electrification of rural areas of the country in the 1930’s; so an electric utility co-operative in
Santa Cruz in 1904 would have been several decades ahead of its time, and unusual for being an urban
enterprise rather than rural. However, my conclusion is that the COEC was a co-operative in name only.
It was a privately held, for profit enterprise that did not adhere in any way to the definition of a co-
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 9/17/1904.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 1/26/1907, p.9.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 6/28/1904, p.1.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 6/26/1904, p.3.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 6/11/1904, p.1.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 5/25/1904, p.1.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 1/6/1905, p.3.
Articles of Incorporation filed May 2, 1904; County Clerk’s Index No. 369. MAH Archives, courtesy of Marla Novo
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 4/27/1906, p.13.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 4/27/1904, p.3.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 10/27/1908, p..
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 6/11/1906, p.6.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 6/2/1904, p.3.
Santa Cruz Surf, 3/12/1908, p.4 : 4.
Page 6 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
operative applicable at the time28, nor to the definition used today29. The only sense in which the COEC
could be construed as “co-operative” is that it was constructed and operated in alliance with the Beach
Company.
In the early 20th Century, public sentiment became increasingly disenchanted with the growing power of
“electric trusts” in much the same way it had with railroad corporations several decades earlier.
Adopting the designation “co-operative” may have been an attempt to deflect a growing public distrust
of private electric power utilities.
Definition
So-called co-operatives appeared in the late 18th Century in Great Britain, and the principles of co-operative
organizations were formally enshrined by the Rochdale Principles of 1844.
29
“A co-operative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic,
social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise.”
http://ica.coop/en/whats-co-op/co-operative-identity-values-principles
28
Page 7 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
III. Corporate Structure and Financing
Articles of Incorporation for the COEC were filed May 2, 1904 in Santa Cruz County21.
The purposes and intended activities of the company are described by the 6 paragraphs of article II. The
first paragraph, quite curiously, is a broad and thorough description of activities that essentially
constitute a “water company”30 rather than an electric utility. It’s all about owning water rights, and
constructing water infrastructure (dams, flumes, etc.) and selling water for agricultural, domestic and
industrial purposes. Paragraph 4 expands this with the addition of “acquisition of water rights by
eminent domain”.
Not until paragraph 4 do the Articles describe the business actually conducted by the COEC, electric
power generation for sale (essentially an electric utility company).
5,000 shares of capital stock at a par value of $10 per share were offered. Just over 20% was subscribed
at the time of incorporation (Fig. 2)31.
Henry Willey 500
J. J. C. Leonard 250
H. E. Irish 200
Daniel A. Clark 100
O. J. Lincoln 30
Montrose Sharpe 20
F. W. Swanton 5
Unsubscribed 3895
Figure 2. Initial stock subscriptions as recorded in the Articles. The
numbers are the number of shares subscribed at $10 each.
“That the purpose for which said corporation is framed and formed is to appropriate, buy, lease and acquire water
and water rights; to construct and maintain dams, reservoirs, ditches, acqueducts [sic], tunnels, pipes, flumes and
laterals; to purchase, lease erect, construct, acquire and hold any and all structures and machinery for accumulating
and storing water; to accumulate, store, use and sell water and water rights for agricultural, domestic,
manufacturing, irrigation, mining, transportation and other purposes, and to sell and deliver to, and supply cities,
towns and villages, and the inhabitants thereof, with water, and to use, sell and rent water rights for any and all
purposes whatsoever, in the County of Santa Cruz, said State of California.”
31
Santa Cruz Sentinel (Santa Cruz, California) · Wed, Sep 26, 1906 · Page 1.
30
Page 8 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
Note that the 2 largest shareholders controlled more than 50% of the subscribed stock. The founding
officers and directors of the COEC were drawn directly from the group of investors (Table 1.).
Incorporators listed
in the “Articles”
Henry Willey*
Daniel A. Clark*
O. J. Lincoln*
H. E. Irish*
Montrose Sharpe*
J. J. C. Leonard
F. W. Swanton
Company officers
elected at first
meeting32
President
Vice President
Secretary
Treasurer
Director
Director
Director
Table 1. Original stockholders and
officers of the COEC. *Also a stockholder
in the Beach Company. 33 , 34
All of the COEC founders were local residents, businessmen, and/or city officials, making it clear that the
COEC was funded by local capital rather than outside capital. Several COEC founders were also
important backers of the Beach Co. Willey, Swanton, and Leonard, had been associated previously as
managers and directors of the Santa Cruz Oil Co. (Incorporated Dec., 1900.)
In 190535 the following individuals were cited as “owners” of the COEC: Henry Willey, H. E. Irish, J. J. C.
Leonard, and George Staffler. There is also a reference to a Mr. Moore as having been “one of the
promoters of the Co-operative Electric Light Company” and subsequently a director of the Ocean Shore
Railroad36.
Dramatis Personae, Brief Comments
Fred W. Swanton
The notorious Fred Swanton needs no further biographical sketch from me. The
COEC is the 3rd electric utility he was instrumental in founding. Probably,
Swanton’s influence in the company is not fully reflected by his small share
holding.
Henry Willey
A local hardware dealer of long standing. Also associated with the People’s Bank,
and the Santa Cruz Oil Co.37
Daniel A. Clark
The only founding shareholder who was not a long-time Santa Cruz resident.
Daniel A. Clark came to California in 1850 from Rhode Island by way of Panama,
Santa Cruz Sentinel Wed, May 25, 1904 · Page 1
Santa Cruz Sentinel 10/18/1903, p.3.
34
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 11/8/1903, p.3.
35
Electricity in the “City of the Holy Cross”
The Journal of Electricity, Power and Gas (San Francisco)
Vol. 15 No.5
May, 1905 pp. 167-179.
36
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 9/26/1906, p.1.
37
Daily Surf10/15/1903p. 7 : 1
32
33
Page 9 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
but after a few years he returned to RI where he became an undertaker. After
retiring, he moved to Santa Cruz in 1903 and purchased the Coope House on
Beach Hill38. He remained in Santa Cruz 5 years, investing in several residential
properties as well as the COEC and the Beach Co. In 1908 he moved to Berkeley
where he died in 1913.39
O. J. Lincoln
Lincoln was the City Clerk, and Clerk of the Santa Cruz School District.
He was elected a Santa Cruz County School Trustee, and later,
Postmaster. After retiring from public service he founded a bulb growing
business in at Twin Lakes
H. E. Irish
Stationery store owner.
Montrose Sharpe
Owner of the Sea Beach Hotel, a COEC customer.
J. J. C. Leonard
Manager and/or owner of the Hotel Ben Lomond, the St. George Hotel,
and the Pacific Ocean House. Secretary of the Santa Cruz Oil Co.
I have not found any information on those who actually designed and built the power plant. Information
on the superintendents/engineers who operated the plant appears below in Section V.
38
39
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 7/16/1903, p.3.
See a biography by Stanley Stevens in: Santa Cruz County History Journal Issue 4 (1998).
Page 10 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
IV. Power Plant Infrastructure
Unless noted otherwise, technical information and images in this section, as well as the architectural floor
plans in Appendix B, are from a description of the COEC power plant that was published within a year of
its construction in a technical journal intended for industry professionals40.
Fig. 3 One of only three known photographs of the COEC
power plant interior. Probably taken between June 1904 and
June 1905.
I found the following general considerations to be helpful guides in studying the details of the power
plant infrastructure:
1. The COEC plant represents the culmination of the 200-year development of reciprocating steam
engine design and practice. Although there had been some relative success in adapting steam engines
to the special demands of electric power stations, they would be rapidly and aggressively displaced by
steam turbines as the 20th Century progressed. That is, we have a window through which to view the
swan song of the prime mover most responsible for the industrial revolution.
2. Much of the technical development of the steam engine took place without the benefit of scientific
understanding of its principles or even of precise measures of its operation. Yet, by 1900 the theoretical
advances by Carnot, and by Rankine, had been thoroughly assimilated into the thinking of professional
Electricity in the “City of the Holy Cross”
Journal of Electricity, Power, and Gas, San Francisco
Vol.15, No.5.
May, 1905, pp. 167-179.
40
Page 11 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
steam power engineers. This, along with increasingly sophisticated analyses of engine performance,
forced acknowledgement that steam engines were very inefficient41, and that substantial improvements
in efficiency were not even theoretically possible according to thermodynamic principles. In response,
attention was re-directed to finding ways to increasing power plant efficiency as a whole. Several
features of COEC plant reflect this.
3. The COEC plant was designed as dual-purpose, producing electric power and hot water/steam for
heating.
(2) Babcock and Wilcox Boilers
22” X 36” Series “B” Hamilton-Corliss Engine
Westinghouse Alternator
(“Exciter”) Dynamo
Single Phase Westinghouse Switchboard
Wheeler Admiralty Surface Condenser
Goubert Feed Water Heater
Snow Feed water Pumps
Stratton Separator
Hot Well
Blake Vertical Exhaust Relief Valve
Moore Fuel Oil Pumping System
vertical header type
each with 1,175 ft. sq. heating surface
25 PSI
built by the Hooven, Owens, Rentschler Co.
84 RPM
300 HP
16 foot band wheel with 29 inch face
180 kW
2,300 V
3-phase AC
5 HP
125 V DC
Vertical Water Tube Type A
Table 2: Power plant components are mentioned in the published technical description.
Regrettably, the technical article presents little more than a “laundry list” of components, and does not
convey an understanding of how they all worked together to create a practical power generation facility.
No doubt this was appropriate for an article intended for power system engineers who would be able to
supply that understanding from their experience and training. I found it unsatisfying, by itself, as a
vehicle for understanding the COEC plant as a dynamic entity. This section struggles to contrive a more
satisfying holistic description, however imperfect, of the COEC power plant machinery and infrastructure.
In so doing it necessarily encompasses a good deal of contextual background material and technical
information that should be avoided by readers who are interested in only in the “local history” of the
COEC.
i.e. A large fraction of the energy embodied in the working fluid (high pressure steam) could not be converted to
mechanical work.
41
Page 12 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
I’ll begin the discussion with the INPUTS to the plant, namely:
fuel
boiler feed water
steam condenser water
oxygen (atmospheric)
A. Fuel
The COEC power plant was designed to burn crude petroleum (fuel oil) rather than coal or wood, as had
been the case with earlier steam powered electric utilities in Santa Cruz. In 1904 the development of the
California oil industry was well underway, with a number of oil fields in active production throughout the
state42, including at least one near Watsonville. The Santa Cruz County Board of Trade enumerated the
advantages of fuel oil use in local industry43. (Lime production in the region was also converting to crude
oil at this time44, and the Santa Cruz and Portland Cement Co. plant in Davenport also burned crude oil
delivered by rail, rather than coal, when it opened in 1906.)
Among the advantages to electric power plants specifically was that oil was comparatively clean45. In the
COEC plant, boilers, engine and alternator were all in the same enclosed space (See Appendix B). Coalfired boilers would have had to be segregated into a separate space to keep coal dust away from
engines and electrical equipment. Also, oil fired burners produced less noxious smoke, no doubt a huge
benefit to a plant located in a tourist-centered business area.
Accordingly, we find that the COEC signed a 5-year contract with “a Watsonville Oil company” for 750
barrels a month46. Oil delivery was facilitated by the COEC plant’s proximity to the railroad.
There is ample evidence that the COEC sold oil on a retail basis to other local users. For example, at
their November, 1904 meeting the City Council approved a payment of $202.30 from the Electric
Lighting Fund to the COEC for fuel oil.47 Incidentally, this also documents that the boilers at the
municipal street lighting plant had been modified to burn oil rather than wood.
For a thorough discussion of early fuel oil use in California see:
James C. Williams (1997)
Energy and the Making of Modern California
University of Akron Press, Akron, OH p. 120-126.
43
The County of Santa Cruz and Vicinity, California
Published by the Santa Cruz Board of Trade
The Sunset Press, SF
1905
[S C Cty LIBRARY 0402888 1]
44
Frank A. Perry and Robert W. Piwarzyk (2007)
Steps in Making Lime
Lime Kiln Legacies: The History of the Lime Industry in Santa Cruz County
The Museum of Art and History at the McPherson Center, Santa Cruz
45
Summarized in:
Journal of Electricity, Power and Gas, SF
Vol. 24, No. 7. p. 148.
2/12/1910
46
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 1/10/1905, p.3.
47
Santa Cruz Sentinel 11/8/1904, p. 1.
42
Page 13 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
Oil Storage
It seems that the original plan for oil storage at the COEC plant was to re-purpose several water storage
tanks from the old Neptune Bath House by moving them to the eastern side of the powerhouse building
and burying them underground. This plan was applauded because it would allow replacement and
removal of an existing oil storage tank that was considered unsightly48. I have no information regarding
the purpose of this pre-existing oil tank. It may have been used by the Neptune Baths, or by the Dolphin
Baths, both of which had boilers, but no oil storage tank is shown at either location in Sanborn Fire
Insurance maps for 1886, 1888, or 1892.
The old oil tank was removed some time between June and September 1904, but by this time the plan
to use the Neptune water tanks had apparently been abandoned in favor of constructing a new “up to
date vat”49. This new tank is undoubtedly the one shown on the Sanborn Fire Insurance map of 1905
(Appendix A.). The tank had a capacity of 32,000 gallons and was described as a “ fine cement oil tank”
constructed “near the track”, and “flush with the street”50.
Further details were given as follows:
“The concrete oil tank, which is being built east of the Casino, will cost $1,200 when finished
and is 50 feet long by 16 feet wide, and holds five carloads or 900 barrels of oil .It is made of
cement, interwoven with steel rods, and all covered with corrugated iron, which is perfectly
waterproof. The whole tank is built together, so it cannot come apart, and if the foundation gives
away it will sink as if it was just one complete piece.”51
Indeed, although the power plant was damaged in the 1906 earthquake, there is no evidence of
damage to the oil storage tank52. Also, the oil tank, being located well to the east of the powerhouse,
was not involved in the fire that destroyed the original casino and baths.
An unfortunate consequence of the location of the oil storage tank in the open was its susceptibility to
sabotage and vandalism. There was an incident in which someone shut off a valve for the oil supply to
the boilers, leading to a brief blackout of the casino, bathing pavilion, and tent city. The COEC
considered this sufficiently serious to offer a $250 reward for apprehension of the perpetrators.53
When the new Coast Counties powerhouse was built in 1906 (see Section V. below) it had a new circular,
above ground oil tank54 with a capacity of 65,000 gallons55. Use of the COEC underground tank
probably was discontinued at this time. A new building, housing a “human roulette wheel” and
“nickelodeon” was built partially over the rectangular tank and the 1917 Sanborn map (Appendix A.)
shows the tank with the annotation “to be removed”. Even so, the rectangular underground tank is still
shown in the Sanborn map of 1928. It is possible that the tank was still in use, if only as a backup oil
supply for the Coast Counties powerhouse. Or possibility it was just too robustly constructed to be easily
removed.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 5/27/1904, p.3.
Santa Cruz Surf, 6/18/1904, p.1.
Santa Cruz Sentinel 9/17/1904 p.1
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 11/12/1904, p.1.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 4/27/1906, p.13.
Santa Cruz Sentinel Jul 28, 1904 p. 1
Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, Santa Cruz; 1917 p. 28.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, Santa Cruz; 1928 p. 136.
Page 14 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
Moore Fuel Oil Pumps
California crude oil was more viscous than eastern crudes
and required special equipment to handle, transport, and
burn56. Much of this equipment was developed in California.
The floor plan of the COEC powerhouse (Appendix B)
shows a Moore fuel oil pumping system. This was
manufactured by the Charles C. Moore Company of San Francisco and is evidently an example of
equipment tailored to handle viscous California crude oil.
The only technical information I have found on this system is in an article describing the powerhouse at
the University of California, Berkeley57, which was built by the Moore Company in 1905 and also used
Moore fuel oil pumps. The oil pumps were steam-driven, and were mounted directly above coils carrying
the exhaust steam away from the pumps. This was intended to pre-heat the oil, reducing its viscosity so
that it would flow more easily and be more easily atomized for combustion (see below).
Charles C. Moore was a highly regarded engineer and businessman in San
Francisco, best remembered today as the president of the Panama-Pacific
International Exposition Company. His engineering firm designed and constructed
power plants, and was “to be reckoned with in all big electric power plants
installed in the western States.”58 Moore was also locally connected through
ownership of “a beautiful country place at Santa Cruz”59,60. This naturally invites
the speculation that his firm designed and built the COEC plant.
B. Boiler Feed Water
Steam plants require water as the starting point for producing the working fluid (steam) used by the
engines or turbines, and successful design of a plant entails careful consideration of the quantity, the
purity, and the cost of water resources available at its location.
Feed water impurities bring vexing problems, mostly experienced by the boiler in the form of scale
deposits and corrosion. These increase maintenance costs and reduce overall thermal efficiency. Steam
plants therefore often included ancillary components for chemical or physical pre-processing of raw feed
water. There is no evidence that the COEC plant included such a system.
James C. Williams (1997)
Energy and the Making of Modern California
University of Akron Press Akron, OH p. 120-126.
57
G. C. Noble (1905)
The Central Light, Heat And Power Plant At The University of California.
The Engineer, Chicago, April 15, 1905 vol. 42. No. 8; p. 263
58
The Spectator, NY
vol. 94, No. 10, p. 126.
3/11/1915
59
The Spectator
vol. 94, No. 22 SUPPLEMENT, p. 51.
6/10/1915.
60
660 High Street see Companion
56
Page 15 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
The best quality, and most expensive, water available to the COEC plant would have been available
from the domestic water supply. Even this, however, would still have presented the potentially serious
and costly problem of boiler scaling resulting from the notoriously high levels of calcium and magnesium
in our water supply.61
The water quality issue was largely mitigated by designing the COEC plant for condensing operation
(see below). The water of condensed steam is re-circulated back to the boiler in a closed system. In noncondensing plants the low-pressure steam leaving the engine is exhausted directly to the atmosphere
and must be continually replaced.
Additionally, Ca and Mg cations are held in solution by carbonate and bicarbonate counter ions. Heating
the water drives out CO2, so precipitation of the insoluble scale occurs even without evaporation.
Therefore, in the COEC plant, what precipitation there was occurred mostly in the feed water heater (see
below) and not in the boiler tubes.62
My tentative conclusion is therefore that the COEC plant used the municipal water supply as boiler feed
water, rather than the San Lorenzo River, or seawater.
C. Condenser Cooling Water
The water saving advantage of a condensing steam plant comes at the cost of introducing a very large
demand for cooling water. But in this case water quality is much less of an issue; so the trade off is that
using a large volume of low quality cooling water allows the saving of high quality boiler feed water. The
sources of cooling water available to the COEC would have been the San Lorenzo River and the Pacific
Ocean. My working speculation is that seawater was used. The cold seawater would have been warmed
by the heat given up by the steam in the condenser, and so it could have been used directly to supply
the plunge baths, and perhaps for general heating as well. There is no direct evidence for or against this
idea, but it would explain why there is no mention of a separate seawater heating system for the plunge.
D. Oxygen
There is no evidence for the use of any kind of blower or compressor to supply atmospheric oxygen to
the combustion chamber. The oil burners were designed to atomize the oil to increase the overall
surface area exposed to oxidation.
STEAM GENERATION
“A battery consisting of two Babcock &Wilcox boilers of the vertical header type and each having
1175 square feet of heating surface, develops steam at a boiler pressure of 125 pounds per square
inch63.”
The “hardness” vale of our domestic water currently averages 180 ppm or more, in the “very hard” category
according to the City of Santa Cruz Water Department Consumer Confidence Report, 2015.
62
Gebhardt, G. F. (1912)
Steam Power Plant Engineering, 1st ed.
John Wiley and Sons, NY
63
350 degrees F
61
Page 16 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
The Babcock and Wilcox Company was founded 1867 and still operating. They were the foremost boiler
manufacturer in the US64.
The oil burners in the boilers are not described. The earliest oil burning boilers were simple retrofits of
coal-fired boilers65. Engineers found that each boiler installation, and each crude oil had its own
characteristics, so that by 1910 a technical journal noticed that “hundreds of oil burners have been
devised, each better than the other.”66
Figure 4. Boilers installed at the east end of the
COEC plant. Note the brickwork, done by locals.
Figure 5. Side view (Cut away) of a Babcock and
Wilcox boiler modified for burning oil. From
reference 64.
Steam-Its Generation And Use
Thirty-Fifth Edition, 4th Issue
The Babcock & Wilcox Co., NY
1919
Http://Www.Gutenberg.Org/Files/22657/22657-H/Header.Html
65
Pacific Lumberman and Contractor
Feb. 7, 1889; p. 8
Vol. 5, No. 6
Burning Crude Petroleum
66
Journal of Electricity, Power and Gas, SF
Vol. 24, No. 7. P.148
2/12/1910
64
Page 17 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
ENGINES
Despite the proposal to develop hydroelectric power from the San Lorenzo River (see above), the only
power generation actually realized was from the beach power plant, and this was exclusively by
reciprocating steam engines.
The COEC power plant boasted as many as 3 reciprocating steam engines, with an aggregate rating of
over 400 HP.
The essential prime mover in the COEC plant is described as follows:
“a 22 by 36 series “B” condensing Hamilton-Corliss engine running at eighty-four revolutions
per minute and developing 300 indicated horsepower, and which was built under the specifications
of the Hoover-Owens-Reneschler Company [sic] 67. It carries a sixteen-foot band wheel having a
twenty-nine-inch face68”
By 1905, the reciprocating steam engine had been developed nearly to its limits of size and efficiency. A
few engines producing as much as 25,000 HP were installed for industrial (mechanical) power
generation, but these were not practical for electric power stations, partly because of their low rotational
speed. The largest engines installed in central electric stations were less than 10,000 HP. In fact, 92% of
steam engines in central electric power stations in 1902 were rated at 500 HP or less69, meaning that the
Corliss engine in the COEC plant was typical of the time, at least in terms of capacity.
The Hooven, Owens, Rentschler Co. was founded in 1882 in Hamilton, Ohio.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooven-Owens-Rentschler
68
The most visually prominent feature in Fig. 3.
69
U.S. Bureau of the Census
Central Electric Light and Power Stations, 1902
(The largest electric power stations achieved large outputs by employing multiple smaller engines rather than one
large engine, as discussed in Hunter and Bryant p. 329.)
67
Page 18 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
Figure 6. Engraving of a Series B Hamilton Corliss engine from reference 70.
Note that the 16-foot diameter wheel is not shown, and that the engine appears
in the reverse orientation of that in Fig. 3.
Corliss-type engines were prevalent throughout the latter 19th and early 20th Century. They were
characterized by a system of 4 cylindrical valves (Fig. 6) patented by George Henry Corliss in 1849. After
the patents expired, many other firms manufactured this type of engine. A thorough appraisal of Corlisstype engines is provided by Hunter70.
According to the manufacturer’s literature, “Series B” engines would be considered the “economy
model” of Corliss engine. They were constructed on an “I-Beam” frame, rather than the more robust
girder frame” used for the A series. Moreover, they were afforded “less outer finish” than the A series,
and could be therefore be offered at “reduced cost”71. Series B engines were produced in 20 stock sizes
rated from 50 HP to 550 HP, so the COEC engine was mid-range.
”22 by 36” refers the diameter and stroke of the piston in inches72.
According to a typical classification73 84 rpm would have been decidedly low speed, consistent with the
need for such a large driving pulley (see below).
A History of Industrial Power in the United States, 1780-1930. Vol. 2: Steam Power
Louis C. Hunter
Hagley Museum and Library, University Press og Virginia, Charlottsville, 1985 Chap. 5
71
Series B Hamilton Corliss Engine
Bulletin No. 22
Hooven, Owens, Rentschler Co., Hamilton. Ohio
Dec. 1, 1915
[Author’s collection.]
72
i.e. The stroke volume is 13,700 in3.
73
Steam Engine Principles and Practice
Terrell Croft, ed.
McGraw-Hill, NY, 1922; p. 19.
70
Page 19 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
In the left foreground of the photo of the power plant interior (Fig. 3) there appears to be a second,
smaller steam engine (note the small fly-ball governor near the left margin) that is not shown in the floor
plans (Appendix B) and is not mentioned in the published description of the plant. That such an engine
probably did exist is supported by the Sanborn map (Appendix A) that indicates the presence of a
second engine by the notation “ENG 12 HP” at the appropriate location. This small engine may have
been used to drive the exciter dynamo (see below), or to power the water pumps for the seawater
intake, but these are only speculations.
In 1905 a new “100 HP engine” (evidently a steam engine) was purchased to serve as a backup for the
Corliss engine when it was offline74. This new engine, however, was not fitted out to drive the original
Westinghouse alternator. Instead it was connected directly to its own generator. Direct connection of an
engine to its generator reduces the loss of mechanical power compared to the more primitive pulley and
belt connection, and also reduces maintenance. Furthermore, it is more compact, making it easier to
cram the new equipment into the space remaining at power plant. The constraint imposed by direct
connection is that the engine and generator must rotate at the same rpm value, so the new engine was
probably of the so-called “high-speed” variety pioneered by Charles T. Porter in the 1860s, and which
were capable of operation at speeds of 700 rpm and above. Indications are that this engine/generator
duo was installed in early in 1906. Building the concrete foundation for this new machinery was an early
project of the Granite Rock Co.75
One or more of these engines probably was moved to the new Coast Counties power plant when the
COEC plant was shut down in 1908 (see Section V. below).
ELECTRICAL
“…a 180-kilowatt, 2,300 volt, three-phase Westinghouse alternator, together with a fivehorsepower, 125 volt exciter…”
By way of comparison, the Big Creek hydroelectric plant was capable of 150 kW when installed in 1896,
but the total capacity had been increased to 800-900 KW in 1905.
Another interesting point of comparison is the photovoltaic array installed on the roof of the Ecology
Action/Cruzio (formerly Sentinel) building in 2010. This is rated at 52 kW maximum output, but averages
only about 10 kW76.
An exciter is a small dynamo (DC generator) whose current output energizes the poles (electromagnets)
of a larger dynamo or alternator. I am not certain whether this was driven by the 300 HP Corliss engine,
or by a smaller dedicated engine.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 10/20/1905, p.5.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 2/8/1906, p.1.
76
City of Santa Cruz Climate Action Program
Go Solar Santa Cruz Commercial Solar Case Study
Ecology Action-Cruzio Building
http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showdocument?id=39494 5/29/2017
74
75
Page 20 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
The published description does not give the frequency (cycles per second or Hertz) of the AC current
output. 60 Hz was introduced as an AC standard by the Westinghouse company in 189077 as a
compromise between the higher frequencies optimal for lighting, and the lower frequencies optimal for
electric motors, but in 1905 60 Hz was yet the universal national standard it is today.
I was able to tease out enough information to estimate the frequency of the COEC alternator output as
follows:
E = engine RPM = 84 rpm (=1.4 rps)
R = Ratio of alternator speed to engine speed = 5.178
P = # poles in alternator = 1679
Freqency (Hz) = (E) (R) (P) (1/2)80 = (1.4) (5.1) (16) (1/2) = 57 Hz
This estimate is close enough to 60 Hz to convince me that COEC made 60 cycle 3-phase AC consistent
with today’s standard in the US.
CONDENSER
The useful work performed by a steam engine is proportional to the difference between the intake steam
pressure and the exhaust steam pressure (“back pressure”) Ordinarily, the exhaust pressure would be
near atmospheric. An engine will develop greater power, if the backpressure is reduced relative to the
inlet pressure.
In a condenser, the exhaust steam is cooled below 100 degrees C, and converted to liquid water,
creating a partial vacuum. This lowers the back pressure to 10-14 psi below atmospheric. The
condensate is then collected in a sump (the “hot well”) from whence it is recycled (by pumping) back
into the boiler to create a closed cycle. Condensing can improve the thermal efficiency of an engine by
as much as 20%, in addition to reducing the requirement for feed water (see above).
The drawbacks to condensing are:
1. An ample supply of cheaply obtained cooling water must be provided. (See above for a discussion of
condenser cooling water.)
2. If the exhaust steam is cooled and condensed, it cannot be used for heating. According to one
authority:
“Condensing operation is not economical for any engine when most of the exhaust steam
from the engine can be profitably used for heating or industrial purposes. In general, the
exhaust from an engine should be condensed only when it cannot be used.81”
Owen, E.L, The Origins of 60-Hz as a Power Frequency
Industry Applications Magazine, IEEE, Volume: 3, Issue 6, Nov.-Dec. 1997, Pages 8, 10, 12-14.
78
Estimated by measuring the engine flywheel and alternator pulley diameters in the diagram in Appendix B.
79
Counting in the alternator poles (electromagnets) Appendix B.
80
A full cycle of AC requires that an armature coil pass 1 North and 1 South pole.
81
Steam Engine Principles and Practice
77
Page 21 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
This suggests that heat from the COEC power plant was NOT used to a significant extent for general
heating of the casino or other buildings at the beach.
Figure 7. Photograph of the power plant interior showing several pieces of accessory equipment. A. Goubert
Feed Water Heater, B. Snow Feed Water pumps, C Hot Well and D. You have to love the crescent wrenches
on the wall. The pipe insulation is probably asbestos.
FEED WATER HEATER
A feed water heater increases the overall thermal efficiency of a steam plant by raising the temperature
of the water drawn from the hot well (typically at 100 deg. to 140 deg. F) to near boiling before it is
injected into the boiler, thereby reducing the amount of combustible fuel consumed per quantity of
steam delivered to the engine. The source of heat used to do this is, in the COEC plant, was apparently
the exhaust steam from the several types of auxiliary steam-driven pumps82.
Terrell Croft, ed.
McGraw-Hill, NY, 1922
82
These include the oil pumps, the condensate pumps, and the feed water pumps. It is interesting to note that
these pumps were steam-driven; they did not have electric motors.
Page 22 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
The Goubert Type A vertical tube feed water heater was introduced in 189283. As noted in the Goubert
literature, the feed water heater acted essentially as a second condenser for the exhausted steam, with
its cooling water being the boiler feed water. The estimated saving in fuel was 6%.
Fig. 8 Goubert Type A vertical
tube feed water heater. From
reference 82.
HOT WELL
The hot well was simply a receptacle, or tank to collect the hot water drawn from the condenser. This
water was returned to the boiler, being drawn from the hot well by the feed pumps and then passed
through the feed water heater.
FEED WATER PUMPS
Water leaving the boiler as steam must be continually replaced by injecting “feed water”. The feed
water, whatever its source, is invariably at atmospheric pressure (14-15 psi), so considerable work is
expended to pump it into the boiler at a pressure is 125 psi.
The COEC plant used Snow Feedwater pumps shown in Fig. 7. These were arranged as a tandem pair of
reciprocating mini steam engines that drove integral pumps to generate the required pressure to force
the water into the boilers.
The other possible source of heat for feed water heating is the hot flue gases leaving the furnace. This was not used
in the COEC plant.
83
Anon. (1892)
The Goubert “Water-Tube” Feed Water Heater
The Electrical Engineer, NY
Vol. 13, No. 196, p.125
2/3/1892
Page 23 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
Figure 9. Snow duplex steam pump 84 . Several sizes, 8120 gpm were offered
A Book of Tools, Being a Catalog of Tools, Supplies, Machinery, and Similar Goods
Chas. A. Strelinger and Co. Detriot
1895
84
Page 24 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
V. Business History C hronology
1904
The first public notice of a new electric plant appeared in local papers in February85 and described “A
subsidiary corporation … to put up an electric light plant to supply the Tented City, the casino, the
pleasure pier, the esplanade, and also to engage in competitive lighting of business houses, etc.” Later
the same month another article reported a conversation between Fred Swanton and H. E. Irish
concerning an “independent electric lighting system for the tent city”86 Beginning in April, and
extending into September, papers carried occasional brief updates on construction activity at the COEC
power plant87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93. It seems astonishing that within 4 months of these reports the COEC had
been incorporated and its power plant built and brought into operation.
Articles of incorporation were filed, and company officers elected in May. (See Sec. III, above.)
In early June, H. E. Irish offered to have the COEC wire and light the streets of Santa Cruz from 6/11 –
9/15 “practically at the cost of wiring”, ostensibly as a “donation … to the New Santa Cruz fund”. The
wiring infrastructure was to be done in a “permanent manner” and left available (after Sept. 15) for “any
future occasions”. Several rate options, from $325 to $485, were proposed, based on the number of
incandescent bulbs to be provided, and their illuminating power. The Council accepted the least
expensive among the options offered, which envisioned 332 bulbs of 10 candle-power each.94 It seems
that the arc lights on the city streets, powered by the municipal plant, were being augmented during the
summer tourism season by incandescent lighting downtown, and at the esplanade, and that this was
contracted out.
The work of putting up lights on Pacific Ave. proceeded under direction of Harvey Meade, presumably
an employee of COEC. The strings were on pulleys so they could be easily lowered to replace burned
out bulbs95. Lights extended all the way to the beach, unlike the previous year when they stopped at
Hotel Hagemann.
In anticipation of the opening of the new Beach Company attractions, the Sentinel reported that “the
electric light fixtures for the pillars of the inside of the casino are very swell” and that “the tents are to be
lighted up” on opening night96.
The Sentinel’s report of opening night at the casino featured the following description of lighting97:
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
Santa Cruz Surf, 2/9/1904, p.8:4.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 2/14/1904, p.2.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 4/27/1904, p.3.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 5/13/1904, p.3.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 5/27/1904, p.3.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 6/2/1904, p.3.
Santa Cruz Surf, 6/18/1904, p.1:1.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 6/26/1904, p.3.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 9/17/1904, p..
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 6/2/1904, p.1.
Santa Cruz Surf, 6/9/1904, p.5.
Santa Cruz Surf, 6/9/1904, p.1:4.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 6/11/1904, p.1.
Page 25 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
“The Co-Operative Light and Power Company [sic] turned on a portion of their power Friday
afternoon and night and tested for the first time the thousands of electric light globes that will
illuminate the streets of Santa Cruz, the Neptune Casino and the Tented City during the coming
summer.
The big engines at the power house were running at full speed Friday afternoon, the bright yellow
belts flashing as they whirled around the big wheels to the time of a hundred revolutions a minute.”
The COEC began to actively extended service to other parts of the city by placing wires to East Santa
Cruz, and up Lincoln St. and along Mission to Walnut.98
They also proposed to provide incandescent lights for the County court house for $35 per month99. This
was at first accepted; but was soon rescinded following a complaint by the SCELP Company that no
other bids had been solicited or considered.100 I could not locate information on the outcome of this, but
it suggests that the COEC had indeed created competition in the local electric power market.
Overall, the COEC enjoyed a successful first year in business.
One sour note was struck by a minor act of vandalism when someone shut off a valve for the oil supply
to the boilers, leading to a 10-minute blackout of the Neptune Casino, Bathing Pavilion, and tent city.
The COEC offered a $250 reward for apprehension of the perpetrator/s.101
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 11/12/1904, p.1.
Santa Cruz Sentinel (Santa Cruz, California) · Tue, Dec 6, 1904 · Page 1
100
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 12/7/1904, p.4.
101
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 7/28/1904, p.1.
98
99
Page 26 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
1905
Local papers carried a number of notices documenting the extension of the COEC distribution system
and the sale of power to “outside” customers beyond the casino and immediate vicinity of the beach. In
January, they were erecting poles for a transmission line on North Branciforte Av. as far as “the G. H.
Normand residence at the junction of Glen Canyon and Blackburn drives”102, as well as installing
transmission lines in Chinatown103.
The COEC again bid on the yearly contract with the City to provide incandescent lights for the
esplanade but was underbid by the Santa Cruz Electric Light and Power Co.104
In February, City Trustees Leask and Parker were delegated to arrange with the COEC to install
incandescent lighting on Church Street between the library and Pacific Ave105.
There was also news that the COEC was awarded a contract for lighting Pacific Ave. from 5/20 to 9/20 at
$80 per month, “$20 less than the old company last year106. This is at odds with the fact that newspaper
accounts indicate that COEC held the contract the previous year (see above). In any case, the April
expenses of the City street lighting plant included $126.06 for “oil and street lights” paid to the
COEC.107
The streets of Santa Cruz were now bestrewn with transmission lines of 4 electric utilities, in addition to
electric streetcar and telephone lines. This must have reached a level of chaos and disorganization that
precipitated the erection of new poles on Pacific Ave. that would carry “the combined lines of the
various companies”, suggesting some degree of (possibly forced) cooperation between them108. Local
contractor George Pratchner was awarded the contract to erect 18 Oregon cedar poles109.
A merry-go-round driven by an electric motor was installed by the Beach Co. This is the earliest known
example of the use of COEC electricity for power rather than lighting110.
In May, Ralph Morris resigned as “superintendent” of the COEC plant. He was replaced by R. L. Cardiff,
who in turn resigned his position as the “City Electrician and Inspector of Wiring”111,112.
Fred Swanton announced a plan to build an ice plant at the beach to be run “in connection with COEC”,
i.e. using waste steam from the COEC power plant113. I do not know if this ice plant was ever built.
The COEC opened an office on Pacific Ave. (#155 or #164, opposite the Pacific Ocean House) in “a
room occupied by A. J. Hinds”114. Presumably this was for the purpose of transacting business with
customers other than the Beach Co.
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
Evening Sentinel (Santa Cruz, California) · Fri, Jan 6, 1905 · Page 3
Santa Cruz Surf, 1/27/1905, p.8:3.
Santa Cruz Sentinel (Santa Cruz, California) · Tue, Apr 4, 1905 · Page 1
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 2/8/1905, p.1.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 5/16/1905, p..
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 4/5/1905, p.1.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 2/9/1905, p.1.
Santa Cruz Surf, 2/10/1905, p.8.
Santa Cruz Surf, 2/7/1905, p.1:4.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 4/20/1905, p.6.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 4/16/1905, p.3.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 8/1/1905, p.3.
Page 27 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
1906
1906 proved to be a tumultuous year for the COEC from beginning to end.
Sale and Consolidation
In January, news leaked that the COEC had been sold to John Martin and Eugene DeSabla115,116,117. The
reported price was $100,000118, which would apparently represent a substantial return on the original
investment. Martin and DeSabla had recently purchased the Santa Cruz Electric Light and Power Co. and
the Watsonville Light and Power Co., so this could not have been a surprise. They were known to be also
negotiating to buy the Union Traction Co. and the Big Creek Power Co. and these further acquisitions
were completed by September, thereby removing all major electric utilities in the County from local
ownership. All the local companies became wholly-owned subsidiaries of a new corporate entity, the
Coast Counties Light and Power Company119120. The COEC power plant remained in operation until
1908, and in following its history I continue to refer to it as the “COEC power plant”.
R. L. Cardiff, superintendent of COEC is named superintendant of SCELP as well121 and his office moved
from 49 Pacific to “headquarters of new companmy”.122 This obviously was a step in the direction of
integrating the previously independent power companies.
In November, the COEC filed a certificate changing the principal place of business from Santa Cruz to
San Francisco under the names of John Martin, president, and Henry Malloch, Secretary.123
Earthquake
The COEC powerhouse was “partly wrecked” in the great earthquake of April 18th.124 Particulars on the
nature and extent of the wreckage are not forthcoming in the local papers. The lack of further news
coverage, plus the fact that the tourist attractions at the beach apparently continued operating during
the early summer tourist season, suggest that the wreckage was not extensive and was rapidly repaired.
The new owners of the COEC could take little comfort in this, given the tremendous damage suffered by
the properties of the newly incorporated P.G.and E. Co. in San Francisco. The next year, P.G.and E. Co
barely weathered a financial crisis precipitated by the expense of rebuilding facilities in the city.125
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 12/7/1905, p.5. (The A. J. Hinds real estate, loan, and insurance office.)
'Santa Cruz Electric Plant Sold' Los Angeles Herald, 1/12/1906.
116
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 1/13/1906, p.15.
117
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 1/12/1906, p.1.
118
'Electric Light and Power' Santa Cruz Surf, 1/11/1906, p.1:1.
119
Referred to below as the “CCLPC”.
120
Incorporated March, 1906.
San Francisco Call, 3/4/1906.
121
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 1/25/1906.
122
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 1/25/1906.
123
Co-Operative Electric Company: Certificate of Change of Principal Place of Business filed Nov. 21, 1906; County
Clerk’s Index No. 369. MAH Archives, courtesy of Marla Novo
124
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 4/27/1906, p.13.
125
Charles M. Coleman
P.G.and E. of California
McGraw-Hill,1952.
114
115
Page 28 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
Fire
The fire that destroyed the casino and plunge baths in June seared the collective psyche of Santa Cruz
to an even greater extent than the earthquake. However, the passageway at the eastern side of the
plunge bath building leading from the Tent City to the pleasure pier acted as a “firebreak” that allowed
firefighters to save the COEC power plant from going up in flames. (See the 1905 Sanborn Map in
Appendix. A) The Coast Counties Company rewarded each of the 3 firemen responsible with $25
cash126.
An interesting sidelight on this aspect of the fire is that there was at the time a proposal to expand the
courthouse building on Pacific Avenue by eliminating a public walkway between it and the IOOF
building. Opponents pointed out that eliminating the walkway would pose greater fire risk, citing as
evidence the experience at the COEC plant127, 128. This opposing argument apparently prevailed, and the
remnant of this legacy is preserved even today as the so-called “Cooper House Mall”.
The survival of the power plant, along with most of the tent city and “electric pier” enabled the Beach
Company to cobble together a semblance of a tourist attraction for the summer.129 Furthermore, COEC
power was available to support the rapid re-building and expansion of the Beach Co. facilities130.
Storm
Just before the close of the year, 1906 delivered a final wallop to the COEC power plant. The “worst
storm in memory” damaged many of the properties at the beach that had survived the earthquake and
fire, or that were already under re-construction. The bandstand was torn from its foundations on the pier
and hurled all the way across the railroad tracks. A large crew of men narrowly saved the smoke stack of
the power plant from being toppled131, but electrical lines throughout the city went down132.
126
127
128
129
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 6/11/1906, p.6.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 6/29/1906, p.4.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 6/30/1906, p.4.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 6/23/1906, p.1.; Santa Cruz Sentinel, 6/23/1906, p.8.
130
Santa Cruz Surf, 9/15/1906, p.1.
131
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 12/15/1906, p.9.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 12/15/1906, p.9.
132
Page 29 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
1907
In January, a notice appeared in local papers that the COEC
business office was moving a few doors up Pacific to #277, where
it would share space with the SCELP Company133. This was
another step in the integration of the previously independent
utility companies by their new owners, though the original
company names were still being used locally.
In March, John Martin announced plans to construct a new,
modern, larger power plant to be located adjacent to the Cottage
City134. Construction began later in March, with the view of having
the new plant operational for the summer season. 135 Remember
that this construction was undertaken in concert with re-building the casino and plunge baths after the
fire. The COEC power plant would be de-commissioned after the new plant came online.
In May the COEC plant was still being run at maximum capacity136 and the CCLPC contemplated starting
up their new plant even before the roof was constructed, so great was demand.
Coast Counties Power Plant Smokestack
COEC Power Plant Smokestack
Figure 10. Section of a 1907 panoramic photo showing the COEC power plant (center) next to the recently
re-built Plunge Bath (left). The smokestack of the “new” CCLPC power plant is visible behind the “old” COEC
plant. The incandescent lighting fixtures on the “electric pier” are also evident. Courtesy of the Santa Cruz
Beach Boardwalk Archives.
133
134
135
136
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 1/26/1907, p.9.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 3/2/1907, p.15.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 3/23/1907, p.1.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 5/28/1907, p.1.
Page 30 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
The new casino opened in mid June to great fanfare137. According to the Sentinel’s correspondent, the
opening was a triumphant success, and her description featured a detailed and laudatory description of
the “dazzling” electrical illumination of the new buildings on opening night (See Fig. 11.).138 Regrettably,
my information is not clear as to whether electricity on opening night was generated in the “old” or the
“new” power plant, or both.
Figure 11. Newly re-built casino on opening night. Santa Cruz Public Library
139
Santa Cruz Surf, 6/17/1907, p.3:3.
“First Night at the Casino” by Josephine Clifford McCracklin
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 6/22/1907, p.13.
139
“Second Casino at Night,” SCPL Local History, accessed June 23,
2017, http://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/items/show/11162.
Identifier: LH-scpl-459
137
138
Page 31 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
1908 and after
Power generating equipment was moved from the COEC power plant to the new Coast Counties power
plant across the street. The equipment moved to the new powerhouse included either “all”140, “two
boilers and engines”, or just “the boilers”141. I may be able to clarify this in an ensuing study of the Coast
Counties power plant.
The COEC power plant building was re-purposed142 and eluded the wrecking ball until November, 2016,
by which time its early history had been largely forgotten.
Coast Counties Power Plant
Former COEC Power Plant
Figure 12. This 1911 photo shows an early phase of construction of the Del Rey
Hotel. The COEC power plant building retains its original onion domes, but the
smokestack has been removed, reflecting its disuse as a power generating facility.
The Coast Counties power plant building is seen to the left. Photo is courtesy of
Santa Cruz Public Libraries143.
Santa Cruz Surf, 3/12/1908, p.4 : 4.
Journal of Electricity, Power, and Gas, S. F. Vol. 21 No. 1; p. 15; 7/4/1908
142
The Sanborn Fire Insurance Map for Santa Cruz, CA, 1917, p. 28 indicates the use of the building with the
notation “Stge”. I assume this means storage.
143
“Laying the foundation for the Casa ...,” SCPL Local History, accessed June 20,
2017, http://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/items/show/9408. Identifier LH-0143
140
141
Page 32 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
VI.
Mike Dalbey
APPENDIX
A. SANBORN MAPS
Several Sanborn Fire Insurance maps depict the COEC power plant and related infrastructure.
1905 p. 28:
This probably shows the power plant as constructed. The boilers, the dynamo, and two steam engines
are indicated. The new oil storage tank is shown on the right.
1917 p. 28:
The note indicates the power plant is now serving as a storage facility and that a new building has been
constructed partly over the oil tank..
Page 33 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
B. Floor Plan and Elevation
Page 34 of 35
�v. 1 06/27/2017
Mike Dalbey
Page 35 of 35
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Santa Cruz History Articles
Description
An account of the resource
Original articles by library staff and by local authors and material from historical books.
Articles on Santa Cruz County history, many with illustrations, are available here.
The Santa Cruz Public Libraries is grateful to our local historians and their publishers for giving permission to include their articles. The content of the articles is the responsibility of the individual authors.
It is the library's intent to provide accurate information. However, it is not possible to completely verify the accuracy of individual articles obtained from a variety of sources. If you believe that factual statements in an article are incorrect and can provide documentation, please contact the library.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Original Format
If the image is of an object, state the type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Digital file
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The Co-Operative Electric Company, Santa Cruz, California, 1904-08
Description
An account of the resource
This paper describes key aspects of the brief history of the Co-Operative Electric Company.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Dalbey, Mike
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2017-06-27
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
En
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
ARTICLE
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
AR-188
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
Santa Cruz (City)
1900s
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduced with permission of the author.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Electric Power Companies
Co-Operative Electric Company
Santa Cruz Beach, Cottage, and Tent City Compnany
Business
Public Works
-
https://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/files/original/29e2d23d756e2096f111ea801384785f.jpg
463f9f2cee37a30eb75a9ead0e4271ea
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Snapshot Stories
Description
An account of the resource
Photographs with a unique perspective on local history, collected from county residents.
Most of these photographs were gathered during a series of public events between 2013 and 2016. In most cases the photos are the property of the contributors. Please contact the library regarding the rights for reproduction.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Still Image
A static visual representation. Examples of still images are: paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type "text" to images of textual materials.
Original Format
If the image is of an object, state the type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
PHOTO
Physical Dimensions
The actual physical size of the original image.
8x10
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
'Do Not Enter' Sign After the Love Creek Mudslide
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
De Lany, Jerry
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
De Lany, Jerry
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1982
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
IMAGE
Language
A language of the resource
EN
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
PHOTO
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
SS-DELANYJ-04
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1980s
Boulder Creek
Disasters and Accidents
Public Works
-
https://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/files/original/efa0618a26d06a56025988a31961b100.pdf
ae2d4537506d7b15dbc750ab310d598f
PDF Text
Text
WPA Projects in Santa Cruz County
The Works Progress Administration (1935-1943) was a U.S. government agency created during the Great Depression to
provide jobs for unemployed workers. It funded projects throughout the country, including Santa Cruz County.
To find out what WPA projects there were in Santa Cruz County, Library staff spoke with the WPA archivist at the
National Archives in College Park, Maryland. We learned that the WPA recorded information about its projects on cards,
and arranged them by year and then geographical location. The National Archives microfilmed the cards and sells the
microfilm through the National Archives Trust Fund.
Based on the microfilm, we have compiled a list of some of the projects in this county. It should not be considered
complete. For a fuller list of projects and more information, consult the microfilm rolls. To compile a complete and
detailed list, other sources would need to be checked--newspapers and perhaps records of other agencies. Seemingly
inconsistent information needs to be cleared up. For example, the creation date of Post Office murals and the date of
the Civic Auditorium.
The employment projects fall into three groups: public works, social services, and clerical and professional occupations.
The listings are transcribed from the project descriptions on the cards. The dates after the listings are also taken from
the cards. Dates on this list should not be considered definitive. Many projects spanned more than one year; there were
often several similar projects in other years that are not listed here.
Some Projects that Provided Employment in Public Works
Construction/Improvement of Buildings and Bridges:
Completion of the Valencia Bridge and approaches (1935)
Make improvements and additions to the Division of Forestry Headquarters in Felton... (1938)
A non-federal project to develop a City Corporation Yard in the city of Santa Cruz...[We do not known what is
meant by a "non-federal" project] (1939)
A non-federal project to improve buildings and grounds at schools throughout the city of Santa Cruz...(1939)
Improve roads. ...construction new bridges; constructing sidewalks, paths, boardwalks... [Sponsor is the County
of Santa Cruz] [ An old, unverified reference file lists Zayante Creek bridge and Glen Canyon bridge as a WPA
projects. Could these be the bridges referred to?] (1941)
Construct school building at Scotts Valley School... (1941)
Construct facilities and improve grounds at Camp McQuaide... (1941)
1
�
Construct fire station and community hall... [Sponsor: City of Santa Cruz] [This may be the Civic Auditorium,
usually dated as 1940, and Fire Station #1 on Center Street] (1942)
Make alterations and construct new addition to the Santa Cruz County Hospital and improve grounds... (1942)
Other Public Works:
Improve school athletic equipment (1935)
Improve recreational facilities in city owned parks in and near the city of Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, by
landscaping, grading and leveling grounds, installing sprinkler systems (1937)
Roadwork:
Construct fire trail and motorway on Coast Road (1935)
Improving various roads not in the Federal Aid System (1935)
Rocking roads in vicinity of Soquel (1935)
Surfacing with crushed rock and fuel oil Front Gulch and Larkin Valley Road near Aptos (1935)
Brushing, clearing, widening, drainage structures, and oiling Zayante Road, beginning at Lompico Creek (1935)
Improving 7.45 miles of Soquel-San Jose Road (1935)
Improve Empire Grade Road (1936)
Improve Lockhart Gulch Road (1936)
Improve Escalona Drive in the city of Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, including clearing, scrubbing widening,
grading, oiling, installing culverts (1937)
Improve Center and Church Streets... (1938)
Improve streets in the vicinity of and through Natural Bridge Park...(1938)
Construct public road on San Andreas Road to Camp McQuaide... (1942)
Sewers and Drains:
Construct sewer main, laying sewer pipe and construct manholes (1935)
Construct drainage system for flood control (1936)
Community sanitation-the elimination of insanitary [sic] devices by the construction of sanitary privies in rural
areas and suburban territories where sewer systems are impracticable (1937)
Construct water mains and sanitary sewers in North Branciforte Avenue, Escalona Drive and Center Street...
(1937)
Construct sanitary sewers, with manholes and other necessary appurtenances, in and near Soquel... (1938)
Construct sanitary sewers, with manholes and other necessary appurtenances, in and near Watsonville... (1938)
2
�Some Projects that Provided Employment in the Social Services
Employ women to make clothes for the needy (1935)
"Sewing rooms" (1935)
Handle surplus relief commodities (1935)
Transient work camp in lieu of direct relief. Redwood State Park [Exact description. It is unclear if this project
was to provide a camp or to build one or both] (1936)
Provide public health nurses for needy families (1936)
Provide leadership in public recreation and leisure time activities (1936)
Provide employment for needy persons in furnishing free home assistance in housework and in the care of
children (1936)
Provide employment for needy professional, educational and clerical person in the maintenance and operation
of free nursery schools for the needy (1937)
Provide training courses for persons desiring household employment (1938)
Maintain and operate free nursery schools for children from needy families and other low income groups (1938)
Provide matron service for girls' rest rooms in public schools throughout Santa Cruz County (1938)
Supervise and operate shops for producing, repairing and renovating garments and articles for free distribution
to the needy, public institutions and public agencies, or for use on other WPA projects.[The sponsor is listed as
the State of California. Dept. of Social Welfare] (1942)
Projects Providing Clerical and Professional Employment
Make property maps of mining districts (1935)
To transcribe, catalog, cross-index, and prepare a new file of records in the public library in Watsonville... (1936)
Provide employment for needy professional, educational and clerical persons to index and prepare a new file
system of records of vocational handicapped persons for the Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation (1937)
To provide employment for needy professional, educational, and clerical persons to assist in organizing and
operating library services for the Santa Cruz public school libraries...(1937)
Sort, transcribe, and file police case histories...[city of Santa Cruz] (1938)
Nationwide: A professional project for the employment of needy unemployed artists; painter, sculptors, graphic
artists, craftsmen, art teachers, art lecturers, ...who are qualified by training and experience to perform a
function in the field of art activity... The program to be carried forward in the field of mural painting...[There is
no specific mention in the cards of the downtown Santa Cruz Post Office murals, which would seem to fit under
this WPA-funded project. However, the information posted in the Post Office states that the murals were
painted by Henrietta Shore (1880-1963) in 1936-37 and installed in 1937. The funding came from the Treasury
Relief Art Project, a branch of the WPA ] (1938)
3
�
Nationwide: A professional project for the employment of instrumentalists, singers, and other concert
performers, piano tuners, instrument repairers, music binders, and those participating in social and rural music,
music education and recreation. [Not known if there were any programs in Santa Cruz under this program]
(1938)
Nationwide: A professional project for the employment of writers, editors, historians, research workers, art
critics, architects, archaeologist, map draftsmen, geologists, and other professional workers for the preparation
of material for the American Guide Series...[a publication in this series that covered California was, Federal
Writers Project. California: a guide to the golden state.] (1938)
Nationwide: A professional project for the employment of actors, playwrights, vaudeville and variety artists,
circus entertainers....to produce various kinds of theatrical entertainment... [We do not know if there were any
local or visiting productions in Santa Cruz] (1938)
Arrange, transcribe and classify data contained in estate records and inventories filed for probate...(1939)
Transcribe and code all active venereal disease case records for 1939 in public clinics (1939)
Source
U.S. Works Progress Administration. Location Project File, 1935--1942. U.S. National Archives. Microfilm.
It is the library’s intent to provide accurate information, however, it is not possible for the library to completely verify the
accuracy of all information. If you believe that factual statements in a local history article are incorrect and can provide
documentation, please contact the library.
4
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Santa Cruz History Articles
Description
An account of the resource
Original articles by library staff and by local authors and material from historical books.
Articles on Santa Cruz County history, many with illustrations, are available here.
The Santa Cruz Public Libraries is grateful to our local historians and their publishers for giving permission to include their articles. The content of the articles is the responsibility of the individual authors.
It is the library's intent to provide accurate information. However, it is not possible to completely verify the accuracy of individual articles obtained from a variety of sources. If you believe that factual statements in an article are incorrect and can provide documentation, please contact the library.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Original Format
If the image is of an object, state the type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Digital file
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
AR-091
Title
A name given to the resource
WPA Projects in Santa Cruz County
Subject
The topic of the resource
Works Progress Administration
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Library Staff
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
U.S. Works Progress Administration. Location Project File, 1935--1942. U.S. National Archives. Microfilm.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
Santa Cruz (County)
1930s
1940s
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
En
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
ARTICLE
Government
Public Works
-
https://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/files/original/b0c92c90026c6f75f8e4cf74f1230666.pdf
a0218630e8cd36831b249b8fd5f17df4
PDF Text
Text
The History of Floods on the San Lorenzo River
in the City of Santa Cruz
By Daniel McMahon
From "The Big Flood-California 1955" by the California Disaster Office
CONTENTS
Introduction and Early History
Floods and Flood Control on the San Lorenzo River in the City of Santa Cruz
Table of Floods: Recorded Floods on the San Lorenzo River in the City of Santa Cruz
Degree of Damage and Public Reaction to Floods
Bibliography
1
�Introduction and Early History
18 Floods on the San Lorenzo River in 10 Decades
The downtown area of the City of Santa Cruz has been located in the floodplain of the San
Lorenzo River since the 1860's. This has been made apparent to Santa Cruzans many times
between 1862 and 1982, when the river has flooded or threatened to flood parts of the town.
There were more than 18 incidents described as "floods" between 1862 and 1958, though
these recorded floods have varied in severity from minor inconveniences to major disasters for
the city. A table of the dates and levels of these floods is included, as is an article on flood
control, and the bibliography of the sources for these articles.
Santa Cruz on Dec. 23, 1955, as the "Christmas Flood" of 1955
recedes. The Riverside Avenue Bridge is in the upper right
center, and Beach Hill is on the right. Note the sand island in
the lower reach of the San Lorenzo River, removed during
construction of the levees, 1958-59. Note also the trees lining
the river channel, and the buildings on both banks where the
levees are today.
From "The Big Flood-California 1955"
Earliest Recorded History of Floods: Mission Santa Cruz, 1791-1799
The San Lorenzo River was named by the Portola Expedition on Oct. 17, 1769, and was an
important part of what made the future site of Santa Cruz attractive for the founding of a
mission. The expedition of 1769 found the river to be two to three feet deep and "18 varas" or
about 50 feet wide on that October day. The site was officially chosen for a mission in 1774, and
the mission was established late in 1791. A temporary church and several other buildings were
quickly built but, "...it was soon found that the new establishment was too near the river and
had to be rebuilt on higher land." The cornerstone of a new church (the historically known
mission chapel of 1793-1850's) was "laid on higher land" on Feb. 27, 1793. The exact site of that
first, temporary church is unknown today, but to be threatened by the river, it must have been
either close to the edge of Mission Hill, or below it. (An 1853 map of Santa Cruz shows the river
channel almost striking the bluff, where North Pacific Ave. is today.)
But the Mission's troubles with the river did not end with relocation to higher ground in 1793.
The new church and its outbuildings, such as the flour mill, were damaged by heavy rains in
1796, 1797 and 1799. But more importantly for this history, the lower lands between Mission
Hill and Beach Hill, used by the mission for growing crops, were flooded by the river in early
1798. From the combination of rain and flood damage suffered by the mission in its first
decade, Santa Cruz became known as a "hard luck" mission. 1
2
�Possible floods, 1799-1852
The only record (that I have yet found) of floods on the San Lorenzo River from 1799 to 1862 is
an article that appeared in the Pacific Sentinel on Dec. 23, 1871. This article states that,
A flood occurred in the year 1822, when the water covered all the lowlands and rose to
a greater height than ever before. Had the country been settled then as now the
disaster would have been very great. The next memorable flood occurred in 1832, the
water not reaching the extreme heights of ten years before, but still covering the low
lands to a great extent. In 1842, there occurred another great flood, not unlike that of
'32. The pioneer settlers of California remember distinctly the flood of 1852, and it is not
necessary to dwell upon the particulars. The last great flood occurred in the winter of
1862...The winter of 1872 is supposed to complete the circle again, premising that a
flood will occur every ten years.
Ironically, it was later on the very day that this article appeared, Dec. 23, 1871, that another
major flood struck Santa Cruz. Generally, every year that ends in a "2" has not brought a flood,
but the early groping for some sensible pattern of the recurrence of such natural events is
understandable, and can be seen as a progenitor of the later system of classifying floods as
being 10-year, 50-year or 100-year events. The idea that flooding occurs on a completely
predictable basis was not proven out over the next 120 years, and in the absence of any
verifying sources, the exact dates and severity of floods between the 1790's and the 1860's
must remain uncertain. But it is likely that noticeable floods occurred in Santa Cruz, before
heavy development of the floodplain, and the 1871 article provides some evidence of this. (The
1852 and 1862 floods mentioned are found in other newspaper articles from 1862.)
Development of Santa Cruz onto the Floodplain, and the Flood of 1862
Between 1791 and the 1840's, the Mission (and later Town of Santa Cruz) and the civil
settlement at the Villa de Branciforte were located outside of the floodplain, on the tops of the
bluffs to the west and east of the river. As the population of the area grew in the late Mexican
and early American periods, buildings other than mills or farm structures began to be built in
the space available between the bluffs. A visitor commented in 1841-42, "In the space which
separates the Mission from the Villa de Branciforte are being built new houses, which in due
time will no doubt make an important city."2 Elihu Anthony built the first brick structure below
Mission Hill in 1849, hugging the base of the hill, right where North Pacific Ave. runs next to the
town clock today.3
Gradually, more houses were built in the lower lands, and the business district shifted down
onto the "flats" as well. The intersection of Water, Willow (Pacific) and Main (Front) Streets
became the "lower plaza," and the Mission plaza the "upper." Symbolizing the shift of the town
to its present center was the decision in 1866 to locate the new county courthouse on Cooper
St. rather than on Mission Hill. (See the article, “History of the Santa Cruz Courthouse” by
3
�Margaret Souza.) As the center of town moved down onto the flats, it also moved entirely onto
the floodplain of the San Lorenzo River.
The first serious flood to hit the growing town was in the winter of 1861-62, and it was a shock
to residents, as bridges and mills upstream were destroyed, buildings built on the banks of the
river within the city were washed out to sea (one barn allegedly went to sea in an upright
position), and water ran against the base of Mission Hill and eroded 30 feet of it away. 4 This
flood was different from later floods in that more damage resulted from erosion, both at the
north end of town and down at the "Cathcart Orchard" than from actual inundation. The water
level was described later as being comparable with 1871, or about 16 feet, and thus the
flooding of what we now call downtown was not that widespread. (Of course, neither was the
downtown at that time, which was concentrated in a few blocks near the lower plaza.)
The river did not follow its present course to the north of town, and there was a curve in the
channel that directed high water at the bank near the town's north edge, near the base of
Mission Hill. After the 1862 flood, it was claimed that the river was "several hundred feet
nearer to the town" than it had been before. While damage from inundation and moving water
laden with debris were to characterize later floods, the flood of 1862 raised fears about the loss
of land underneath the buildings, land which was valuable for expansion of the town.
Changes in the River's Course, 1850's to Present
The river's approximate course north of downtown in the 1850's and 1860's was much nearer
to the base of Mission Hill. Most of the town of Santa Cruz from the early 1850's was
concentrated near the Lower Plaza, very near to the bulkhead built after 1862. Information on
the course of the river in the 1850's is taken from an 1853 map of Santa Cruz by A.D. Bache.
River Street follows the old course of the channel closely where it rounds the north end of
Mission Hill.
The response to this flood by townspeople was the earliest form of flood control: they built a
bulkhead to stabilize the river bank near the plaza (at the site of today's Bulkhead St.), they
began work to change the river channel so that it would run past Mission Hill and not straight at
4
�it, and property owners on the lower part of Willow (Pacific) began to fill their lots, in order to
raise the grade and prevent the San Lorenzo from crossing through their land on the way to
Neary's Lagoon. (The land on lower Pacific, and in other parts of downtown has been raised
four feet or more from its natural grade by such filling.) One last feature of the flood of 1862
was that there were no bridges across the river yet, thus no bridges to be damaged or to trap
debris and raise the water level behind them.
Repeated Flooding of Santa Cruz: 1871-1958
Subsequent floods, beginning in 1871, found bridges in the river channel, and damaged them or
built logjams behind them. There were also more buildings near the river that could be flooded,
although these were not right on the river's banks. Such things changed the perceptions of
floods after 1862. But generally, all subsequent floods sent river water into the same areas. The
water usually left the riverbanks in one of two places, either at the foot of Pacific Ave. on the
west bank (at today's Laurel/Broadway St. bridge) or at the foot of Broadway on the east bank.
Lower Pacific was frequently flooded (1862, 1878, 1881, 1890, 1895, 1907, 1911, 1940, 1941,
1955) with a few inches to a few feet of water. The Broadway/Barson Tract/Riverside/May St.
area on the east bank flooded frequently as well, with one to three feet of water (1871, 1907,
1938, 1940, 1941, 1955). The area near Paradise Park (and the Powder Mill) would be cut off
and flooded (1862, 1881, 1938, 1940, 1941, 1955) and the east bank near Branciforte Creek and
now-gone Garfield St. (the site of San Lorenzo Park) would flood next (1878, 1889, 1907, 1911,
1940, 1941, 1955, 1982).
High water levels would often flood the basements of buildings on Pacific Ave. (1871, 1878,
1880, 1890, 1940, 1955) and if the water was especially high, it would run up Soquel Ave., and
flow down Pacific Ave. from a few inches to a few feet deep (1878, 1890, 1955). This water
could reach several blocks west of Pacific Ave., and combined with rain water unable to drain to
the river, would reach the Chestnut/Center/Church St. area (1889, 1890, 1940, 1941, 1955).
The highest floodwaters also hit hard at the North Pacific or Bulkhead area, as anywhere from a
foot of water (1871, 1880, 1890, 1907) to a large portion of the river's flow (1955) would take
this route, in the late 19th century flowing "over the bulkhead." The upper River St. area near
the tannery would also be flooded on occasion (1862, 1907, 1940, 1955) as would the low-lying
Josephine St. and El Rio Mobile Home Park (1940, 1941, 1955, 1958).
Bridges across the river would be frequently damaged by floods (1871, 1881, 1890, 1931, 1938,
1940, 1941, 1955, 1982). Wooden bridges were more vulnerable than concrete ones, as
damage to bridges was universal in the 19th century, and often limited to the surviving wooden
footbridges at Cooper St. and Ocean St. in the early 20th century. But concrete bridges could
suffer as well. The footings of the unfinished Highway One Bridge and the Riverside Avenue
Bridge were damaged in 1955, and the older half of the Soquel Avenue Bridge was undermined,
collapsing two lanes in 1982.
5
�One area which flooded repeatedly, and from which residents were often evacuated by boat,
no longer exists. The newspapers of 1878, 1880, 1889 and 1890 refer to the "island" in the
river, which had houses on it. This was not the sand island in the lower reaches of the river, but
was further upstream, and was also referred to as the "Midway Plaissance" or just the Midway.
This island was "a raised patch of ground in the marshy lowlands of the San Lorenzo River...To
reach the island pedestrians had to cross by a foot bridge from the end of Cooper St."(5) This
would today be approximately the location of the parking lot of Long's Drugs, the Galleria, or
the UA Theaters on River St., and the island feature (like the sand island further down the river)
disappeared with the redevelopment project that followed the 1955 flood.
The "Christmas Flood" of 1955
The costliest, deadliest, and most well-known flood in the history of Santa Cruz was on Dec. 22,
1955. Much is written about this event in other places, and it is remembered well by many local
people. The river moved well out of its banks on both sides, and flowed down Pacific Ave. at a
depth of three to four feet. Water reached the steps of city hall on Center St., and was over
eight feet deep in places on the east side of Front St. At the time, this was called a 100-year
flood, but is generally called a 40-year flood today. (The same can be said for the storm of
1982.) But the water level was unquestionably higher in 1955 than in any other historic flood.
Nine people were killed in Santa Cruz, two of these in their house on Garfield St. Water flow
had reached the maximum possible at the Riverside Avenue Bridge, and the river had begun to
back up behind it as the flood peaked. Had this peak occurred at high tide, the level of water
could have been higher, and the damage to Santa Cruz would
have been even worse.
Map (c) 1997 Daniel McMahon. Information on street
locations, the extent of the floodplain and the 1955 flood are
from maps created by the city's Department of Engineering,
published in San Lorenzo River Flood, December 22, 1955, by
the Flood Control Committee of the Santa Cruz Chamber of
Commerce, 1956.
Floodplain and Area Flooded on
December 23, 1955
6
�The San Lorenzo River Since 1958
Since April 1958, the river has only come close to topping the levees in the city a single time, on
January 4, 1982. There was some flooding along Branciforte Creek that day, and the benchland
below the County Government Center filled with water. When one half of the Soquel Ave.
bridge was undermined and collapsed, it took a large part of the telephone lines to the eastside
of Santa Cruz with it. The water level measured at the Water Street Bridge in 1982 was 18 feet
above sea level, which is second only to 1955's 20.8 feet. The measurement of flow at the Big
Trees gauge in Felton was very close to that of 1955, and clearly greater than the large flood of
1940. And yet the levees held, if only by a thin margin, and there was not a recurrence of the
widespread flooding that the City of Santa Cruz had seen so many times between 1862 and
1958.
Photograph taken by Daniel McMahon on Jan.
5, 1982. It is taken from the top of the levee on
the west bank of the river, downstream from
the Soquel Avenue Bridge. The water in the
river had already receded from the day before.
Soquel Avenue Bridge, January 5, 1982
Citations
1. Story of the Mission Santa Cruz, pp.68-78, pp.188-195. The 1853 map can be seen
in Santa Cruz County Place Names between pages 79 and 80.
2. Story of the Mission Santa Cruz, De Mofras, on p.359.
3. This structure was replaced by the "Anthony Block" which was moved to extend Pacific
Avenue in the late 1920's. SC Sentinel, 1927 and Parade of the Past, 24.
4. Pacific Sentinel, Jan. 17, 1862, p.2, c.1. "The bluff above Mr. E. Anthony's which, from its
formation kept the current of the stream from washing the bank next to the town, has
been gradually falling in until now about thirty feet is gone." This was a major storm for
all of California, and flooded the Capitol building in Sacramento.
5. The Sidewalk Companion to Santa Cruz Architecture p. 195.
7
�Floods and Flood Control on the San Lorenzo River in the City of Santa Cruz
Characteristics of Floods on the San Lorenzo River
The San Lorenzo River drains a watershed of approximately 138 square miles, and drops from
an elevation of 2900 ft. to sea level in its 22 mile length. (The first 2000 ft. drop occurs in the
first three miles.) To quote from an Army Corps of Engineers report of 1982, "Historically, the
San Lorenzo River has frequently flooded and caused substantial damages. Peak flows occur
when a short-duration, intense storm follows a longer period of heavy rainfall which saturates
the soil." These peak flows do not last very long, generally no longer than 18 to 36 hours.
Damage from floods is caused as much by the force of moving water and debris as by
inundation, as is seen clearly in the photograph below of the 1955 flood on Pacific Ave. 1
This photograph shows the flood tide running down
Pacific Ave. on Dec. 23, 1955. Photo taken by Ed
Webber. Provided courtesy of Daniel McMahon.
(Available at Covello and Covello Photography.)
Most of downtown Santa Cruz, and many
neighborhoods on the east side of the river lay in the
floodplain, generally below the 20 ft. elevation point.
These areas are largely surrounded by bluffs, which
Floodwater on Pacific Avenue near Soquel
Avenue, December 23, 1955
rise to the top of an upraised marine terrace that is
from 60 to 100 ft. in elevation, and which is thought
to be about 100,000 years old. Beach Hill is in the center of the floodplain, at the terminus of
the river, and is approx. 55 ft. in elevation at its highest. The river only runs against the bluffs in
two places today, at the back of Beach Hill (under Laurel St. Extension) and at the east side of
the river mouth. There is some evidence that the river has taken different routes across the
floodplain in geological time than the route it has been known to (generally) follow since 1769.
To quote Margaret Koch,
When the Santa Cruz Civic Auditorium was under construction in 1941, test borings
revealed that the San Lorenzo River originally had run around the foot of Mission Hill
instead of its present course, and Neary's Lagoon is probably a remnant of the river's
ancient bed.2
Flood Control: The 19th Century through the 1950's
Beginning with the bulkhead erected north of the downtown in the 1860's, Santa Cruzans have
sought some measure of protection from high river levels, especially when several floods
8
�occurred within a few years (1889 and 1890, 1938, 1940 and 1941). As far back as 1871,
editorials in one local paper were calling for a bulkhead that would run the length of the river,
and that could limit erosion and prevent the river from overflowing its banks. Funding for a
flood control project was provided by the U.S. Congress in the mid 1950's, and while this
project was being planned, the flood of December 1955 occurred. The project was scaled up as
a result, and construction began in 1958. The San Lorenzo River's levees were designed by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and constructed by the Granite Construction Company.
One more flood occurred before completion of the levees, in April 1958, but many of the
buildings that would have been damaged had been torn down to make space for the levees. A
redevelopment area was also created, to reclaim the "wrecked areas" from 1955, and this
would ultimately include the elimination of several streets (such as Garfield and Eagle Streets),
the rerouting of other streets, and the building of San Lorenzo Park, the shopping center on
Front St. (Longs, etc.), and the banks and parking structures near the Veteran's Memorial
building. A new county government center was added to the area set aside for San Lorenzo
Park as well. But the major part of the project was the construction of the levees. All homes and
trees adjacent to the river in the city were removed, including Santa Cruz's last Chinatown,
adjacent to Front St. A channel from 150 feet to 200 feet wide, and theoretically 25 feet deep
was constructed, and this channel was designed to contain a "100 year" flood.
The floodwaters of April 1958 reached Front St., behind
the St. George Hotel. Many of the buildings that would
have been flooded had been removed in preparation for
the construction of levees, as is the case with the
flooded foundations of buildings on the now-gone Eagle
St., behind the Post Office. The recent experience of the
flood of 1955 had also left citizens, merchants and public
officials well prepared for dealing with river flooding in
1958.
Flood of April, 1958 Reaches Front Street –
Photo by Ed Webber, Provided Courtesy of
Daniel McMahon
Problems with the Flood Control Project: 1970's and 1980's
By the 1970's, it became apparent that a tremendous amount of silt was accumulating in the
channel, and the cost of removing this silt was higher than the city of Santa Cruz felt it could
afford, especially as a huge quantity would need to be removed just to reach a level where
maintenance of the river's capacity could take place. Dire predictions were made about the
capacity of the silt-filled channel, but the storm of 1982 brought a welcome surprise. Much of
the silt and sediment in the channel was moved out of the river with the floodwaters, and the
levees were able to contain an estimated 33,000 c.f.s of water in the city. (The figure for 1955,
the highest known flood, was 39,000 c.f.s.) Only this "scour effect" saved the levees from failing
and inundating the city, but the level of protection offered was still not equivalent to the 1009
�year level, which is mandated for both continued development within the floodplain, and for
insurance coverage.
In addition, the 1958-59 flood control levees had transformed the river from a tree-lined and
very scenic part of town, to a sterile drainage ditch. The siltation of the channel and the lack of
deep pools of water, coupled with low summer river flows and a lack of shade on the water
(once provided by trees on the banks) had decimated fish populations in the river. Fishing in the
San Lorenzo had been incredibly popular until the 1960's, and trout and salmon were routinely
caught in the city and in the San Lorenzo Valley. In contrast, the river contained by the high
levees was barren of most wildlife, the fish populations declined, and the levees separated the
two sides of town visually as well.
This aerial view shows the sterility of the river channel
within the city, before many bushes or grasses had
returned to the channel. The new County Government
Center is under construction, as is the Laurel/Broadway
Street Bridge.
Present Flood Control Plans and the Future of the River
New studies by the Army Corps of Engineers undertaken
in the 1980's agreed with local earth scientists that the
flood protection was inadequate, and that constant
dredging of the riverbed was an expensive and
impractical solution. But in light of the high degree of
San Lorenzo River Flood Control Project,
scour of sediment shown in the 1982 flood, the situation circa 1967 - Photo by Ed Webber,
Provided Courtesy of Daniel McMahon
was not as bad as had been feared in the late 1970's.
The Corps found that the major impediment to water
flow in the river was certain bridges, specifically the upper part of the Water Street Bridge, and
the Riverside Avenue Bridge. (Both of these have since been replaced, the Water Street Bridge
only being finished the week that this article is being written.) And additional flood protection
can be gained by constructing short walls atop the levees, from 1 to 3 feet high, and these
would still allow for some vegetation to grow within the river channel, which will benefit
wildlife, fish populations, and the river's scenic and recreational attributes.
In 1987, the City of Santa Cruz issued the San Lorenzo River Design Concept Plan, which
contained the elements previously described to enhance the flood protection and
environmental quality of the river, and to enhance the visual and recreational value of the river
in town. Work has begun with the rebuilding of the Water St. and Riverside Ave. bridges, and
hopefully it will continue in the next few years to achieve the twin goals of ensuring adequate
flood protection for a 100-year event, and restoring some of the aesthetic qualities the river
possessed before 1959. The scenic and recreational parts of the plan involve the construction of
amphitheaters, the improvement of access from town, walkways along the river, and the
10
�encouragement of recreation-oriented businesses in the proximity of the river. Plans also call
for the planting of trees both atop and within the levees, in a design that will enhance the
beauty of the river and provide the shade necessary for vigorous fish life, while not causing
problems at times of peak water flow.
If better flood protection and simultaneous restoration of the river's ecology and recreational
potential seem like difficult or unobtainable goals, it is good to remember that citizens of Santa
Cruz have been calling for and working toward protection from floods since the 1860's. The
historic record of floods in Santa Cruz before 1959 contrasts markedly with the lack of floods
since. Only the storm of Jan. 4, 1982 came close (very close) to topping the levees, and the
quantity of water in the river was comparable to the quantity of water that caused the
"Christmas Flood" of December, 1955. (See the Table of Floods.)
A reading of the history of a town developing in a floodplain, and struggling to cope with the
floods of 120 years suggests that there is a relationship between the river and the city, and that
this has always been a changing relationship. Some balance can hopefully be found between
the protection of the City of Santa Cruz from the San Lorenzo River, and the protection of the
natural aspects of the river from the city.
Citations
1. Information in this paragraph is from The San Lorenzo River Watershed Management
Plan, p. 93, Report on the Floods of 4-6 January 1982 in the San Francisco and Monterey
Bay Areas, p. 10, and Flood Control Failure: San Lorenzo River, California, p. 407.
2. This intriguing report is from Parade of the Past, p. 204. More information on the
geology of the downtown basin would be welcome. A test boring in the early 1990's at
the Buick/Toyota/Kinko's building on Laurel Street at Pacific Avenue showed sandy soil,
deposited by the river, to a depth of over 50 feet, when the drilling stopped. It would be
interesting to know the depth and extent of river-deposited soil, and what other paths
the river has taken through the downtown basin in the last 100,000 years.
11
�Table of Floods:
Recorded floods on the San Lorenzo River in the City Santa Cruz
Year
Date
Extent
1852 unknown
Said to be 3 feet lower than 1862 flood.
1862 Jan. 11
est. 16 ft. above sea level at Water St. Said to be equal to the height of the 1871
flood, though more destructive due to erosion.
1871 Dec. 23
16.03 ft. at the Water St. bridge.
1878 Feb. 14
14.61 ft.
1880 Apr. 21
15.11 ft.
1881 Jan. 29
15.41 ft.
1889
Dec. 8
14.31 ft.
1890 Jan. 25
16.35 ft.
1895
Jan. 4
16.00 ft. (est.)
1907 Mar. 27
15.74 ft.
1911 Jan. 14
14.69 ft. at Water St.
1931 Dec. 28
Unknown. Sand island in river submerged.
1938 Jan. 31
Unknown. Called "Worst Flood in 15 Years."
1940 Feb. 27
17.41 ft. at Water St., 24,000 c.f.s. at Felton.
1941
Feb. 9
15.30 ft. at Water St., 15,500 c.f.s. at Felton
1945
Feb. 1
15.70 ft. at Water St.
20.8 ft. at Water St., initially reported as 28,800 c.f.s. at Felton, later reported as
1955 Dec. 23 30,400 c.f.s. Estimated at 39,000 c.f.s. below Branciforte Creek in Santa Cruz, where
3/4 of 100-year flood plain (410 acres) inundated.
1958
Apr. 2
"...past the 14 foot flood stage" at Water St., 17,200 c.f.s. Felton, 18,500 c.f.s.
Santa Cruz.
1982
Jan. 4
18.0 ft. at Water St., 29,700 c.f.s at Felton, 33,000 c.f.s. in Santa Cruz, below
Branciforte Creek.
Notes
The primary sources for this table are contemporary newspaper accounts and figures in city,
county, state and federal literature on the river, floods, and flood control.
It is difficult to compare flood levels and volumes from year to year; measurements have not
always been taken in the same places, and are often reported incorrectly after several years.
Traditionally, the elevation figures for floods are taken at the Water Street Bridge, and
expressed in feet above sea level. Measurements of the volume of water in the river (in cubic
feet per second, or c.f.s.) have been taken near Big Trees in Felton since 1937. Some flow
measurements have been taken in the city in the last 40 years, but generally the flow figures for
Santa Cruz are estimates.
12
�Degree of Damage and Public Reaction to Floods
In addition to quantitative measurements, (see Table of Floods) the public reaction as found in
newspaper stories is another good way to compare the levels and severity of different floods.
While this is a very subjective body of information, some of the details gleaned from
contemporary accounts are quite interesting, and give a more immediate perspective than city,
county, state and federal literature on floods and flood control.
Jan. 11, 1862: Severe. The river ate lots of land, and destroyed many buildings. (There were
many buildings closer to the river in 1862 than would later be the case.) The "bulkhead" at
today's Bulkhead Street was built after this flood, to prevent water flowing down Main and
Willow Streets (Front St. and Pacific Ave.). There were attempts to alter the course of the river
as well, which at that time ran very close to the bluff below the mission, where North Pacific
Ave. is today. 1862 became the legendary flood for late 19th and early 20th century Santa Cruz
oldtimers, yet the correct date is often listed incorrectly in the newspapers after 1871.
Dec. 23, 1871: Fairly serious. "Considerable loss and inconvenience." First mention of bridge
damage, as bridges had spanned the San Lorenzo since the last flood in 1862. Water levels
compared to 1862, but damage estimated at half as much.
Feb. 14, 1878: Not very serious. Little discussion in paper.
Apr. 21, 1880: Severe rains, but flood taken very lightly. "Farmers were happy as ducks, few
being of the opinion that this storm had caused them any serious damage." (SC Sentinel,
4/24/80, p.3, c.6)
Jan. 29, 1881: Moderate. "...the damages sustained in this city last week, all from the detritus
and 'slickens'..." were mostly to the bridges, of which none failed. (SC Sentinel, 2/ /81, p3, c.1)
Feb. 08, 1889: Moderate. People were on the bridges, watching the river "...mindless of the
danger." (SC Sentinel, 12/10/89, p. 3, c. 4)
Jan. 25, 1890: Severe flood. River was "Highest Yet Known." Water was deep but "Damage
Resulting Will Not Be Very Great." The rail bridge at the mouth of the river is believed to have
made this flood much worse, by backing up water behind a debris dam collected against the
pilings. The failure of the rail bridge was immediately followed by a drop in the flood's level.
(The practice of using pilings to span the river was stopped after this flood.) This flood was well
remembered for 40 to 50 years. (SC Sentinel, 1/25/90, p.1, c.7)
Jan. 4, 1895: Extensive flooding of downtown areas, but no sense of panic. "Cellars, Yards and
Lots Covered With Water -- Railroad Bridge Dislodged -- Pacific Av. Looked Like a Lake" Water
went over the bulkhead in the North Pacific area, filled the "burned out district" on Front St.,
and crossed Pacific Ave. at Laurel. The article on this flood (SC Sentinel, Jan. 5, 1895, p.1, c.2) is
very detailed about the progress of the flood water, and very interesting.
13
�Mar. 27, 1907: Fairly serious. "Highest Water in This City in Years Causes Considerable Alarm
Along River." (SC Sentinel, 3/24/07, p.1, c.1) Flood control a topic for several years in editorials.
(eg.: SC Sentinel, Jan. 6, 1909, p.2)
Jan. 14, 1911: Very light reaction. Call for "River Bulkhead" on front page, but largest headline
was "Chickens Excited Along the San Lorenzo." (Article discusses flood's effect on poultry. SC
Sentinel, 1/15/11, p.1., c.7, p.3, c.3)
Dec. 28, 1931: Moderate. Worst flooding seems to have been in lower area of river, along East
Cliff Drive. "Island on the River Was Out Of Sight Sunday" and "the Chutes" at the Boardwalk
were surrounded by water. This flood may be the one referred to in the newspapers in 1940 as
the 1927 flood, as the 1931 description is consistent with the photographs of "1927" printed in
1940. This flood is notable as being the first one where a photograph was published in the
newspaper at the time it occurred.
Jan. 31, 1938: Moderate reaction. Headlines called this the "Highest Floods in 15 Years" and
there was some flooding of low-lying neighborhoods, primarily in the Barson Tract, near East
Cliff Drive and Ocean St. Homes in that area were flooded as "River Rampages Through City
Streets." But most of the damage was to the two wooden footbridges, one at Cooper St., and
the other at Ocean St. Total damage to bridges was $1000, and there was some damage to the
end of the Boardwalk as well. Numerous photographs of flooded areas were published in the
newspaper. (SC Sentinel, 2/1/38, p.1)
Feb. 27, 1940: Very severe. Banner headline was "San Lorenzo On Worst Rampage of Century."
"100 routed from homes by torrent." (SC Sentinel, 2/28/40, p.1)
Feb. 9, 1941: Moderate flood, but exasperated reaction as "Third Flood In Four Years Hits City
Property." Calls for flood control. (SC Sentinel, 2/11/41, p. 1)
Feb. 1, 1945: Light reaction. "River's Flood Peak Believed Past Despite Continued Rain." The
river "...threatened to inundate parts of Santa Cruz..." but only limited flooding occurred. (SC
Sentinel, 2/2/45, p.1)
Dec. 22, 1955: Beyond severe. Papers indicated near panic on Friday morning, as "City Braces
for New Flood." 9 lives were lost, and many people were missing right after the flood. There
was talk of rehabilitation of "Wrecked Area." This was the highest historic flood, filling 410
acres of lowlands outside of the river channel. The 1955 flood is deeply etched in the
community memory, and the water marks were evident on many older buildings downtown in
the late 1960's. The flood control project was being planned at this time, and was enlarged as a
result of this flood. In this storm, 90 percent of the damage in the county occurred within the
city, and ran into the millions of dollars. (SC Sentinel, 12/23/55, p.1 and following days.)
Apr. 2, 1958: Moderate. Fairly high water, but the damage was limited, as many buildings that
would have been flooded had been torn down as the flood control project progressed. Water
flooded lower the lower Ocean St. area, and flowed along Front St., reaching the back of
businesses on Pacific Ave. The recent experience of 1955 had led merchants along Front and
14
�Pacific to empty their basements of merchandise, and the police, city government and rescue
workers were well equipped and out in force.
Jan. 4, 1982: Severe storm, as "Killer Flood Ravages Area." But no major flooding occurred in
the City of Santa Cruz. All the people killed in S.C. County were in areas outside the city. Water
rose to within two feet of the top of the levees at some places, and there was flooding of
homes along Branciforte Creek, and of the benchland below the County Building. The older half
(1923) of the Soquel Ave. bridge collapsed due to scouring and undermining of the footings. In
contrast to 1955, 90 percent of the 1982 storm damage in S.C. County was outside of the city.
(SC Sentinel, 1/5/82, p.1)
15
�Bibliography:
The History of Floods on the San Lorenzo River in the City of Santa Cruz
California Disaster Office, The Big Flood — California 1955, 1956, California State Printing Office
Chase, John, The Sidewalk Companion to Santa Cruz Architecture, 1979, Paper Vision Press,
Santa Cruz, Ca.
Clark, Donald T., Santa Cruz County Place Names, 1986, Santa Cruz Historical Society, Santa
Cruz, Ca.
Coehen Torchiana, H. A. van, Story of the Mission Santa Cruz, 1933, Paul Elder and Co., San
Francisco, Ca.
Copeland, Ronald R., San Lorenzo River Sedimentation Study, 1986, Department of the Army,
Waterways Experimentation Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg Mississippi.
Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Engineer District, Report on the Floods of 4-6 January 1982 in the
San Francisco and Monterey Bay Areas, 1983, San Francisco, U.S. Army Engineer District.
Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, Department of the Army, Flood Plain Information —
San Lorenzo River — Boulder Creek — Felton, 1973, San Francisco, Corps of Engineers.
Gordon, Burton L., Monterey Bay Area: Natural History and Cultural Imprints, 1974, Dept. of
Geology, San Francisco State University.
Koch, Margaret, Santa Cruz County — Parade of the Past, 1973, Western Tanager Press, Santa
Cruz, Ca.
Lindsey, John L. (Editor), The Storm of '82, 1982, Santa Cruz Sentinel Publishers, Santa Cruz, Ca.
Lydon, Sandy, Chinese Gold — The Chinese in the Monterey Bay Area Region, 1985, Capitola
Book Co., Capitola, Ca.
McMahon, Daniel, Flooding on the San Lorenzo River in Santa Cruz, 1992, a paper for Sandy
Lydon's History 25B at Cabrillo College, Aptos, Ca.
Office of Watershed Management, Planning Department, County of Santa Cruz, San Lorenzo
River Watershed Management Plan, 1979, Protected Waterways Program, Department of Fish
and Game, Resources Agency, State of California.
Office of Watershed Management, Planning Department, County of Santa Cruz, San Lorenzo
River Watershed Management Plan, Hydrology Technical Section, 1979, Protected Waterways
Program, Department of Fish and Game, Resources Agency, State of California.
Rowland, Leon, Santa Cruz, the Early Years, 1980, Paper Vision Press, Santa Cruz, Ca.
16
�Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce, San Lorenzo River Flood -- December 22, 1955, 1956,
prepared by the Flood Control Committee of the S.C. Chamber of Commerce, Santa Cruz, Ca.
Santa Cruz, City of, The River Task Force, San Lorenzo River Design Concept Plan, 1987, River
Task Force, Santa Cruz, Ca.
Santa Cruz Sentinel 1982, 1940, 1938, 1931, 1927, 1911, 1890, 1889, Santa Cruz, Ca.
Santa Cruz Sentinel-News 1941, 1955, 1956, 1958, Santa Cruz, Ca.
Santa Cruz Morning Sentinel 1907, Santa Cruz, Ca.
Santa Cruz Daily Sentinel 1881, 1880, 1871, Santa Cruz, Ca.
Pacific Sentinel 1862, Santa Cruz, Ca.
State of California, Department of Public Works, Division of Water Resources, Floods of
December 1955 in California, 1956, State of California, Dept. of Public Works.
State of California, Department of Public Works, Division of Water Resources, California Floods
of 1958, 1959, State of California, Dept. of Public Works.
Source
© 1997 Daniel McMahon. Reproduced by permission of the author.
It is the library’s intent to provide accurate information, however, it is not possible for the library
to completely verify the accuracy of all information. If you believe that factual statements in a
local history article are incorrect and can provide documentation, please contact the library.
17
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Santa Cruz History Articles
Description
An account of the resource
Original articles by library staff and by local authors and material from historical books.
Articles on Santa Cruz County history, many with illustrations, are available here.
The Santa Cruz Public Libraries is grateful to our local historians and their publishers for giving permission to include their articles. The content of the articles is the responsibility of the individual authors.
It is the library's intent to provide accurate information. However, it is not possible to completely verify the accuracy of individual articles obtained from a variety of sources. If you believe that factual statements in an article are incorrect and can provide documentation, please contact the library.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Original Format
If the image is of an object, state the type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Digital file
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
AR-206
Title
A name given to the resource
The History of Floods on the San Lorenzo River in the City of Santa Cruz
Subject
The topic of the resource
San Lorenzo River
Floods
Floods-1955 and 1958
Floods-1982
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
McMahon, Daniel
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1997
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
Santa Cruz (City)
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
En
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
ARTICLE
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
© 1997 Daniel McMahon. Reproduced by permission of the author.
Disasters and Accidents
Public Works
-
https://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/files/original/b30bad867e310cb8657879359e4d4787.pdf
f8c705ecee91ef582c1d2f700b4e0aa4
PDF Text
Text
Introduction to the San Lorenzo Valley Water District
The San Lorenzo Valley Water District (originally the San Lorenzo Valley County Water District) was formed by a special
election of the residents of Santa Cruz County on April 3rd, 1941. At that time the boundaries were established for the
District to include 58 square miles of the San Lorenzo Valley nestled in the Santa Cruz Mountains (Santa Cruz County).
By 1962, the District had a total of 390 customers in the Larita Oaks, Larita Pines, Larita Woods, Ben Lomond Redwood
Park and Zayante areas. In September, 1962, the District acquired the Pasatiempo Pines Subdivision consisting of 235
lots located just off of Graham Hill Road between Felton and Santa Cruz, which subsequently brought about several
additional subdivisions in the area.
The main expansion of the District took place on December 1st, 1965, with the takeover of a private water system in the
northern portion of the San Lorenzo Valley. The voters in the District passed two revenue bond elections to purchase the
Citizen's Utilities Company of California facilities within the District boundaries at a cost of $2,700,00. With this
acquisition, the District's sources of water supply were augmented by stream flows.
In 1972, the HUD Project inter-connected the southern and northern portion of the northern District boundaries with 10
inch diameter and 12 inch diameter mains, allowing water from Loch Lomond and District wells in the Quail Hollow
areas to be pumped to north Boulder Creek as a supplement to the local streams.
On August 30th, 1976, a section of the District north of Boulder Creek on Highway 236 voted for deannexation, thereby
forming Big Basin Water Company, encompassing approximately three square miles at and around the Big Basin Golf
Course.
In the fiscal year 1979-80, the Board of Directors adopted Resolution Number 42 which changed the Name of the District
from The San Lorenzo Valley County Water District to the San Lorenzo Valley Water District.
On December 24th, 1984, the California State Health Department contacted the District with a request that the District
consider acquisition of the Big Basin Water Company with funding from Proposition 28 and upgrade the system to
alleviate the continued water quality problems that were being experienced by the District.
In January of 1985, District officials met with Big Basin Water Company owners and customers on the subject of
annexation into the District. A poll of the customers revealed that a takeover by the customers would be attempted
rather than annexation into the District.
The District's system was greatly affected by the disasters of 1982 and 1983, (back to back Federally declared disasters)
due to storms dumping tremendous amounts of rainfall resulting in more than twice the annual rainfall in the area.
Reconstruction of the damaged facilities began in 1982 and is still under way.
Due to the mountainous terrain and inaccessibility of the District's intake structures and transmission lines in the
watershed areas, District staff undertook a project incorporating the California Conservation Corps, local contractors,
prison labor and District personnel to reestablish the destroyed facilities. Helicopter transport companies were utilized
1
�to airlift in material, supplies, equipment and tools for the use of personnel who hiked into the project areas. The
California Conservation Corps personnel was used to place pipe, remove material, cut trails and a bench for the new
pipeline to be constructed on, through an area totally unaccessible by vehicular traffic. Prison labor was used to burn
slash and downed timber in the watershed areas. Local contractors were recruited to reopen roads and access trails
closed by flooding and landslides.
The result of the cooperative efforts was the reestablishment of the surface water sources for use by the District and
replacement of over 14,600 feet of transmission mains.
Sources
This article is excerpted from: Annual Report, San Lorenzo Valley Water District. 1984–1985, pp. 1–2.
The content of this article is the responsibility of the individual author. It is the Library's intent to provide accurate local history
information. However, it is not possible for the Library to completely verify the accuracy of individual articles obtained from a
variety of sources. If you believe that factual statements in a local history article are incorrect and can provide documentation,
please contact the Webmaster.
2
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Santa Cruz History Articles
Description
An account of the resource
Original articles by library staff and by local authors and material from historical books.
Articles on Santa Cruz County history, many with illustrations, are available here.
The Santa Cruz Public Libraries is grateful to our local historians and their publishers for giving permission to include their articles. The content of the articles is the responsibility of the individual authors.
It is the library's intent to provide accurate information. However, it is not possible to completely verify the accuracy of individual articles obtained from a variety of sources. If you believe that factual statements in an article are incorrect and can provide documentation, please contact the library.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Original Format
If the image is of an object, state the type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
AR-171
Title
A name given to the resource
Introduction to the San Lorenzo Valley Water District
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
San Lorenzo Valley Water District
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Excerpted from: "Annual Report, San Lorenzo Valley Water District". 19841985, pp. 12.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1985
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
En
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
ARTICLE
Subject
The topic of the resource
San Lorenzo Valley Water District
Water Supply
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
San Lorenzo Valley
Public Works