74 FISH AND GAME COMMISSION 



The exception to this law is that where the water is used for the 

 generation of electric energy the owner of the diversion pays the entire 

 cost of fish screen installation, operation and maintenance. 



It appeared that this law was unsatisfactory and unworkable, and 

 the Commission adopted a policy whereby it would replace ineffective 

 screens heretofore installed. This was permitted under a section of the 

 fish screen law. 



In December, 1937, I was authorized to proceed under this policy, 

 and on March 1, 1938, a crew started work in Siskiyou County. This 

 work is proceeding at the present time with one crew, and probably 

 best results will be obtained by confining the activities of this crew 

 in one section until the diversions in that section are screened and then 

 move to another location. This will avoid excessive travel and will 

 without doubt actually save more fish, as if one diversion is protected 

 and another is not on the same stream, the loss in the unprotected 

 diversion will without question be greater than that experienced up 

 to this time. Additional funds could be used to advantage to expedite 

 this work. 



The two main types of fish screens being installed are a rotary 

 screen, operating counter-current wise and propelled l)y a M-ater power 

 wheel ; and the other, a parallel steel bar screen with a cleaning attach- 

 ment operated b}' a water power wheel. All screens installed are 

 placed within concrete structures and all are of substantial construction 

 and hence will last for many years, requiring the minimum of opera- 

 tion and maintenance expense. Experience to date shows these screens 

 require inspection only at rare intervals. 



With respect to fish screens, there is pending a court action which 

 it is hoped M'ill be determined before the next legislative session, as 

 the decision in this case will unquestionably have an important bearing 

 on any future fish screen legislation. Briefly, the history of this case 

 is that the Commission ordered the Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

 to install a fish screen on the outlet of its Fuller Lake, in Nevada 

 County, and thus prevent fish from entering the penstock line to a 

 power house. Under the law the company would haA^e been required 

 to bear the entire cost of installation, as this water is used for the 

 generation of electricity. Extended negotiations were carried on but 

 no satisfactory agreement was reached, and on October 7, 1937, the 

 company filed an injunction proceeding in the Sacramento superior 

 court in an effort to restrain the Commission from enforcing its order 

 requiring a screen on the outlet from this lake. This matter was heard 

 and the superior court found for the company. I understand that an 

 appeal is to be taken by the Attorney General of the State on this 

 matter. 



The Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior is 

 operating within this State in the construction of the Central Valleys 

 project. In the northern part of the State the Shasta Dam is being 

 constructed, and near Fresno the Friant Dam is in process. Connect- 

 ing canals and other features will have a very material effect on fish life. 

 Under consideration at the present time is the required fish protection 

 for the Contra Costa Canal, which will take water out of Rock Slough, 

 above Antioch. The maximum capacity of this canal is about 350 

 second feet. Fish protection has been accepted in principle, but the 



