THE STONY CREEK WATER WARS
Glenn County - Tehama County - Colusa County , California.
(c) 2009, Mike Barkley (02/28/2010)

Comprehensive, Chronological INDEX of the case ; F=Filed, L=Lodged, S=Signed, R=Received

SWRCB APPLICATION A02212 , STONY GORGE DAM & RESERVOIR - U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
[this file from photocopies, Ap 2212 out of the file room for the past 8 months; http://swrcb2.waterboards.ca.gov/ewrims/wrims-data/l002652%20a002212.pdf ]

[schedule of allowed Angle Decree usage at http://www.mjbarkl.com/limits2.htm shows that the Angle Decree deprived SWRCB of jurisdiction over Stony Creek Watershed surface flows invalidating this Application, Permit & License ]

[this index compiled from photocopies purchased from Capital Reprographics - the actual order of the file is uncertain, the order of the copies received suggest someone dropped the entire unbound file on the floor and then reassembled it without regard to dates]

[assume] Cat 1 CORRESPONDENCE VOL. 1 OF 3 RECORD OF FOLDER [" F " - date filed if date originated not evident]

[Outside of file front cover]
266.1 U.S,. Bureau of Reclamation
Correspondence 02/17/1921 - 09/29/1925; County: Glenn

[Inside of file front cover]

[page redone, form 2 (3-65)

Applicant: U.S, Water and power Resources Service - RETENTION
Address: 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento CA 95825 - Permanent until cancelled or Revoked; Schedule 10, Item 5 Baber, P.O. Box 1679, Oroville, CA 95965

Permit to be issued before XX/XX/XXXX unless protested

Application 2212 995-141-3944 [994 for instance was 05/29/1918; 1413 was 08/27/1919] changed to 995-1414-3944
Applicant: U.S.A., Bureau of Reclamation as agent
Received 02/17/1921 County No. 11-52 Fee $5.00
Maps Filed 02/17/1921 A; 03/15/1924 E; 05/02/1924 E; 03/27/1925 E; 04/06/1925 E
Forms Sent 08/08/1924 8, 8a, 9a; 04/30/1925 8c, 8a-c; 07/28/1925 8, 8a, 9a

Protests:
  • 063025 L.E., I.L., and R.H. Brownell, Answered 07/09/1925
  • 071725 Brownell Bros. (amended)
  • 091525 Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District
  • 093025 Esperanza Land Company
  • 093025 James Mills Orchard Corp.

    Remarks
  • 022821 Ext. to 11/01/1921 to file maps
  • 101321 Ext. to 11/01/1922 to file maps
  • 102322 Action deferred to 03/04/1923
  • 032723 Ext to 04/01/1924 to complete
  • 031524 Amended appl. filed
  • 032424 Ext. to 05/26/1924
  • 060224 Ext. to 07/03/1924 to complete
  • 062524 Amended appl. filed
  • 082024 Ext. to 11/20/1924 to complete
  • 112124 Ext. to 04/01/1925 to complete
  • 120924 Amended application filed
  • 032725 Amended application filed
  • 062525 Proof of publication filed
  • 070925 Memo by E.N. Bryan
  • 071625 Memeo by B. Kibbey
  • 091025 Proof of publication filed
  • 093025 Notices of protest hearing set for 10/21/1925 sent
  • 111725 D-83 issued
  • 120225 Permit 2339 issued
  • 040137 Order granting extension to 12/01/1941 to complete use filed
  • 051544 Licence [sic] 2652 issued
  • 061544 Amended License filed
  • 020180 name chg to U.S. Water & Power Resources Service;


    PAPERS "BOUND" IN FILE (re-sorted in date order):

    Blank sheet A 2212, P 2339 L 2652

    1909


    02??09 Map, "United States Reclamation Service, Orland Project California, General Map; project area, East Park, proposed Stony Gorge Reservoir, Julian Station, original storage point below Julian Station, Simpson Station, Headworks, final Project area, rail line Malton, Orland, Greenwood, Germantown, Willows, Logandale, Norman, Delevan, Maxwell; color

    1921


    SWRB 3 (5-66) Form, Progress Data, Ap 2212, Tracings 1, Prints 1, Remarks "Applicant does not own land to be irrigated. Land has a part water right....", Spotted on map 02/19/1921, In Form [?] 06/25/1924;
    021721 Application for a Permit to Appropriate Waters of the State of California for Agricultural Purposes; United States of America, by A.N. Burch, Project Manager, U.S. Reclamation Service of Orland; Stony Creek (with its tributaries) in Glenn, Colusa and Tehama Counties, tributary of the Sacramento River; 115,000 acre-feet per annum, between 11/01 - 05/01, for irrigation; storage dam in bed of Stony Creek SE 1/4 SE 1/4 S1 T21N R6W MDB & M, thence along natrual channel of stream & diverted for irrigation to point N 66° 16' W 2174 feet from SW corner S29 T23N R4W by dam in 7(a); main canal to be 5.8 miles of old canal enlarged 7 miles of new canal SE 1/4 SW 1/4 S1 T21N R4W [added acreage next T south of project?; Millsite Reservoir, Orland Project; Diversion 24' high, 900' long top & bottom, concrete cap on piling with loose rock below (already constgructed in use by applicant); concrete head gate 3 openings 5' x 5'; amended application filed 03/17/1921; South canal enlarged, 30' width on top, 22 wide bottom, 4' deep, Main Canl 1238 miles, 0.65 feet per 1000 feet, earth & rock, concrete lined; reservoir 115,000 a-f at T20N & T21N R6W MDB & M in Stony Creek Channel at SE 1/4 SE 1/4 S1 T21N R6W MDB & M 145' high 3000 feet long 125 long on bottom, 15 wide on top, slope water face 1 to 1, back 1 to 5, freeboard 10 feet, multiple arch type reinforced concrete, $3,000,000; start 01/01/1922 finish by 01/01/1927, applied by 01/01/1932; irrigate 30,000 acres in T21N R2W, 3W, 4W, T22N R2W, R3W, R4W; alfalfa, orchard, & general crops; irrigate 03/01 - 11/01; maps by 01/01/1921; applicant does not own stgorage dam site, but does own site of diverion dam; built under Federal Reclamation law; other source of supply partial, previous appropriation for direct flow & storage for Orland Project; downstream: Federal Orland Reclamation project, Orland, California; Glenn-colusa Irrigation District, Willows, California; R.E. Blevins, Colusa, California, and others; /s/ A.N. Burch, witnesses Henry A. Cox * Brooks Fullerton
    022821 letter Secretary to A.N. Burch/Reclamation; Commission granted to 11/01/1921 to file maps & complete ap
    102821 letter Weber/Reclamation to Water Commission; asks extension 11/01/1922 filing maps; 11/01/1923 begin construction; 11/01/1928 complete construction; 11/01/1933 complete application; "reservoir proposed to be constructed is a large one involving the storage of approximately 115,000 acre feet per annum and covers approximately 30,000 acres of land to be irrigated. The labor and expense involved in preparing the maps and doing the work required to be done within the dates indicated above are considerable, and it is believed that the extension required is necessary."
    103121 letter Chief of Division to Weber/Reclamation; allowed until 11/01/1922 "within which to submit the maps and other data necessary to complete your" ap; requests for other extensions of time "entgered on the application forms" but "will not be set until the permit is actually issued"

    1922


    101622 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WRights; "Since the date of above mentioned letter, considerable field work involving expenditures amounting to $10,000 has been performed. There remains, however, considerable additional work to be done consisting mainly of water supply studies, estimates and other incidental work together with the preparation of maps to accompany the application. For some months in the immediate future it will be impossible to assign any member of the project office organization to this work, owing to assignment on hearings in connection with the Stony Creek Water Right Adjudication proceedings in the United States District Court." [not exactly] request to 11/01/1923
    102322 letter Kluegel/Chief of Division to Weber/Project Manager; "This office is favorably disposed toward allowing sufficient extension to properly work out the project under consideration. However, it is desired to investigate the various applications pending by the Reclamation Service from this source with a view to determining whether or not it would be advisable for you to petition to have them declared a unit as regards construction. [para] To allow sufficient time to make this study, we have noted an extension to" 03/01/1923 "before which date we will have looked into he matter and will have advised you further."

    1923


    021923 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WRights; "time granted by your letter has nearly elapsed and if there is any further information or assistance which this office can furnish you in connection with your investigation of the various applications pending by the Reclamation Service, we will be glad to forward same to you upon request."
    031223 letter Kluegel/Chief of Division to Weber/Reclamation 995, 1414, 2212 "you, as applicants, now favor the use of Millsite Reservoir and the abandonment of Stoney [sic] Gorge Reservoir, and the withdrawal of application 1414 is thought to be logical. [para] In 1920 this office adopted a favorable attitude toward applications by you then pending and has since then had no reason to change this attitude. In the meantime legislation has been made effective which makes permit fees on any acreage payable once only, without regard to the number of applications to appropriate water for the benefit of the acreage. [para] This office now desires to take action on these applications and information is desired as to your attitude toward such action. Recent developments in the connection make it doubtful if permit would be acceptable to you in the near future. It is logical that consideration should be given applications 995 and 2212 simultaneously. In case you wish to proceed at this time with 2212 advise [sic] as to the deficiences in the application will be sent you very shortly. Otherwise a request for extension of time for the purpose of completing application 2212 is now in order."
    031723 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WRights; withdrawal of Ap #1414 OK, extension of time for Ap 2212 requested to one year beyond 04/01/1923
    032723 letter Kluegel/Chief of Division to Weber/Reclamation; extension allowed to 04/01/1924 to submit maps & other data

    1924


    020424 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WRights; re maps & other data, how much in fees? reservoir 120,500 a-f irrigating 25,000 acres, also please send 10 blank copies of laters Ap form
    020824 letter Hyatt/Div WRights to Weber/Reclamation; if amended ap, no fees; if new ap, fees per Regulation 6; permit fees not payable until permit is issued; enclosed 10 blanks, see Reg 4;
    031424 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WRights; enclosed a duplicate amended Ap 2212, with linen tracing and blue print of map; same priority as original of 02/21/1921; 115,000 a-f in origional an estimate from the "projection of a capacity curve (based on the topographic survey available in 1921 extending only to 632 foot contour) to the proposed flow line of 673 feet"; 120,500 amended based on topo survey of the reservoir basin made in 1922 to the 680 foot contour; 673 foot flow line in each ap; 25,000 acres rather than 30,000 acres to irrigate from "further water supply studies of Stony Creek at Millsite which indicate that the probable safe yield of the creek at this point is not sufficient for" more than 25,000;

    031524 Application for a Permit to Appropriate Unappropriated Waters of the State of California for Agricultural Purposes, United States of America, by R.C.E. Weber, Project Manager, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; Stony Creek (with its tributaries) Glenn, Colusa & Tehama Counties, tributary of the Sacramento River; 120,500 a-f/annum reduced to 115,000, collected 11/01 - 05/01, for irrigation; "Supplemental Sheet, paragraph 4. The point of diversion to storage will be N 47°25' W 1220' from the SE corner of" S1 T21N R6W MDB & M [this is Millsite, not Stony Gorge], being wi)thin the SE 1/4 SW 1/4 of said S1, same township and range. (this information obtained by scaling map received and from copy of application orignally file) [this supplement is an attachment to the front of the Ap, covering POD as follows:] POD N66°16'W, 2174 feet from the southeast corner of S29 T23N R4W and S60°00'W, 450 feet from the north quarter corner of S1 T22N R4W, within SW 1/4 SE 1/4 S29 T23N R4W & within NE 1/4 NW 1/4 S1 T22N R4W all MDB & M [this is at original POD for SDD & NDD] "Main canal to be 5.8 miles of old canal and 13.5 miles of new canal, terminating in the NE 1/4 SE 1/4 S14 T21N R4W MDB & M [expansion to next TN south of the project?] "Millsite Division, Orland Project,"Millsite Division, Orland Project." South Diversion 24' hight, 900' wide on top, 900' wide on bottom, concrete cap on piling with loose rock below, 3 openings 5' x 5'; North Diversion 8' high, 360' long top, 360' long bottom, concrete weir with removable timber crest, 2 openings 4' x 4.75'; both already constructed & in use by applicant; South Canal enlargement: water line width 30', 22' bottom, 4' depth, 19.3 miles long on 0.65' per 1,000' grade, earth & rock, concrete lined; North canal (lateral 100): top width 9 to 17 feet, bottom width, 4 to 12 feet, water depth 1.8 to 2.8 feet, 4.4 miles long, 0.6 to 2.5 feet per 1000 grade, largely concrete lined; reservoir capacity 120,500 a-f, at T20N & T21N of $6W in channel of Stony & Grindstone Creeks, dam in NE 1/4 SE 1/4 & SE 1/4 SE 1/4 S1 & NE 1/4 NE 1/4 S12 all T21N R6W, 138 feet above stream bed, 3000 feet long, 100 feet long at bottom, 30 feet wide at top; 1 to 1 slope on water face, 1:10 slope on back, 5' freeboard, multiple arch type reinforced concrete, $3,935,000 start 11/01/1926 finish 11/01/1931, watter applied by 01/31/1936, 25,000 acres, in T21N R2W, 3W, & 4W, & T22N R2W, 3W, 4W; alfalfa, orchard, & general crops 03/01 - 11/01; Names and addresses of claimants:
    - Orland Reclamation Project, Orland, Calif.
    - Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, Willows, Calif.
    - J.A. Flanagan, Corning, Calif.
    - James Mills Orchards Corporation, Hamilton City, Calif.
    - Esperanza Land Corporation, Hamilton City, Calif.
    - Sacramento Valley Sugar Co.,
    - - The last three are claimants of underground water, alleged to originate from Stony Creek flow.
    - /s/ R.C.E. Weber, Project Manager, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. received at "Division of Water Rights" 02/17/1921 9:00 a.m.

    032524 letter Hyatt/Div WRights to Weber/Reclamation; response to 03/14/1924, amended ap limited to 115,000 a-f, need a new ap to increase beyond that; Ap para 4 "Shows only the point of re-diversion" - must also show "point of diversion or a location of the storage dam", "by bearing and distance or by coordinate from a legal subdivision corner"; para 5, shows only South canal, affirm?; para 17, 25,000 acres too general & scale of map to small, submit supplemental map showing partial 40's to be irrigated; allowing 60 days for these clarifications.
    032724 letter Weber/Reclamation to Division of WRights; thanks for the extra 60 days; para 2, sent yesterday "A new or supplemental" Ap for 5500 a-f excess storage in duplicate with "two white prints of a Van Dyke negative made from the linen tracing in your possession" [margin, 3944 later canc. ?]; para. 4, both north & sout diversions were on the ap and the map. For the storage dam, what part of the tie-in do you want? the structure is 5,000 feet long; para 5, Millsite water to go through the north canal; para 17, will prepare a map, but propose one with the same scale as you have, will that be OK? & presume "you will require the irrigable area indicated on each 40 acre tract on this map", correct? error on the ap sent yesterday, North Canal s/b 4.4 miles instead of 4.7
    033124 letter Hyatt to Weber/Reclamation; we will consider your 03/27/1924 letter when the supplemental map is filed, 2" to the mile OK, "irrigable area of each forty acre tract should be indicated thereon." On the supplemental ap, send $5 please.
    040524 letter Hyatt/Acting Chief of Division to Weber/Reclamation; per your 04/02/1924 letter [where?] returning signed voucher for $5
    050624 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div Wrights; response to 03/25/1924 letter; para. 2b, sent supplemental Ap for 5,500 a-f 03/26/1924; storage dam, N end bears N 44° E 640' from NW corner of SE 1/4 SE 1/4 S1 T21N R6W; S end bears S 31°30; W 1155' from SE corner S1 T21N R6W; para 5, contemplated "storage water will be conveyed through the north canal. Tie-ins for this canal together with certain other existing laterals to be used in this connection will be found on the supplemental map enclosed; linen tracing & blue print of supplemental map are enclosed;
    060224 letter Hyatt/Acting Chief of Division to Weber/Reclamation; "In view of the additional data submitted we have considered it advisable to re-draft both applications to better conform to our procedure, and these drafts we are inclosing with the request that you check all details carefully, sign and return the same to this office"; add acreages to para. 18; 30 additional days is granted;
    060524 return receipt card; Reclamation
    061624 letter Weber/Reclamation to Bryan/Office Engineer; checking copies, please send 8 more blanks so we can copy Washington, Denver, & District Counsel; pencil, blanks sent
    062324 letter Weber/Reclamatin to Bryan/Div WRights; returning redrafted Aps 2212 & 3944 checked & signed
    080824 form letter Hyatt/Div WRights to Weber/Reclamation; Ap in the "form for advertisement, and copy of a notice relative thereto is enclosed", one to the local postmaster, have it published in the Herald in Colusa, affidavit filed with the Division within 60 days of date of this lettrer
    080824 Notice of Application to Appropriate Water; Aps 2212 - 3944; blanks for protest on request, 60 days from date of this notice to file written protest, "clearly set forth the protestant's objections to the granting of the application and shall contain the following information: (1) Statement of the injury which would result to protestant from such appropriation and use, (2) The basis of protestant's water right, (3) Protestant's past and present use of water both as to amount used and land irrigated, or use made of water if other than irrigation, (4) The approximate location of such land or place of use and of the point of diversion of the water."; note at bottom, "not published"
  • mailing list, 84 names
    080824 form letter Hyatt/Public Works to Postmasters Orland, Hamilton, Butte City, Princeton, please post enclosed ap
    081124 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WRights; 2212, 3944, "Since completion of these applications, and more particularly as the result of the abnormally low runoff from Stony Creek last winter with the seriously deficient water supply available for the present Orland project during the current irrigation season, studies are now being made by the office of the chief Engineer of the Reclamation Bureau regarding an additional water supply for the present area comprising the project. It is probable that a portion of the storage included in above numberd [sic] applications will be applied to the present project and possibly no additional land included. [para] amend ap "to conform to the plans of an additional supply for the Orland project...." request 90 day extension
    082024 letter Hyatt/Div WRights to Weber/Reclamation; your 08/11/1924 letter, unfortunately notices went to the mailing list, but presumably you have not published, so 90 day extension noted; 4 respects which may not be by amendment, 1) source, 2) amount, 3) season of diversion, 4) use; anything else can be amended within reasonable limits if not injurious to others; if the ap can be amended to include the porposed changes, then defer publication until plans are complete; enclosing more forms
    082024 letter Hyatt/Acting Chief of Division to James Mills/Mills Orchards; i/a/w Mr. Mills' verbal request of 08/14/1924 are sending project map to Forrest Blue Print company with request they make 12 blue print copies for you, pay them. Recites 08/20/1924 Weber letter - revised Ap may solve your objection so suggest defer filing of protest until after the amendment, probable aps will be re-advertised, & you will receive notice;
    082224 letter James Mills/Mills Orchards to Bryan/Div WRights; we will wait until after the amended ap before filing protest if you will guarantee will not be estopped from protesting if the 60 day period in the first notice has expired, please advise; thanks for the blue prints, we will forward a check
    082824 letter Hyatt/Acting Chief of Division to James Mills/Mills Orchards; in case no re-advertisement, we will not act until you have had an opportunity to submit your objections at a public hearing;
    090824 letter Weber/Interior to Div Wrights; notice not yet published pending amendments; "may be possible that the water supply studies for an additional supply for the present area of the Orland project will indicate that storage of water on Stony Creek at another point on the stream to be more feasible than storage at Millsite which was designated in applications 2212 and 3944. In this connection, kindly advise if these applications may be amended to include a change of location in the storage site. [para] Also please advise if there are any other applications involving Stony creek runoff pending for consideration by your Division."
    091524 letter Hyatt/Acting Chief of Division to Weber/Reclamation; "We note that newspaper publicity is being withheld until your plans are in final and definite form. With regard to the tentative change in location of the reservoir, we are enclosing a copy of the Rules and Regulations and refer you especially to the information on page 20 thereof relative to change in point of diversion. Any necessary advertising of such a change may be executed in connection with the hitherto incomplete advertisement of the application. [para] In response to your request for ionformation as to other applications to appropriate in the Stoney Creek watershed, please be advised that there is only one application now in force. Under application No. 334, Permit 157, License 153 has been issued in favor of J.K. Masterson, showing that he has consummated an appropriation of 0.20" cfs "from the North Fork of Stoney Creek to be used for irrigation between" 05/01 & 09/30. "This office has no record of rights initiated prior to Dec. 19, 1924." [sic, s/b 12/19/1914 ?]`
    111824 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WRights; "Water supply studies have been made in both this and the office of the Chief Engineer but a final decision as to which of the alternate plans under consideration to be recommended to the shareholders of the" OUWUA "for their approval and vote has not yet been made pending the appointment of a Board of Engineers to review and pass upon the various plans included in the studies. This together with the preparation of the final design of the dam and the formal vote of the" OUWUA " will require considerable additional time", ask for 120 day extension; spent $1,500 on studies so far.
    112124 letter Bryan/Office Engineer to Weber/Interior; received 11/18/1924 letter, extension to 04/01/1925 granted to complete Aps;
    112624 return receipt card
    112624 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WRights; studies indicate Stony Gorge may be more economical than Millsite; your 06/15 letter indicates a new application would be required, but Stony Gorge is from the same source [not!] as Millsite; anyway, a Stony Groge 50,000 a-f Ap is enclosed [should a separate ap be necessary], still need to 04/01/1925 for maps, please sign the voucher for $5.00, not withdrawing the Millsite Ap, at least until the studies are conclusive;
    120424 letter Bryan/Office Engineer to Weber/Reclamation; will allow the Millsite Ap to cover either Millsite or Stony Gorge, returning separate ap and voucher; please amend with preliminary data to cover Stony Gorge site;

    120824 letter Weber/Reclamation to Bryan/Div WRights; with the studies being due within about 30 days, ask to postpone the amendment, meanwhile the numbers requested are:
    - 2(b) diversion not over 65,000 a-f/a, 10/01 - 05/01
    - 4. PODs: dam north end bears S 62° 00' W 565' from East 1/4 corner S16, T20N R6W MDM; south end bears S 27° 00'W 1,180' from East 1/4 corner same S16; Rediversion: (2) South diversion N 66° 16' W 2,174' from SE corner S19 T23N R4W MDM, (3) North diversion S 60° W 450' from North 1/4 corner S1 T22N R4W MDM; within (1) NE 1/4 SE 1/4 S16 T20N R6W MDM (2) SW 1/4 SE 1/4 S29 T23N R4W MDM (3) NE 1/4 NW 1/4 S1 T22N R4W MDM
    - main canals to be (2) 936 and (3) 4.4 miles in length, terminating in (2) SE 1/4 SW 1/4 S15 T22N R3W and (3) SE 1/4 NE 1/4 S3 T22N R3W MDM
    - Name of proposed works: Stony Gorge reservoir, Orland project
    - 8. (a) Present South Canal: Width on top (at water line), 12 to 30 feet; width on bottom, 8 to 20 feet; depth of water, 1.6 to 5.0 feet; length 9.6 miles; grade 0.20 to 2.25 feet per 1000 feet; materials of construction, earth and rock, largely concrete lined. Present North Canal (lateral 100), width on top 9 to 17 feet; width on bottom 4 to 12 feet; depth of water 1.8 to 2.8 feet; length 4.4 miles; grade 0.6 to 2.5 feet per 1,000 feet; materials of construction, earth, largely concrete lined.
    - 9. Capacity of reservoir: not over 65,000 acre feet.
    - 10. Location of reservoir: In sections 15, 16, 21, 22, 27, 28, 33 and 34 T20N R6W MDM, and Se & 10 T19N R6W MDM
    - 11. dam will be located in NE 1/4 SE 1/4 S16 T20N R6W MDM, 120 feet high, 800 feet long, 100' long on bottom, top width 32', water face 1:1, back slope 1:10; freeboard 5 feet
    - 12. multiple arch, hollow buttress, reinforced concrete
    - 13. estimated costs $1,106,000
    - 14. begin on or before 11/01/1926
    - 15. complete on or before 11/01/1929
    - 16. complete application by 01/01/1936
    - 17. land to be irrigated total 21,000 acres in S4 & 9 T21N R3W S5 T21N R2W S16 - 21 S28, 29, 32 & 33 T22N R2W S1 - 7, 9-34 T22N R3W S1,3,4,11,12,13 T22N R4W S31 T23N R3W S32,33,34,36 T23N R4W MDM
    - 18. crops, no rice; 8,500 acres alfalfa; 7000 acres orchard; 5,500 acres general crops [total, 20,500 acres]
    - 19. irrigation about 03/01 - 11/01
    - 20 maps not yet filed, need to 04/01/1926
    - "23. The land to be irrigated, being the area included in the Orland project of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, has certain rights to the natural flow of Stony Creek together with exclusive right to storage at East Park reservoir (on Little Stony Creek) of 51,000 acre feet capacity."
    - 24. closes P.O. Elk Creek
    - returning Aps. 2212 7 3944

    121524 letter Bryan/Office Engineer to Webber [sic]/Reclamation; received letter of 8th & aps, grant request to defer amendment until decision has been made on which site;
    121024 [?] USPO Orland, "Please sign the enclosed return receipt" stamped State Department of Public Works
    122324 letter Fenny/Chief Clerk to Webber [sic]/Reclamation; Orland P.O. has requested a return receipt coverin your 11/26 registered letter; we received your 11/26 on 11/26 with no indication it was registered, responded to it on 12/04, your acknowledgment receive 12/09, "chain of correspondence...is complete"

    1925


    032425 blueprint Map H-751 Orland Project - Calif., Proposed Stony Gorge Reservoir Regional map Capay to above Stonyford & Kirkwood to Maxwell; Site of Proposed Reservoir w/topo; Proposed Dam Maximum Cross Section, Profile and Upstream Elevation, Curves of Area and Capacity;
  • empty sheet, Exhibit 7?

    112625 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WRights; confirms change of site to Stony Gorge; field work complete, data in amended Ap enclosed, "Linen tracing...also enclosed; water to be used as "supplemental supply for the established Orland project", no "extension of the irrigable area of the project is contemplated."

    UNDATED Amended Application No. 2212, Application for a Permit to Appropriate Unappropriated Waters of the State of California for Agricultural Purposes; United States of America, by R.C.E. Weber, Superintendent, U.S. Bureau of Reclamantion, of Orland, County of Glenn, California; Stony Creek, Glenn, Sacramento River; 50,200 acre-feet between 10/01 & 05/01, for irrigation, POD per supplement; main canals already constructed and in use by applicant, (2) 9.6 miles, (3) 4.4 miles; (2) SE 1/4 SW 1/4 S15 T22N R3W; (3) SE 1/4 NE 1/4 S3 T22N R3W; Stony Gorge Reservoir, Orland Project; South Diversion Dam 24' x 900', North Diversion Dam 8' x 360', both top and bottom; South Diversion, concrete cap on piling with loose rock below; North Diversion, concrete weir with removable timber crest, Both already constructed and in use by applicant; South Diversion, concrete, 3 openings 5' x 5'; North Diversion, Timber 2 openings, 4' x 4.75'; present South canal, top 12' to 30', bottom 8' to 20', water depth 1.5' to 5.0', 9.6 miles long, 0.20' to 2.25' fall per 1,000', earth and rock, largely concrete lined; present North canal (lateral 100) width on top 9' to 17', bottom 4' to 12', depth of water, 1.8' to 2.8', length 4.4 miles, grade .6' to 2.5' per 1,000 feet, earth, largely concrete lined; Stony Gorge, 50,200 a-f, reservoir S15,16,21,22,27,28,33 & 34 T20N R6W MDM; S3 & S10 T19N R6W MDM, in channel of Stony Creek; Dam NE 1/4 SE 1/4 S16 T20N R6W MDM, 124' high, 850' top, 100' bottom, 34' wide on top, 1 to 1 face slope, 1 to 10 back slope, 5' freeboard, multiple arch, hollow buttress, reinforced concrete, $1,200,000; construction begin on or before 11/01/1926 end on or before 11/01/1928, applied by 01/01/1936; irrigate 21,000 acres S4 & S9 T21N R3W S5 T21N R2W S16,17,18,19,20,21,28,29,30,32,33 T22N R2W S1 to 7 inc., 9 to 34 inc. T22N R3W S1,3,4,11,12 & 13, T22N R4W S31 T23N R3W S33,34,36 T22N R4W all MDM; Land is included in the established Orland project for which this application involves storage to be used as a supplemental water supply in addition to that provided by the existing works of the project; 8,500 acres alfalfa, 7,000 acres orchard, 5,500 acres general crops, irrigation 03/01 - 11/01;
  • Suppplement:
    - Paragraph 4. The points of diversion are located as follwos:
    - - To storage (1) North end of dam bears S 62° 00' W 565' from East Quarter Corner, S16 T20N R6W MDM; South and bears S 27° 00' W 1,180' from East Quarter corner of said S16; .
    - - Rediversion of stored waters:
    - - - (1) South Diversion - N 66° 16' W 2174' from SE Corner, S19, T23N R4W MDM
    - - - (2) North Diversion - S 60° W 450' from North Quarter Corner, S1 T22N R4W MDM
    - - - Being within - (1) NE 1/4 SE 1/4 S16 T20N R6W MDM
    - - - - (2) SW 1/4 SE 1/4 S29 T23N R4W MDM
    - - - - (3) NE 1/4 NW 1/4 S1 T22N R4W MDM
  • Steps taken to secure land: "Present diversion dam sites owned by applicant. Option secured for land on which proposed storage dam is located" "Project built under terms of Federal Reclamation Law." other sources: "Natural flow of Stony Creek together with East Park Reservoir (on Little Stony Creek) of 51,000 a. ft. capacity."
  • Nearest P.O. "Elk Creek"; Downstream claimants:
    - GCID
    - Flanagan Bros, Corning, Calif
    - James Mills Orchards Corporation, Hamilton City, Calif.
    - Esperanza Land Corporation, Hamilton City, Calif.
    - Sacramento Valley Sugar Co., Hamilton City, Calif.
    - - "The last three are claimants of underground water, alleged to originate from Stony Creek flow." /s/ R.C.E. Weber, Superintendent, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, witnesses C.E. Lillington, Verona Sperlich, Orland

    UNDATED Application No. 2212, [Amended Application Received 06/23/1924. Amended Application Received 12/09/1924] Application for a Permit to Appropriate Unappropriated Waters of the State of California for Agricultural Purposes; United States of America, by R.C.E. Weber, Superintendent, U.S. Bureau of Reclamantion, of Orland, County of Glenn, California; Stony Creek, Glenn, Sacramento River; 115,000 acre-feet between 11/01 & 05/01, for irrigation, POD per supplement; main canals in county of (1) Glenn, (1) Tehama, (3) Glenn; (2) 19.3 miles, (3) 4.4 miles; (2) NE 1/4 SE 1/4 S14 T21N R4W; (3) SE 1/4 NE 1/4 S3 T22N R3W; Millsite Division, Orland Project; South Diversion Dam 24' x 900', North Diversion Dam 8' x 360', both top and bottom; South Diversion, concrete cap on piling with loose rock below; North Diversion, concrete weir with removable timber crest, Both already constructed and in use by applicant; South Diversion, concrete, 3 openings 5' x 5'; North Diversion, Timber 2 openings, 4' x 4.75'; South canal, enlarged as follows: top 30', bottom 22', water depth about 4', 19.3 miles long grade 0.65 feet per 1000 feet, earth & rock, concrete lined. present north canal (Lateral 100) width on top 9 to 17 feet; width on bottom 4 to 12 feet; depth of water 1.8 to 2.8 feet; length, 4.4 miles; grade 0.6 to 2.5 feet per 1000; largely concrete lined; Millsite 120,500 a-f, reservoir T20N & T21N R6W MDB & M in channel of Stony and Grindstone Creeks (see accompanying map); Dam NE 1/4 SE 1/4 & SE 1/4 SE 1/4 S1 & NE 1/4 NE 1/4 S12 T21N R6W MDB & M 138 feet above stream bed, 3000 feet on top, 100 feet on bottom, 30' wide on top, front slope 1:1, rear 1:10; freeboard 5 feet, reinforced concrete, $3,935,000; construction by 11/01/1926, finish 11/01/1031, applied by 01/01/1936, irrigate 25,000 acres, T21N R2W, T21N R3W, T21N R4W T22N R2W, T22N R3W, T22N R4W, MDB & M; 10,000 acres alfalfa, 8,000 orchard, 7,000 general crops, 03/01 - 11/01
  • Suppplement:
    - Paragraph 4. The points of diversion are located as follwos:
    - - To storage (1) North end of dam bears N 44° E 640' from the NW Corner SE 1/4 SE 1/4; S. end bears S 31° 30' W 1155' from the SE Corner,
    - - Rediversion of stored waters:
    - - - (2) South Diversion - N 66° 16' W 2174' from SE Corner, S29, T23N R4W
    - - - (3) North Diversion - S 60° W 450' from North quarter corner, S1 T22N R4W
    - - - Being within - (1) NE 1/4 SE 1/4 S1 and NE 1/4 NE 1/4 S12 T21N R6W
    - - - - (2) SW 1/4 SE 1/4 S29 T23N R4W
    - - - - (3) NE 1/4 NW 1/4 S1 T22N R4W
    - Project to be built under term of Federal Reclamation Law;
  • Nearest P.O. "Orland, Calif."; Downstream claimants:
    - Orland Reclamation Project, Orland, Calif.
    - GCID, Willows, Calif.
    - J.A. Flanagan, Corning, Calif
    - James Mills Orchards Corporation, Hamilton City, Calif.
    - Esperanza Land Corporation, Hamilton City, Calif.
    - Sacramento Valley Sugar Co., Hamilton City, Calif.
    - - "The last three are claimants of underground water, alleged to originate from Stony Creek flow." /s/ R.C.E. Weber, Project Manager, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, witnesses C.E. Lillington, Verona Sperlich, Orland

    040125 letter Bryan/Office Engineer to Webber [sic]/Reclamation; ready for advertising except should have included a print of the tracing, suggest authorise us to get one made locally at your expense rather than returning everything; assume you are abandoning the extra Millsite capacity requested in Ap 3944, please confirm.
    040325 letter Weber/Reclamation to Bryan/Div Wrights; sending you blue print under separate cover; request cancellation of Ap 3944;
    041325 letter Bryan/Office Engineer to Weber/Reclamation; received blueprint; Ap 3944 cancelled'
    041625 letter Chickering & Gregory to Div WRights; Re: Ap. 2212: "Inasmuch as the Orland Reclamation Project amended the above mentioned application on" 03/27/1925, "so that it now differs to a material extent from the origional application, we are writing to ascertain whether or not the same is to be readvertised. We desire this information so that we will be in a position to advise our clients as to when the period for filing protests will expire. It may require some little time to prepare a protest against said application."
    042525 letter James Mills/Mills Orchards to Bryan/Div WRights; "We have your favor of the 24th answerign ours of the 20th advising that no new application has been made by the Bureau of Reclamation in connection with the Orland Project. I now note that they have filed an amended application of Number 2212. Will you kindly send me several blanks, Form 1A upon which I understand the amended applicationw as made, and if happily you have the spare time in the office, I would be glad if you will give me an exact copy of the amended application as well as several blanks, also please advise as to how long we have to make protest if any we should decide to make, and oblige Yours Very truly,"
    043025 letter Hyatt/Div WRights to Weber/Reclamation; petition looks OK, must advertise, "State Board of Control has directed that this notice be published in the Register in Orland, California." affidavit ov publishing by 60 days of this letter; if protested, "complete answer to each be sent to this office as promptly as possible after receipt of same. There is no prescribed legal form which such answers must take. What is desired in each case is a BRIEF but COMPLETE answer to the points raised by protestant. Anything which you do toward placing this office in possession of all the facts relating thereto will, therefore, expedite action on your petition."
    043025 Notice of Petition to Change The Point of Diversion Under Application No. 2212; 50,200 a-f/a, from point within SE 1/4 S1 & NE 1/4 NE 1/4 S12 T21N R6W MDM to NE 1/4 SE 1/4 S16 T20N R6W MDM; 60 days to protest, should "clearly set forth the protestant's objections to the granting of the petition, and should contain the following information: (1) Statement of the injury which would result to Protestant from such change. (2) The basis of Protestant's water right. (3) Protestant's past and present use of water both as to amount used and land irrigated, or use made of water if other than irrigation. (4) The approximate location of such land or place of use and of the point of diversion of the water."
  • mailing list, 8 names, including GCID,Flanagan Brothers, Corning; Mills Orchards, Esperanza Land, SV Sugar Co; Chickering & Gregory
    043025 form letter Feeny/Div WRights to Postmaster Elk Creek; please post;
    043025 letter Bryan/Office Engineer to James Mills/Mills Orchards; are retyping amended ap for you & have prepared copies of the blueprints, when ready will mail "to you direct together whit bill for services." Ap is a site change only; being readvertised, copy of the notice enclosed, 60 days to protest;
    062426 Affidavit of Publication; Orland Register
    062425 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WRights; affidavit of publication enclosed
    062925 letter Bryan/Office Engineer to Weber/Reclamation; affidavit of publication received

    - - -

    063025 [?]
    IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE UNITED STATES
    RECLAMATION SERVICE FOR PERMISSION TO CHANGE
    POINT OF DIVERSION UNDER APPLICATION
    NO. 2212

    Now come L.E. Brownell, I.L. Brownell and R.E. Brownell and protest against the granting of the change of point of diversion under the above numbered application and as grounds of protest assign:
    1.

    That the protestants are the owners of approximately 4500 acres of land situate in Townships 21 and 22 North, Range 5 West, which lands are contiguous to Stony Creek and which lands protestants claim is riparian to said Stony Creek and they therefore claim that they have the right to irrigate from said Creek and that the diversion of the water from said Creek and that the diversion of the water from said Creek at the point described in the application will deprive them of the use of said waters.
    2.
    That protestant's water right is based upon the fact that they are the owners of land which are riparian to Stony Creek.
    3.
    That protestants have in the past irrigated a portion of said lands from said Creek and have constantly used the waters thereof for stock and domestic purposes in connection with the use of their said lands.
    4.
    That the lands irrigated from said Stony Creek consist of a little over a hundred acres in Section 23, Township 22 North, Range 5 West, but protestants contend that an acreage of approximately 4500 acres is susceptible to irrigation from said Creek under th Bert Cole Survey made in approximately the year 1903, which Cole Survey is hereby referred to for further particulars.

    Respectfully submitted,
    /s/ L.e. Brownell
    /s/ I.L. Brownell
    /s/ R.H. Brownell
    [all 3] by R.H.B.

    - - -
    062925 letter George Freeman/atty to Hyatt/Div WRights; enclosed Brownell protest
    070625 letter Bryan/Office Engineer to Weber/Reclamation; received answer to Brownells; enclosing a copy of our letter to them, let us know how the conference comes out
    070925 letter Bryan/Office Engineer to Freeman/atty; "protest is stated to be 'against the granting of the change of point of diversion',...Both the point of diversion as first specified and that which is now proposed is above the Brownell property. As we understand it at the lower point there are some 610 square miles tributary to the source and at the upper and proposed new point of diversion there are only 301 square miles. A movement of the point of diversion upstream therefore involves the loss of 309 square miles, or more than fifty per cent of the drainage area, thereby decreasing the possibility of interference with the rights claimed by protestant....no diversion is contemplated during the period May first to November first...if approved the approval will be expressly subject to all vested rights.." Enclosing copy of rules & regs; suggested Mr. Coffey, Atty for Reclamation, call upon you & talk it over; if no resolution, "set the matter for an early hearing."

    070925 [Answer to Bronell Protest]; USA; "denies that the diversion of the waters of said Stony Creek at the point described in the application now pending herein will deprive protestants of any waters to which they may be lawfully entitled, or in any manner interfere therewith." [to p. 2] "III. Applicant admits that protestants, or their predecessors in interest, have heretofore irrigated during the early part of some irrigation seasons a part or portion of the lands described in paragraph one of the protest on file herein, but applicant alleges that none of the lands in said paragraph described have been irrigated, or water used thereon, for more than twenty (20) years past. [parap] IV. Applicant admits that the lands irrigated form said Stony Creek are situate in" S23 T22N R5W MDB & M, "but denies that such lands so irrigated consist of over one hundred acres, or in any amount in excess of forty-#ufive acres. Applicant further denies that an area of approximately 4,500 acres of the lands described in paragraph 1 of the protest on file herein, or any part thereof in excess of perhaps some one hundred acres are physically susceptible or possible of practical irrigation from the natural flow of Stony Creek, or its tributaries, if water were actually available for use thereon, and in this connection avers that none of such lands have been irrigated within more than twenty years last past. [para] V. That such rights, if any, as protestants have in and to the use of the waters of Stony Creek and its tributaries for the lands described in paragraph 1 of the protest on file herein are issues in the case of The United States of America vs. Angle, and others, now pending in the Northern Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and designated therein as In Equity-No. 30; that the trial of said suit has been completed, but decision has not as yet been rendered by the Court, and that the rights of defendants in and to the use of the waters of Stony Creek and its tributaries will be determined thereby; that whatever rights are decreed to protestants in said suit will not in any manner be affected by the change in point of diversion as described in Amended Application #2212. [to p. 3] Attention is also directed to the fact that the application of the United States of America is for permission to store flood waters, only, during the period October 1st to May 1st of each season and does not affect the low water flow of the stream system; that it is proposed to store flood waters by means of a dma in the stream bed of Stony Creek and that it is not proposed to store any of the natural flow of Stony Creek, or to in any wise interfere with such natural flow during the irrigation season. [para] Applicant further shows that the change in point of diversion as described in Application #2212 to the point of diversion as described in Amended Application #2212 will not interfere with any rights protestants may have in and to the use of the waters of Stony Creek for the reason that the point of diversion described in Application #2212 is situate at the extreme westerly and upper boundary of protestants' property whereas the point of diversion described in the Amended Application #2212 is located some ten miles further upstream, with an intervening drainage area of approximately three hundred square miles, the runoff of which is not affected by applicant's proposed storage reservoir, and which runoff, during the irrigation season, is sufficient to supply such rights, if any, as protestants may have in and to the waters of said stream system for domestic and stock purposes. [para],Applicant further shows that the mean seasonal runoff of Stony Creek at the proposed point of storage under Amended Applicant [sic] #2212 is approximately two hun dred seventy thousand acre feet, of which applicant proposes to impound but fifty thousand two hundred acre feet (see paragraph 2-b of amended application); that such part of said runoff not impounded by applicant, augmented by the runoff of the intervening drainabge area (amounting to approximately one hundred seventy thousand acre feet per season) flows down and past the lands of protestants and is not utilized, all thereof being wasted....". s "

    070925 letter Weber/reclamation to Div Wrights; enclosed answer to Brownell protest, copy to Freeman
    0711252 form letter Hyatt/Div Wrights to Weber; received answer to Brownell protest
    070925 memo Bryan/Office Engineer [to ???]; Weber & Coffee visited here, Weber will visit protestant to try to get a withdrawal, if succeeds, "will ad=vise us and the application will be in shape for immediate action, unless it becomes necessary to await the outcome of the case of the United States of America vs. Angle, et al, now pending in the Northern Division of the United states District Court for the Northern District of California and designated therein as 'In Equity No. 30'. [How was this decided] If Mr. Weber is unsuccessful in obtainin a withdrawal of the protest it was agreed that we shoujld set a hearing at the earliest practicable date. [para] The application should immediately receive the O-6 check."
    071725 F amended Brownell protest, added "protest against the granting of permission to store any waters of Stony Creek..." to intro;, /s/ George R. Freeman for each of them [contrast his handwriting with Herminghaus protest?]
    071625 letter Freeman/atty to Hyatt/Div WRights; enclosed amendment to cure defect, clients "not favorable to a withdrawal"; rules not enclosed; will accept existing answer if Weber wishes
    072125 letter Bryan/Office Engineer to W.C. Fox/Chickering & Gregory; summary of the pending ap; filed 02/17/1921 "and proposed to impound 115,000 acre-feet in Millsite Reservoir Site between November 1st and May 1st of each season for the irrigation of 30,000 acres outside of and above the established project. It was later decided to raise the capacity of the reservoir to 120,500 acre feet and application number 3944 was filed to cover the difference...."; notice not published, asked for an extension, then decided to amend 03/27/1925 reducing storage to 50,200 a-f at Stony Gorge instead & for existing Project acreage, 3944 cancelled, advert soon
    072225 letter Bryan/Office Engineer to Freeman/atty; received your 07/16/1925 letter; although the change in POD was advertised, the ap itself was not, so 60 days must elapse before setting hearing; rules enclosed
    072325 letter Bryan/Office Engineer to Weber/Reclamation; enclosed letter to Freeman; advert notice coming shortly
    071625 memo Kibbey/Asst. Hydraulic Engineer [to files?]; concluding amendment advertised but original not, "...taking this attitude the change in both the point of diversion and place of use may be allowed as amendments to the original application without advertisement and notices of the amended application as a whole can go forward. Such notices should of course be sent to all persons who received notice of the original project or of the proposed change with notation to the effect that amendments to the application [to p. 2] were instituted shortly after special notices were sent out on" 08/08/1924 "that the present notice supersedes these said notices and represents the completed application. Brownell Brothers should be sent a special letter directing their attention to the facts in the case, and advising that their protest does not appear to present any grounds for denying the change against which it is directed and instructing them, in case they object to the appropriation, to file a protest against the approval of the amended application as a whole."
    072425 letter Weber/Reclamation to Bryan/Div WRights; received your 07/23/1925 letter sending copy of Brownell letter; further advertising contradicted by your statements in person on 07/09; "further advertising will delay proceedings at least 75 to 90 days and if not imperatively necessary, it is requested that your order in this connection be withdrawn and hearing hel at the earliest practicable date."
    072525 letter Chickering & Gregory to Div WRights; thanks for your letter of the 21st; please notify us of the protest deadline, copy to Mills Orchards;;
    072825 form letter Hyatt/Div WRights to Weber/Reclamation; enclosed 2 copies of notice, publish in the Orland Register within 15 days of the notice for 3 consecutive weeks, 4 insertions; affidavit of publication from publisher, etc. within 60 days with copy of the notice attached
    072825 Notice of Application to Appropriate Water; "This notice is given to clear up certain deficiencies in notices of this application heretofore given under dates of" 08/08/1924 7 04/30/1925. mailing list on back
    072825 form letter Hyatt/Div WRights to Postmaster, Elk Creek; please post
    072825 letter Bryan/Office Engineer to Brownells c/o Freeman; notice enclosed; unecessary "to file another protest unless you find that there is additional matter which you wish to present."
    072825 letter Bryan/Office Engineer to Weber/Orland Project; sorry about all this but the blame is shared, when you visited we had not realized that both POD & POU were changed, the previous ad was just for POD, so, new ad is necessary.
    090825 Affidavit of Publication; Orland Register
    090825 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WRights; enclosed original afficavit of publication
    090825 letter Weber/Reclamation to Bryan/Div WRights; 60 days from 07/28/1925 notice date, plus your required 20 days to receive protests, counting dates, looks like 10/19 or 10/20 for hearing, will be out of the office until then, please arrange it
    091425 Protest of GCID:
    [blue cover]
    NO. App. 2212

    SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
    DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS
    SACRAMENTO

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

    IN RE APPLICATION OF

    UNITED STATES RECLAMATION
    SERVICE

    TO APPROPRIATE AND STORE
    WATER OF STONY CREEK

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

    PROTEST OF

    GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION
    DISTRICT.

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

    ATTORNEYS FOR PROTESTANT.
    HANKINS & HANKINS
    ATTORNEYS AT LAW
    918 PACIFIC BUILDING
    SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.


    BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF
    WATER RIGHTS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPLICATION NO. 2212

    IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
    THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BY AND
    THROUGH THE UNITED STATES RECLAMATION
    SERVICE TO STORE, APPROPRIATE AND DI-
    VERT IRRIGATION WATERS OF STONY CREEK
    AND ITS TRIBUTARIES IN THE STATE OF
    CALIFORNIA.

    PROTEST OF THE
    GLENN-COLUSA
    IRRIGATION DISTRICT.

    .. .. .. .. .. ..

    Now comes the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of that certain Act of the Legislature of the State of California, entitled: "The California Irrigation District Act", and specially appears. in the above entitled matter, for the purpose of protesting, but without admitting or conceding any jurisdiction of said department to adjudicate or pass upon the water or other rights of said district, protests against the granting of any permits for the diversion of the natural flow and storage water of Stony Creek and its tributaries, and alleges:-
    I.

    That said protestant, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, was duly organized on the second day of March, 1920, by a vote of the duly qualified electors within the boundaries of said District, as required by the California Irrigation District Act, and ever since said date, has been, and now is, carrying on the business of an irrigation district; that said district comprises an area of one hundred and twenty thousand (120,000) acres, located in the Counties of Glenn and Colusa, State of California; that said district is interested in matters affected by the said application

    [p.] 1.

    of the United States of America, through and by its reclamation service.

    II.

    That prior to November 30th, 1901, the Central Irrigation District, a district organized under the Act of March 31st, 1897, was the owner of a large canal some forty. (40) miles in length, extending from a point near the northerly side of Glenn County, into the County of Colusa.

    III.

    In the year, 1903, the Board of Directors of the Central Irrigation District, in accordance with the Irrigation District Act of 1901, a mendatory [sic] of the Act of 1897, leased the properties of said District, for a term of fifty (50) years, to Williard [sic] M. Sheldon, and which said lease was thereafter, and in February, 1903, duly assigned to the Central Canal and Irrigation Company, a corporation. That at all times herein mentioned, the said Central Irrigation District was a de facto irrigation district, and had all the powers and rights of a de facto irrigation district.
    IV.

    That on or about the 21st day of November 1904, the Central Canal and Irrigation Co., a corporation, as required by the laws of the State of California, duly posted and recorded a notice of the appropriation of the water of Stony Creek to the extent of five thousand (5,000) cubic feet per second, which notice was recorded on November 25, 1904 in Book 2 Miscellaneous Records page 105 Glenn County Records, a copy of which said notice is hereunto attached, and made a part hereof, for all purposes, and marked: "Exhibit A".

    That in addition to said notice of said Central Canal & Irrigation Co., a notice of appropriation of 5000 cubic feet of water of Stony Creek was duly posted and filed by M.H. Sheldon, which notice was recorded April 16, 1903 in Book
    2.

    2 of Miscellaneous Records page 66, Glenn County Records, and also a notice for the same amount of water was duly posted and filed by Central Irrigation District, which notice was recorded May 5th, 1905 in Book 2 of Miscellaneous Records, page 124 Glenn County Records, That all of said appropriations were for the same common purpose and protestant herein as the successor in interest of said claimants is now the owner thereof.

    V.

    That thereafter, and in the year 1909, the Sacramento Va1ley Irrigation Company obtained an assignment. of said lease and all of the right, title and interest of said Central Canal and Irrigation Company and Central Irrigation District, in and to said irrigation system, rights, water appropriations and property [handwritten phrase:], and the contract with the Reclamation Service of the United States as hereinafter set forth.

    VI.

    That on or about the twenty-fourth day of September 1907, a contract was made and entered into by and between the Central Canal and Irrigation Company, a corporation, as party of the first part, its successors and assigns, and the United States of America, party of the second part, and its assigns, acting in its behalf by Morris Bien, Acting Director of the United States Reclamation Service thereunto duly authorized by the Secretary of the Interior, wherein and whereby, the said Central Canal and Irrigation Company was recognized as entitled to all of the waters of Stony Creek and its tributaries, in excess of two hundred and sixty-five (265) cubic feet per second, of the natural flow, and the said stored waters mentioned in said contract, a copy of which contract is hereunto attached, marked "Exhibit B", and made a part hereof, for all purposes.

    VII.

    That thereafter, and in the month of July, 1909, the said Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company, duly transferred to the Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company, a corporation,

    [p.] 3

    all the interests in and to said irrigation system and rights [handwritten phrase:] and said contract with said Reclamation Service.
    VIII.

    That thereafter, and on the sixth day of April, 1920, the said Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company, a corporation, and Alger Fast, as Receiver thereof, duly made and entered into, a certain lease with the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, wherein and whereby said irrigation district took over and assumed all the rights, titles. and interests of the said Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company, in and to the said canal system and irrigation works and as a part and portion of said lease, obtained from said lessor, an option to purchase all of the irrigation system of the said Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company and Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company, together with all the improvements and additional equipment, including all system of laterals, ditches, drains, rights of way and other property, real and personal, used in connection with the maintenance and operation of said irrigation district, together with all water rights, appropriation of water, grants, licenses for the taking of water from any source of supply, and the right to take or use water under any claim or rights so to do, heretofore made by said lessors, or which said lessors have acquired by assignment or otherwise from its predecessors in interest.
    IX.

    That said Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District has exercised its said option under said lease, and has duly purchased said canal system and all water rights, thereof, and is now the owner thereof [handwritten phrase: ] and of said Contract with said Reclamation Service.
    X.

    That one of the rights of the Central Canal and Irrigation Company, which said district obtained, under its said purchase, is the right to take and divert all water from Stony Creek over and above the amount of two hundred and sixty-five (265) cubic feet per second in the manner set forth and

    [p.] 4.

    referred to in said contract between said Central Canal and Irrigation Company, and the United States of America;
    XI.

    That ever since the year 1905, and continuously thereafter, the predecessors in interest of said district, have diverted and applied to beneficial use, all waters of Stony Creek, over and above the said two hundred and sixty-five (265) second feet and allege that the said Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, by its predecessors in interest, have duly appropriated all of said waters over and above said amount, and claim and have a vested interest therein and thereto, and that the same is not subject to distribution or allotment, or under the control of the above named department of the state of California,

    That the use or storage of water of said Creek contrary to the terms of said agreement will deprive the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District of water to which it is entitled and needs for the irrigation of its said lands.

    That the point of diversion of said water of said Creek is at the point of crossing of the Canal of protestant and said Creek in Glenn County, California.

    WHEREFORE, said Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District protests against the granting by the Water Commission of the State of California, of any rights whatsoever in the matter of said Stony Creek and its tributaries, in any way contrary to the said contract made by said Reclamation service of the United States..

    /s/ Hankins & Hankins
    _____________________________________`
    Attorneys for Glenn-Colusa
    Irrigation District.

    [page break]

    STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
    COUNTY OF [pencilled in, San Francisco crossed off:] Glenn ) SS

    Wm. Durbrow, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That he is the Secretary of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, protestant in the above entitled matter; that he has read the foregoing appearance and Protest of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true of his own knowledge except as to the matters which are therein stated on his information and belief, and as. to those matters, that he believes it to be true.

    /s/ [illegible]
    ______________________________________

    Subscribed and sworn to before me
    this 14th day of September, 1925
    /s/ H.R. Allard
    ______________________________________
    NOTARY PUBLIC
    in and for the County of [pencilled in:]
    GLENN, State of California.

    [page break]

    Exhibit "A"
    NOTICE OF APPROPRIATION

    NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Central Canal and Irrigation Company, a corporation organized under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, does this day appropriate, and does claim the water flowing in the Stoney Creek to the extent of five thousand (5000) cubic feet per second, at a point on the South Bank of said. Stoney Creek, near St. Jobns in Glenn County, California, where said Creek passes through the tract of lan4 known as the "Chambers Land", at the point in the South Bank of said Stoney Creek where the Central Cenal now intersects said Creek, which said point is the point of intended diversion, and at which point this notice is posted:

    That the purpose for which it claims the said water and for whioh the same is appropriated is to supply water for domestic use and for irrigation;

    That the place of the intended use of the said water is in the eastern portion of Glenn County and Colusa County, on those lands lying to the west of the Sacramento River therein and on either side of the Colusa Canal, also in the center portion of said Glenn, Colusa and Yolo Counties on the lands lying to the east of the Central Canal, so far as now constructed, and to the east of the foot-hills bounding the western portion of the Sacramento Valley in the Counties of Colusa and Yolo to the South of the point to which said canal has been constructed;

    That the means by which said Central Canal and Irrigation Company intends to divert said water is by a ditch; that the size of the said ditch in which said corporation intends to divert said water is one hundred (100) feet in width at the top and sixty (60) feet in width at the bottom and fifteen (15) feet in depth, through a headgate built in the bank of said Stoney Creek, and by means of a low dam in said Stoney Creek, at a point opposite the lower end of the said headgate.

    [page break]

    In Witness Whereof, the said Central Canal and Irrigation Company has caused this "Notice of Appropriation " to be hereunto subscribed by its president and secretary, they being thereunto first duly authorized by resolution of the Board of Direotors, and the corporate seal to be hereunto affixed this 14th day of November, 1904.

    Central Canal and Irrigation Company
    By J.R.Lewis, President
    (Corporate Seal) J.A. McClurg, Jr., Secretary

    State of California )
    County of Glenn ) SS

    Ben Childs being first duly sworn says: That on the 21st day of November 1904, affiant posted the annexed notice of water location of Central Canal & Irrigation Company appropriating waters of Stony Creek on the south bank of Stony Creek near St.John on the head-gate of said Canal by firmly tacking the same, on said day, at said place, to a post of said headgate.

    Ben Childs.

    Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21st day of Nov. 1904.

    (SEAL) R.J. Billiou, Notary Public in and for
    Glenn Co. State of Cal.

    Recorded at request of Geo. R. Freeman Nov. 25th, A.D,1904 at 5 minutes past 4 o’clock P.M. in book 2 of Miscellaneoue Records, page 105, Records of Glenn County.

    John G.Graves,County Recorder
    J.L.Brockman, Deputy Recorder

    (Attached Certificate)

    STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
    COUNTY OF GLENN ) SS

    I, Mrs. Mary Moore, County Recorder of Glenn County, California, hereby certify that the annexed copy of Notice of Appropriation is a full, true and literal exemplification from the record in this office as the same appears in liber 2 of Miscellaneous Records page 105 Records of Glenn County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have set my hand and seal of office at Willows, Glenn County, California, this 28th day of April, 1923.

    (SEAL) Mrs. Mary Moore, County Recorder
    ________________ Deputy County Recorder.

    [page break]

    Exhibit "`B"

    Approved by Mr. Bien, Aug. 1st, 1907,
    See letter to Reager, August 7th.

    THESE ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 24th, day of September, 1907, between the Central Canal and Irrigation Company a corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, Darty of the first part, its successors and assigns, and the United States of America, party of the second part, and its assigns, acting in this behalf by Morris Bien, Acting Director of the U.S. Reclamation Service thereunto duly authorized by the Secretary of the Interior:

    WHEREAS, the First party, the Stony Creek Irrigation Company, and the Lemon Home Water Power and Light Company, claim water rights from Stony Creek in Glenn and Tehama Counties under the provisions of the laws of California, of various amounts and properties, as shown by notice of appropriation on file in the offices of the Recorders of Glenn and Tehama, and WHEREAS the total of such claims to the water of said Stony Creek is greatly in excess of the natural flow of Stony Creek and its tributaries during the irrigating season and WHEREAS the United States, pursuant to the provisions of the Act of Congress approved June 17th, 1902, (32 Stat., 388) known as the reclamation Act, proposes to construct an irrigation system called the Orland project, involving the use of the waters of Stony Creek and its tributaries and WHEREAS, the first section of the Orland project involves the storage of the waters of Little Stony Creek, at East Park Reservoir, with diversion works appropriating thereto, the dam for said reservoid [sic] being located in the N.E. 1/4 of Sec. 3, Tp. 17 N. R.6 W; M.D.M., and WHEREAS, in the inauguration of the said first section of the project it is proposed that the United States acquire. the rights and properties of the Stony Creek Irrigation Company and the Lemon Home Power & Light Company, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and to avoid expensive litigation in the adjustment of the rights of claimants to the waters of Stony Creek, and other good and valuable considerations moving from each party of the other, it is hereby mutually agreed and understood;

    1. That upon acquiring the rights of the Stony Creek Irrigation Company and the Lemon Home Water, Power and Light Co. under the proposed contracts as aforesaid, the United States shall be entitled to store all the waters of Little Stony Creek and its tributaries in East Park Reservoir, as hereinbefore described, and the United States shall further be entitled to construct a Diversion Dam in S. 1/2 of Sec. 29, T. 23N. R.4 W., M.D.M. with a foundation of sheet piling or other water tight structure, and to divert the surface and underground flow of Stony Creek to the extent of 265 cubic feet per second natural flow, and distribute the same in such manner as the United Stated [sic] may elect. The United States shall further be entitled to construct reservoirs and to store therein all the waters of Stony Creek and its tributaries during the months of October, November, December, January, and February of each year, and shall be furrher [sic] entitled to store in its reservoirs any portion of the said 265 cu.ft. per second not diverted into iits canals. The stored waters herein mentioned. may be diverted at such points and distrubuted [sic] in such manner as the United States may elect.

    2. That the Central Canal and Irrigation Company is hereby recognized as entitled to all the waters of Stony Creek and its tributaries, in excess of the 265 Cu.Ft. per second of the natural flow and the said stored waters hereinbefore mentioned.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the party of the first part has caused this instrument to be executed, and its corporate seal to be affixed. in pursuance of resolutions of its Board of Directors, copy of which is hereto attached, and the same has been executed on behalf of the United States by the Acting Director of the Reclamation

    1.

    Service.

    CENTRAL CANAL & IRRIGATION COMPANY
    BY C.M. WOOSTER, President, party of the first part
    ATTEST: S.R. Chappe1, Secretary
    (Corporate Seal)

    Morris Bien, Actrng-Director-Reclamation Service for and on behalf of the United States of America, party of the Second part.

    STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
    CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ) SS

    On this 24th day of ,September, in the year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Seven, before me, John H. Ware, a Notary Public in and for the City and County of San Francisco, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared C.M. Wooster and S.R. Chappel known to me to be the president and secretary of the corporation that executed the.within instrument and acknowledged that that [sic] such corporation executed the same.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal at my office in the said City and County of San Francisco, the day and year in this certificate first above written.

    (SEAL) John H. Ware, Notary Public in and for the City and County of San Francisco, State of California,
    My Commission expires. September 24th, l911

    I hereby certify that the attached agreement, headed, "Approved by Mr. Bien, August 1st, 1907, See letter to Reager, August 7th, 1907", and dated the 24th day of September, 1907, consisting of three pages, and having the signature. of the Central Canal and Irrigation Company by C.M. Wooster, President, attested by S.R. Chappel, Secretary, with the seal of the Central Canal & Irrigation Company on the left margin, is a true copy of the agreement adopted by the executive committee of the Central Canal & Irrigation Company, dulu [sic] authorized, at its meeting, Sept. 24th, 1907, and that the same was regularly adopted.

    CENTRAL CANAL & IRRIGATION COMPANY
    BY S.R. CHAPPEL, Secretary.

    A Meeting of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of the Centra1 Canal & Irrigation Company, called by personal notice served on each member of said committee for the purpose of taking action on the form of agreement respecting the water rights on Stony Creek, between the Central Canal & Irrigation Conmany and the United States of America, was held this 24th day of September, 1907, at the office of the Company at 2 o'clock P.M.

    [page break]

    On motion of Director Robinson, seconded by Director Hawkins, the agreement as presented by the representative of the United States of America in the Reclamation Service, a copy of which is hereto attached, was approved, and the President, C.M. Wooster, and the Secretary, S.R. Chappel, were authorized and instructed to sign, seal, and execute said agreements in the name of the Central Canal & Irrigation Company, and to deliver two copies thereof to the representatives of the United States Government, and to deposit one copy thereof in the archives of said Central Canal & Irrigation Company, and to spread one copy thereof.on the minutes of the minute book of this company. The motion was unanimously adopted.

    State of California. )
    City and County of San Prancisco) ss

    I, S.R. Chappel, Secretary of the Central Canal & Irrigation Company, a corporation, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a meeting of the executive Committee of the Central Canal & Irrigation Company, regularly held on the 24th day of September, 1907, and that more than a majority of the Directors thereof were present and voted for the adoption of the said resolution.
    San Francisco, Cal., Sept. 24th, 1907

    S.R. Chappel, Secretary
    Central Canal & Irrigation Co.
    (SEAL)

    Recorded at request of T.H. Humphrey, April 9th, 1908, at 35 Min. past 7 o’clock, A,M. in Liber "1" of Miscellaneous Records page 525 Records of Tehama County.
    H.G.Kuhn, Recorder
    F.H. Kuhn, Deputy.

    Received, filed and recorded at request of T.H. Humphreys April 20th, A.D. 1908, at ___min. past 8 o’clock, A.M. in Book 2 of Contracts and agreements, page 150, Records of Colusa County.

    W.J. King, County Recorder,
    By Alva A. King, Deputy.

    Recorded at request of T,H.Humphreys, April 24th, A.D. 1908, at 10 minutes past 2 o’clock P.M., in Book 1 of Contracts and Agreements, page 474, Records of Glenn County,
    M. Golden, County Recorder.

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


    RESOLVED, that Whereas, on the 24th day of September, 1907, a resolution was ad pted [sic] authorizing the President and Sedretary of this corporation to execute with the United States of America, a certain agreement providing for the division and adjustment of water rights on Stony Creek in Glenn County, State of California;

    And Whereas, in the opinion of the authorities of the said United States, it is desired to change the contract then entered into and agreed upon, by striking from the same the words on page 2 thereof "prior to March 1st" and inserting instead thereof the words "during the months of October, November, December, January and February".

    IT IS THEREFORE RESOLVED, That this corporation do [sic] consent to the change in the said agreement, and that the same be modified in that respect;

    [page break]

    AND FURTHER RESOLVED, That the President and Secretary are hereby authorized to execute the contract in such amended and changed forms

    S.R. Chappel, Secretary.

    I do hereby certify that the above resolution is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of the Central Canal & Irrigation Company at its regular meeting held February 15th, 1908

    S.R, Chappel, Secretary.

    091425 letter [illegible] to Hyatt/Div WRights; enclosed protest
    091525 letter Hyatt/Div WRights to Weber/Orland Project; received 2 letters of 09/08; hearing sometime after 10/19, only Brownell protest on file as of yet.
    091625 letter Hyatt/Chief of Division to GCID, cc: Hankins/atty; received your protest; copy of Reg 11 & 12 enclosed, show you must serve a copy on applicant; we're notifying applicant of your protest, but you still must serve them and notify us; asking applicant to try and work it out with you, they want a hearing ASAP after 10/20/1925.
    091625 letter Hyatt/Chief of Division to Weber/Orland Project; received GCID protest, please try and settle, else hearing ASAP after 10/19;
    091725 letter Wm. Durbrow/GCID to Hyatt/Div WRights; Reclamation at Orland "hasve been notified of the protest" and acknowledges the notification. Uh, what about service?
  • 091825 pencilled "No answer required. J.C.F."
    092225 letter Coffey/Reclamation District Counsel ; to Bryan/Div WRights; received copy GCID protest; Weber is back east & won't be back within the time limit for response, please extend 15 days for answer;

    092225 Office Report Re Application Number 2212 by John C. Fales; Protsted by Brownells, GCID c/o Hankins, Esperanza land, James Mills Orchards; "project is shown in red on the attached map. It is for the supplementing of direct flow right claimed by applicant, such right (265 c.f.s.) having been purchased and regulated by operation of East Park Reservoir as hereinafter set out. Protestants' claims are indicated on the map in blue and green respectively. The project is somewhat changed from the original filing." "Filed 02/17/1921, in form 04/01/1925, advertised 07/28/1925; summary of Brownells; GCID "protest shows a succession of title by which they now claim rights to the entire flow of the source above the first 265" cfs; "this amount having been ceded to the U.S. Reclamation Service by a predecessor in interest. They divert through the canal indicated in green on the attached map and object to any diversions by applicant which may interfere with their claimed right to all but the first 265 c.f.s. flowing in the source. [para] To date no answer to protest has been filed but one may be expected in the near future." [para] "Summary....on file information as to the flow of Stoney [sic] Creek at various points above and below applicant's point of diversion, same being from U.S. Geological Survey records. [para] No reports have heretofore been compiled on this application. [para] ...Applicant desires action on the application as soon as possible, but understands that pending litigation may render deferring action necessary....recommended that such a hearing be held at Willwos as soon after" 10/20/1925 " as is convenient for this office. Applicant is expecting such a hearing."
  • 092225 hand drawn map on graph paper, "Map to Accompany Office Report on Application #2212, John C. Fales; showing GCID canal crossing, Orland Project North Canal, South Canal, Brownell Brothers lands Stony Gorge Dam & reservoir

    092525 letter Eriksen/Reclamation to Div WRights; "none of the protests...have been withdrawn."
  • 092825 pencilled, "no answer required. J.C.F."
    092525 letter Dubrow/GCID to Hyatt/Div WRights; re your 09/16/1925 letter, Reclamation was served at same time protest was sent to you, we understand they've acknowledged receipt, this letter to make sure;
  • 092825 "No answer required. J.C.F."
    092825 letter Bryan/Div WRights to Coffey/Reclamation; your 09/22/1925 letter, "a slight possibility of avoiding the necessity of a hearing before taking action on this application, and we are, therefore, taking the initiative in waiving the filing by you of written answer to protest. We shall, however, expect that full information in regard to this protest and your attitutde thereto be submitted at the time of the hearing."
    092825 telegram Div WRights to County Clerk, Court House, Willows; "What room in Court House will be available for water rights hearing October twenty first Rush answer our expense"
    telegram collect Sale/County Clerk to Div Wrights; "SUPERVISORS ROOM COURT HOUSE AVAILABLE OCTOBER 21"

    092825 Protest of James Mills Orchards Corporation
    [blue cover]

    Application 2212

    BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF
    PUBLIC WORKS, DIVISION
    OF WATER RIGHTS, STATE
    OF CALIFORNIA

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

    In the Matter of the
    Application of

    UNITED STATES RECLAMATION
    SERVICE

    to appropriate waters
    of Stony Creek

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

    PROTEST OF JAMES MILLS

    ORCHARDS CORPORATION.

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


    CHICKERING & GREGORY
    MERCHANTS EXCHANGE BLDG.
    SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.


    [end of cover] Stamp:
    RECEIVED
    SEP 30 1925
    STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
    DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS


    BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS,

    STATE OF CALIFORNIA


    In the Matter of the Application of )

    UNITED STATES RECLAMATION SERVICE)

    To appropriate waters of Stony Creek.)

    Application 2212

    PROTEST OF JAMES MILLS ORCHARDS CORPORATION

    Now comes James Mills Orchards Corporation, a corporation, and protesting the above-entitled application of the United States Reclamation Service, respectfully shows:

    I.


    That protestant James Mills Orchards Corporation is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a corporation created, organzed and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California.

    II.


    That said protestant is now, and for many years last past has been, the owner and in posssession of the following lots, pieces and parcels of land situate, lying and being in the County of Glenn, State of California, to-wit:
    The South half of Lots 1094 to 1097 inclusive;
    The Southwest quarter of Lot 1112;
    Lots 1113 to 1117 inclusive;
    The North half and the Southeast quarter of Lot 1129;
    Lots 1130 to 1139 inclusive;
    Lots 1141 to 1150 inclusive;
    Lots 1166 to 1178 inclusive;
    All said lots being part of Division No. 2 of the Hamilton Unit of the Sacramento Valley Irrigation Project according to the Map of same filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Glenn, State of California.
    III.


    That said Stony Creek, referred to in said application, is a natural water course rising in the mountains west of the lands of protestant and flowing in a general westerly [sic, s/b easterly] direction over,

    1.


    through, under and along the lands of protestant hereinabove described and finally emptying into the Sacramento River. That all of the above described lands of protestant are riparian to said Stony Creek.

    IV.


    That Stony Creek during past ages has built up a well defined gravel cone of great depth, consisting of pervious and coarse gravel that absorbs large quantities of water during the time when a surface flow exists in said stream and tributaries thereof, and the water so absorbed flows in the underground channels of Stony Creek and also flows and percolates into the numerous underground gravel stratas and channels hereinafter referred to. That under the surface of the lands of protestant are numerous gravel stratas and channels interconnected and connected at numerous points with the surface and underground channels of Stony Creek, and part and parcel of said cone. That the amount of water absorbed by said cone percolation and flow in said underground channels is variable and depends upon the surface of the water of said Stony Creek, the surface of gravel exposed to such water, the depth of water over such gravels and the duration of the flow. That unless said cone is annually replenished, there is nothing to sustain the supply of water now existing and passing along, over and under the lands of protestant, and that if the flow of Stony Creek is interfered with, said cone and underground channels will become depleted and dry.

    V.


    That for many years protestant has been engaged in the improvement and development of its lands by planting thereon a large number of trees of various kinds, both deciduous and citrus, as well as other crops, requiring water to be applied artificially. That to supply such needed water defendant has expended large amounts of money in the boring and sinking of numerous wells, and

    2.


    the installation therein of suitable pumps and equipment with which to operate said pumps for the irrigation of said lands from the surface and underground flow of said Stony Creek and from waters percolating in said lands, and also in the construction of many miles of concrete pipe for the distribution of said water to said lands, and in the construction of many miles of power lines to enable power to be delivered to said pumps for said irrigation. That said land is now being so irrigated, and has at all times since the year 1912 been so irrigated. That the result of the use of said water for said irrigation has been to greatly increase the yield of crops of all kinds on said lands, and irrigation will in the future continue to increase the yield from said lands. That without irrigation said lands are practically valueless.

    VI.


    That the various wells on protestant’s lands are connected with and are supplied through the surface and underground channels above referred to, including said bed of Stony Creek, and are entirely dependent thereon. That protestant is the owner of riparian and appropriative rights in and to the surface and underground flow of said Stony Creek and the waters thereof, and is entitled to have such flow continue on, over, across and along the above described lands without diminution by applicant.

    VII.


    That protestant, by virtue of the ownership of the above described lands and the underground water-bearing stratum supplied from flood and other waters of Stony Creek and tributaries thereof, has a primary right to the full surface and underground flow of said stream.

    VIII.


    That said Division of Water Rights is an administrative tribunal before which this protestant is not required to appear

    3.


    in order to preserve its rights in and to the flow of Stony Creek and tributaries thereof, or in or to any of the percolating waters underlying the lands of protestant and supplied from Stony Creek as hereinabove set forth, and this protest is filed for the purpose of serving notice upon the United States Reclamation Service that the said protestant in no way acquiesces in the diversion of any water from Stony Creek or tributaries thereof under the aforesaid application of said Reclamation Service now pending before the Division of Water Rights. That this protest is filed for the further purpose of preventing said applicant from now or at any time in the future claiming that this protestant acquiesces or has acquiesced in the use of additional water by said applicant over and above the quantity that is now under other claims of applicant being put to beneficial use, and particularly to prevent the interposition in the future by applicant of the claim that protestant has suffered applicant to proceed at great or any expense to divert additional water for public use, or the interposition by applicant of any equitable or other estoppel. That said applicant is without right to take any of the waters of Stony Creek or the tributaries thereof, or in any way interfere with said percolating waters and said underground and surface flow fed by Stony Creek and tributaries thereof, to the injury of protestant. That should the Division of Water Rights see fit to grant to said applicant a permit to appropriate any water or waters of Stony Creek or any tributary thereof pursuant to said application but subject to vested rights, protestant now notifies applicant that any diversion under such permit that in any manner invades or interferes with protestant’s rights shall be deemed to warrant a claim for injunctive relief, and such other relief as protestant may then deem necessary to protect its rights in such waters.

    JAMES MILLS ORCHARDS CORPORATION

    By /s/ James Mills
    ___________________________________
    President

    4.


    A copy of the within protest and notice has this day been mailed to applicant.

    DATED: September 28th 1925.

    /s/ Chickering & Gregory
    _________________________________
    Attorneys for Protestant.

    5.
    092825 Protest of Esperanza Land:
    [blue cover]

    Application 2212

    BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF
    PUBLIC WORKS, DIVISION
    OF WATER RIGHTS, STATE
    OF CALIFORNIA

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

    In the Matter of the
    Application of

    UNITED STATES RECLAMATION
    SERVICE

    to appropriate waters
    of Stony Creek

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

    PROTEST OF ESPERANZA

    LAND CORPORATION

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


    CHICKERING & GREGORY
    MERCHANTS EXCHANGE BLDG.
    SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.


    [end of cover]

    RECEIVED
    SEP 30 1925
    STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
    DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS


    BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS,

    STATE OF CALIFORNIA


    In the Matter of the Application of )

    UNITED STATES RECLAMATION SERVICE)

    To appropriate waters of Stony Creek.)

    Application 2212

    PROTEST OF ESPERANZA LAND CORPORATION

    Now comes Esperanza Land Corporation, a corporation,and protesting the above-entitled application of the United States Reclamation Service, respectfully shows:

    I.


    That protestant Esperanza Land Corporation is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a corporation created, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California.

    II.


    That said protestant is now, and for many years last past has been, the owner and in possession of the following lots, pieces and parcels of land situate, lying and being in the County of Glenn, State of California, to-wit:
    Lots 1001 to 1011 inclusive;
    Lots 1023 to 1046 inclusive;
    Lots 1052 to 1069 inclusive;
    Lots 1071 to 1093 inclusive;
    N 1/2 of Lots 1094 to 1097 inclusive;
    Lots 1098 to 1104 inclusive;
    Lots 1106 to 1111 inclusive;
    N 1/2 and SE 1/4 of Lot 1112;
    Lots 1186 to 1202 inclusive;
    Lots 1220 to 1236 inclusive;
    Lots 1254 to 1269 inclusive;
    Lots 1281 to 1296 inclusive;
    Lots 1302 to 1312 inclusive;
    Lots 1323 to 1333 inclusive;
    Lots 1342 to 1363 inclusive;
    Lots 1372 to 1382 inclusive;
    Lots 1410 to 1420 inclusive;
    Lots 1429 to 1439 inclusive;
    Lots 1472 to 1482 inclusive;
    Said lots are laid down and designated on Sacramento Valley Project map of Division 2 of the Hamilton Unit, Glenn County, California, recorded June 16, 1923, in Book 2 of Maps and Surveys, at page 258, in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Glenn and, containing 9,382.64 Acres.
    1.

    III.


    That said Stony Creek, referred to in said application, is a natural water course rising in the mountains west of the lands of protestant and flowing in a general westerly [sic, s/b easterly] direction over, through, under and along the lands of protestant hereinabove described and finally emptying into the Sacramento River. That all of the above described lands of protestant are riparian to said Stony Creek.

    IV.


    That Stony Creek during past ages has built up a well defined gravel cone of great depth, consisting of pervious and coarse gravel that absorbs large quantities of water during the time when a surface flow exists in said stream and tributaries thereof, and the water so absorbed flows in the underground channels of Stony Creek and also flows and percolates into the numerous underground gravel stratas and channels hereinafter referred to. That under the surface of the lands of protestant are numerous gravel stratas and channels interconnected and connected at numerous points with the surface and underground channels of Stony Creek, and part and parcel of said cone. That the amount of water absorbed by said cone percolation and flow in said underground channels is variable and depends upon the surface of the water of said Stony Creek, the surface of gravel exposed to such water, the depth of water over such gravels and the duration of the flow. That unless said cone is annually replenished, there is nothing to sustain the supply of water now existing and passing along, over and under the lands of protestant, and that if the flow of Stony Creek is interfered with, said cone and underground channels will become depleted and dry.

    V.


    That for many years protestant has been engaged in the improvement and development of its lands by planting thereon a

    2.


    large number of trees of various kinds, both deciduous and citrus, as well as other crops, requiring water to be applied artificially. That to supply such needed water defendant has expended large amounts of money in the boring and sinking of numerous wells, and the installation therein of suitable pumps and equipment with which to operate said pumps for the irrigation of said lands from the surface and underground flow of said Stony Creek and from waters percolating in said lands, and also in the construction of many miles of concrete pipe for the distribution of said water to said lands, and in the construction of many miles of power lines to enable power to be delivered to said pumps for said irrigation. That said land is now being so irrigated, and has at all times since the year 1912 been so irrigated. That the result of the use of said water for said irrigation has been to greatly increase the yield of crops of all kinds on said lands, and irrigation will in the future continue to increase the yield from said lands. That without irrigation said lands are practically valueless.

    VI.


    That the various wells on protestant’s lands are connected with and are supplied through the surface and underground channels above referred to, including said bed of Stony Creek, and are entirely dependent thereon. That protestant is the owner of riparian and appropriative rights in and to the surface and underground flow of said Stony Creek and the waters thereof, and is entitled to have such flow continue on, over, across and along the above described lands without diminution by applicant.

    VII.


    That protestant, by virtue of the ownership of the above described lands and the underground water-bearing stratum supplied from flood and other waters of Stony Creek and tributaries therof, has a primary right to the full surface and underground flow of said stream.

    3.

    VIII.


    That said Division of Water Rights is an administrative tribunal before which this protestant is not required to appear in order to preserve its rights in and to the flow of Stony Creek and tributaries thereof, or in or to any of the percolating waters underlying the lands of protestant and supplied from Stony Creek as hereinabove set forth, and this protest is filed for the purpose of serving notice upon the United States Reclamation Service that the said protestant in no way acquiesces in the diversion of any water from Stony Creek or tributaries thereof under the aforesaid application of said Reclamation Service now pending before the Division of Water Rights. That this protest is filed for the further purpose of preventing said applicant from now or at any time in the future claiming that this protestant acquiesces or has acquiesced in the use of additional water by said applicant over and above the quantity that is now under other claims of applicant being put to beneficial use, and particularly to prevent the interposition in the future by applicant of the claim that protestant has suffered applicant to proceed at great or any expense to divert additional water for public use, or the interposition by applicant of any equitable or other estoppel. That said applicant is without right to take any of the waters of Stony Creek or the tributaries thereof, or in any way interfere with said percolating waters and said underground and surface flow fed by Stony Creek and tributaries thereof, to the injury of protestant. That should the Division of Water Rights see fit to grant to said applicant a permit to appropriate any water or waters of Stony Creek or any tributary thereof pursuant to said application but subject to vested rights, protestant now notifies applicant that any diversion under such permit that in any manner invades or interferes with protestant's rights shall be deemed to warrant a claim for injunctive relief

    4.


    and such other relief as protestant may then deem necessary to protect its rights in such waters.


    ESPERANZA LAND CORPORATION
    By /s/ James Mills
    ___________________________________
    Vice President


    A copy of the within protest and notice has this day been mailed to applicant.
    DATED September 28th, 1925.


    /s/ Chickering & Gregory
    _________________________________
    Attorneys for Protestant.


    092925 six return receipt cards
    093025 Notice of Hearing; Wednesday, 10/21/1925 11:00 a.m. Supervisor's Room, Court House, Willows, California; "purpose of allowing applicants, protestants and other parties interested in the above numbered application to inform themselves as to the nature and effect of the proposed appropriations and to present facts, maps, exhibits and other material which may have a bearing upon same, in order that the Division of Water Rights may be fully informed in acting upon the application. For the prpose of brevity, all statements which may be submitted in typewritten form should be so submitted. [para] the enclosed leaflet contains information as to the procedure....allocation of the costs to be borne by the parties appearing....[5] DAYS notice of intended appearanc."
    092925 6 return receipts
    092925 Closing Form for File Records; 02/17/1921 - 09/29/1925
    093025 Notice of Hearinga; 10/21/1925 11:00 A.M. Supervisor's Room, court House, Willows; 5 days' notice of intended appearance

    121425 return receipt cards [out of order in the file?]

    [assume] Cat 1 CORRESPONDENCE VOL. 2 OF 3 RECORD OF FOLDER [" F " - date filed if date originated not evident]

    100225 letter Chickering & Gregory/attys to Div WRights; enclosing return receipt showing Reclamation received Mills & Esperanza protests
    100225 letter Hankins & Hankins/GCID atty to Div WRights; will be present at 10/21/1925 11:00 a.m. hearing in Willows
    100225 letter Richard J. Coffey/District Counsel Reclamation to Bryan/Div WRights; you waived until the hearing date reply to GCID protest, received Mills & Esperanza protests, request either similar waiver for those answers or extension of 15 days to answer in order that Mr. Weber who is back East may attend to them on his return;
    100525 letter Pelley/Railroad Commission to Hyatt/Div WRights; received notice of hearing, will furnish a reporter
    100625 form letter Hyatt/Div WRights to Chickering & Gregory/attys; received Esperanza & Mills protests, note copies have been sent to the applicant
    100825 letter Bryan/Div WRights to Coffey/Reclamation; will waive your filing of answers to Mills & Eperanza, but expect "that full information relative to your attitude toward these protests will be submitted at the forthcoming hearing"
    101025 Designation as Examiner; designate Everett N. Bryan "to be and have the power to act as an examiner for and on behalf of said Division of Water Rights in the matter of a hearing ...and as such examiner to conduct said hearing, administer oathes [sic], examine witnesses, issue subpoenas, receive evidence, and do all things necessary and proper as such examiner in the conduct of said proceedings as provided for by law and in accordance with the rules and regulations of said Division of Water Rights...."
    101025 letter Eriksen/Reclamation to Hyatt/Div WRights; Reclamation will be at the Hearing
    101425 letter Bryan/Deputy Chief to Editors, Sacramento Union, Bee & Glenn transcript; notice of hearing, "...Orland Project of the U.S. Reclamation Service seeks to supplement water which they are now using from the normal flow of Stony Creek by the creation of storage in Stony Gorge Reservoir. Protests against the application have been filed by Brownell Brothers," GCID, "Esperanza Land Company, and James Mill [sic] Orchards Corporation, all of whom fear that rights which they now claim to use water from this source will be injured through consummation of the applciation. As a reclamation project this is a matter of probably more than local interest. [para] Hearings...open to the public and appearances thereat are not limited to protestants of recoord against the application heard...."
    101925 letter George R. Freeman/Attorney at Law to Hyatt/Div WRights; Brownell brothers will be represented "but probably will not produce any evidence."
    UNDATED Examiners Memorandum on Hearing; by Everett N. Bryan, reported by Harrison; appearances, Coffey & Weber for Reclamation, Mr. Freeman for Brownells, Hankins & Durbrow for GCID, James Mills for Esperanza & Mills Orchards; no briefs due, closed, transcript due 11/05, refer [garbled] for findings

    102125 hearing transcript,

    Stamp:
    Received
    Nov 3 1925
    State Department of Public Works
    Division of Water Rights



    Div. of Water Rights.

    BEFORE THE DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS,

    DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,

    STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

    Everett N Bryan, Examiner, - Presiding

    - - - -


    In the Matter of the Application
    -of-
    UNITED STATES RECLAMATION SERVICE,
    and of the protests theretoof [sic]
    L.E., I.L., and R.H. BROWNELL;
    GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT;
    ESPERANZA LAND CORPORATION and
    JAMES MILLS ORCHARDS COMPANY.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Application No. 2212.

    Willows, California, October 21, 1925.

    - - - -

    REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT

    - - - -


    Reported by
    H.Y. Harrison.

    A.P., Pettey,
    Shorthand Reporter,
    516 State Building,
    San Francisco, California

    [page break]

    Application No. 2212.
    Division of Water Rights,
    Willows, Cal., October 21, 1935.

    - - - - - -

    I N D E X.


    Witness for Applicant:
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Direct - - - - - Cross - - - - ReD.

    Weber, R.C.E. - - - - - - - - - - 5 - - - - - - 11-26

    Witness for Protestant
    Glenn-Colusa Irrigation
    District:

    Durbrow, William - - - - - - - - 12 - - - - - - 23 - - - - - - - 25

    - - - - - -

    [form Number] 35143 11-24 50M
    Albert T. Pettey, Official Reporter
    Railroad Commission, State of California, San Francisco, CA.



    [page break]

    BEFORE THE DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS,

    DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,

    STATE OP CALIFORNIA.

    Everett N. Bryan, Examiner, - - Presiding.

    - - - - -



    In the Matter of the Application
    -of-
    UNITED STATES RECLAMATION SERVICE,
    and of the protests thereto of
    L.E., I.L., and R.H. BROWNELL;
    GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT;
    ESPERANZA LAND CORPORATION and
    JAMES MILLS ORCHARDS COMPANY.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Application No. 2212.

    A P P E A R A N C E S:

    Richard J. Coffey, for Applicant.

    George H. Freeman for Protestants L.E., I.L., and R.H. Brownell.

    Hankins & Hankins, by H.J. Hankins for Protestant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District;

    James Mills for Protestants Esperanza Land Corporation and James Mills Orchards Company.
    - - - - -


    [page break]


    Willows, California, October 21, 1925.-- 11 o’clock A. M.
    - - - - -


    [p.] 2

    MR. BRYAN: The meeting will please come to order. This is a hearing under the provisions of section 1-a of the Water Commission Act. The hearing is upon Application No. 2212, which is an application of the United States Reclamation Bureau of the Department of the Interior. The protestants of record are L.E., I.L. and H.H. Brownell, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, Esperanza Land Corporation and the James Mills Orchards Corporation. Appearances are not limited, however, to the record protestants. Any one who has pertinent data or information to present will be afforded an opportunity to do so. The law and the rules and regulations of the Division of Water Rights governing the conduct of hearings provide that in the taking of testimony, technical rules of evidence need not be followed. The Division desires to ascertain whether or not there is unappropriated water available which can be appropriated without infringement of vested rights. There are certain costs connected with the conducting of a hearing of this kind; these are, first, the per diem charge of the reporter, which is $10, and, second, the cost of a transcript for the Division of Water Rights, which costs 20 cents per folio of 100 words. These costs are divided among the various parties who enter an appearance, in the same proportion as they occupy in the record, in the direct examination of their own witnesses and in the cross-examination of other witnesses. The time occupied by the Examiner will be divided equally among those entering an appearance. Additional copies of the transcript may be obtained by arrangement with the reporter. We find that the costs of these hear-

    [p.] 3

    ings run in the neighborhood of $15 to $2O an hour, and therefore it is in the interest of everybody to keep his examination down to the shortest practicable amount.
    Those desiring to enter an appearance will now give their names to the reporter. For the applicant?
    ME. COFFEY: Richard J. Coffey and R.C.E. Weber.
    MR. BRYAN: For the Brownells?
    MR. FREEMAN: George H. Freeman.
    MR. BRYAN: For the Glenn-Coluea Irrigation District?
    MR. HANKINS: H.J. Hankins, Hankins and Hankins.
    MR. BRYAN: And for the Esperanza Land Company and the James Mills Orchards Company?
    MR. MILLS: MR. Bryan, what do you mean by an appearance, an appearance to make a case?
    MR. BRYAN: If you desire to present any testimony yourself, or to cross-examine any of the witnesses, you consider that an appearance.
    MR. MILLS: Is the unit going to make a showing here unless there is an objection? Frankly, we don’t desire to appear or make any objection to the issuing of an order granting the application.
    MR. BRYAN: You might, if you wish, reserve the privilege of entering an appearance until a later time in the proceedings.
    MR. MILLS: All right.
    MR. BRYAN: There is no objection to that.
    MR. MILLS: I am perfectly willing to appear in so far as it is necessary to meet a portion of the expense.
    MR. BRYAN: Well, I don’t take it that the costs will be very great. It would probably be as well for you to enter your

    4

    appearance, Mr. Mills, and then you would be privileged to examine any witnesses, or introduce testimony yourself.
    MR. MILLS: James Mills appears for the Esperanza Land Corporation and the James Mills Orchards Company.
    MR. BRYAN: It is customary for the various parties making appearance to make arrangements at this time with the reporter regarding the costs, and I will therefore declare a short recess until satisfactory arrangements can be made.

    (Recess.)


    MR. BRYAN: Have satisfactory arrangements been made, Mr. Reporter?
    THE REPORTER: Yes.
    MR. BRYAN: I think before we proceed any further it would probably be well to have first a statement concerning the project itself, as brief and as concise a statement as is practicable, describing what it is proposed to do. You are probably best fitted to do that, aren’t you, Mr. Wιber?
    MR. WEBER: Possibly so.
    MR. BRYAN: Did you intend to put Mr. Weber on the stand, Mr. Coffey?
    MR. COFFEY: Later.
    MR. BRYAN: He might as well be sworn, then. Will you take this chair, Mr. Weber?
    - - - - - - -

    5
    R.C.E. WEBER

    a witness called in behalf of the Applicant,
    being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

    DIRECT EXAMINATION.

    BY MR. BRYAN:
    Q. Will you please make a brief statement concerning the project, Mr. Weber, concerning the application itself, what is proposed under this application?
    MR. COFFEY: Q. Have you a copy of the application there before you? If you haven’t, you can take this (handing paper to the witness).
    A. Our application known as 2212 before the Division of Water Rights, contemplates the impounding of flood waters of Stoney [sic] Creek in a reservoir known as the Stoney [sic] Gorge reservoir, of capacity of 50,200 acre feet; this amount to be impounded between the dates of October 1 and May 1 of each season. This water is to be used to supplement the water available from the already constructed East Park reservoir, and also the natural [margin "H 2"] flow of the stream to which the project is entitled. There is no extension of the irrigable area of the project contemplated in connection with this application, the water to be applied exclusively to the present acreage of the project, which is in round figures, 21,000 acres. The only construction work involved in connection with this will he in connection with the reservoir itself. The present diversion works and distribution system will be utilized as presently constructed. I think that in general covers the contemplated work.
    MR. BRYAN: Would you then proceed to put on such case as you wish, Mr. Coffey?
    MR. COFFEY: You want us to put on our case before the pro-

    6

    testants?
    MR. BRYAN: Yes.
    MR. COFFEY: Q. Mr. Weber, have you kept a record, or do you have a record of the run-off of the Stoney [sic] Creek at the point where you propose to build or construct this reservoir?
    A. Yes, we have stream flow records for Stony Creek and what is known as the Kelley Bridge station which is approximately one mile above the proposed Stoney [sic] Gorge dam site.
    Q. Have you that in memorandum form?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Are these records limited to that one point, or do you have records for --
    A. We also have records at two lower stations on the stream known as the Julian station and the Simpson Bridge station. They are about ten miles downstream from the Stoney [sic] Gorge reservoir site,
    Q. Over what period of years have these records been kept?
    A. These records are available from the season of 1900-01-to, and including 1923-24.
    Q. Will you just state what the run-off is, either in second feet or acre feet, whichever you have?
    A. Our records for these 24 seasons indicate a mean seasonal run-off at the Kelly Bridge station of 271,000 acre feet, at the Julian and Simpson stations, a mean seasonal run-off of 438,500 acre feet. These seasonal records include the portion of the year from October to September, inclusive.
    Q. What is the physical situation as regards -- take, for instance, the Brownell lands, with the point where these measure ments were made?
    A. The Julian station is located about two miles above the western boundary of the Brownell property, and the Simpson bridge station is located about one mile or two

    7

    miles below the lower boundary of the Brownell property along the stream itself. The Kelly Bridge station is located some ten miles upstream above the uppermost boundary of the Brownell ownership.
    MR. BRYAN: Q. Mr. Weber, are these records of the United States Geological Survey?
    A. The Julian Station records are records from the United States Geological Survey. The Kelly Bridge and Simpson Bridge stations are records maintained by the Reclamation Service, and turned over to the Geological Survey, a portion of which have been published in their water supply papers.
    Q. What portion of those have been published?
    A. The Simpson Bridge records beginning in 1920, and the Kel1y Bridge records beginning in 1918, have been published by the Geological Survey as far as their records have been published. They are not up to date. They are several years in arrears with their publication.
    Q. Yes, I know.
    MR. COFFEY: Q. Are you familiar with the lands mentioned or described in the Brownell Brothers protest?
    A. I am.
    Q. How long have you been so acquainted?
    A. My first acquaintanceship with the Brownell properties dates from 1910.
    Q. Do you know to what extent, if any, irrigation has been carried on on the lands described in this protest?
    A. There has been no irrigation on that property during the time that I have been acquainted with it.
    Q. And that covers about how many years?
    A. The period from 1910 forward to the present.

    8


    Q, There has been no irrigation over a period of 15 years, then, to your own personal knowledge?
    A. There has not.
    Q. There is none there at the present time, no irrigation going on there at the present time?
    A. No.
    Q. What is the geographical situation as regards the project lands and the Esperanza and Mills lands?
    A. The project lands are located on Stony Creek above the land owned by the Esperanza and the James Mills Corporation. The Esperanza property joins the project area on its eastern extremity.
    Q. Is it proposed under this present application to divert or impound 50,200 acre feet each year; is that the present plan?
    A. It is planned to divert that portion of the 50,200 acre feet which may be necessary to fill the reservoir after the conclusion of the irrigation season.
    Q. Would it have been necessary over a period of the last-- well, for a period beginning with the time irrigation first started up to the present time, how often would it have been necessary to supplement the supply that you get from East Park by Stony Gorge water, that you have applied for?
    A. Our water supply studies show that during 24 seasons of record, the present storage facilities on the project, combined with the natural flow of the creek available for the project, would have been sufficient to have given the Orland project a [margin "H 3"] full water supply during four years only. Under that condition, why, there would have been four years un [sic] which it would not have been necessary to impound any additional water in the proposed reservoir. On the other years there would have been various amounts impounded, from the full capacity to smaller

    9

    amounts, depending on the natural flow available for the project during the early months of the irrigation season.
    Q. Then, if you were to fill the reservoir, even every year, say, which you don’t contemplate under your statement,-- the statement you have just made, you would still take but a very small proportion of the entire run-off of the stream, wouldn't you?
    A. The mean annual discharge of Stony Creek, as determined from our measurements above the project diversions, at the Julian and the Simpson bridge stations, is approximately 438,500 acre feet, of which under the proposed scheme we would impound a maximum amount of only 50,000 acre feet, something in the neighborhood of 11 per cent of the mean annual.
    Q. Are you familiar with the source of supply for the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, do you know where it is?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Where?
    A. The main supply is derived from the Sacramento River.
    Q. To your knowledge do they get a supply from any other source?
    A. They do derive a certain amount of water from Stony Creek at the point where the Glenn-Colusa Canal crosses the stream.
    Q. How does the canal cross the stream? Is it siphoned?
    A. It is crossed at grade and a gravel dam is thrown up on the downstream side of the canal crossing to divert the flow across the stream into the canal on the opposite side.
    Q. Do you know approximately, just roughly, what the capacity of that canal is below?
    A. Approximately 1400 second feet.

    10


    Q. Especially at the times mentioned in the application, when you want to impound water, are there at times in excess of’1400 second feet going down and past --
    A. There are periods during which the flow of Stony Creek is in excess of 1400 second feet, during this time of the year which we propose to impound.
    Q. Very much in excess at times?
    A. Considerably so.
    Q. So that if there were over 1400 second feet going down there, the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District could not get any benefit from any amount in excess of the diversion capacity of their canal?
    A. No, and it would be further limited by the requirements of the lands on the irrigation district. The time when these periods of flow in excess of the 1400 second feet occur are in the early spring months when the demand for irrigation is relatively light and the 1400 second foot capacity of the canal is that for the month of maximum use which occurs during the midsummer period.
    Q. Then, in your opinion, if the permit is issued under the government’s application, would it in any way interfere with the water supply of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, the Mills Orchards, the Esperanza lands, or Brownell Brothers?
    (Pending question read.)

    Q. These are all the protestants?
    A. It would not interfere with any of them in my opinion, and in connection with the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District I would qualify that statement by the fact that the issuing of the permit and our compliance with the terms of the contract between the Government and the Central Canal and Irrigation Company, of which the present Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District are successors in interest, would in

    11

    no way interfere with that district.
    MR. COFFEY: That is all.
    MR. BRYAN: Mr. Hankins?
    CROSS EXAMINATION.


    MR. HANKINS: Q. Mr. Weber, I didn’t catch the months that you contemplate storing; what months?
    MR. COFFEY: October to.May.
    MR. BRYAN: The application is from November 1 to May 1, Mr. Hankins.
    MR. HANKINS: Q. May. Now, you stated in your last answer that this application would in no way conflict with the agreement made by the Reclamation service and the old Central Canal and Irrigation Company. Does it not conflict in the months -- that is, under the contract it is limited to March 1, and you will continue to store in March and April. To that extent it conflicts with that agreement, does it not?
    A. I meant the answer to convey the impression or the meaning, that a compliance on our part with the terms of that contract would not interfere with the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District as related to storage alter March 1st.
    Q. It would not conflict, you mean as to the wording of the agreement, or as to the practical working out of the irrigation [margin "4"] problem?
    A. As to the working out of the irrigation problem.
    Q. Well, do you understand that this app1ication is made, or will be made subject to the terms of that agreement between the Reclamation and the Central Canal and Irrigation Company?
    A. That is my understanding of the situation.
    MR. COFFEY: It will be issued subject to all rights.

    12

    MR. BRYAN: The application is an application to appropriate unappropriated water, subject to existing rights, Mr. Hankins.
    MR. HANKINS: Well, of course, that is a conflict, apparently, between the application showing the storage, and the agreement between the parties. I presume that will be a matter of proof by us. I haven't any further questions.
    MR. BRYAN: Mr. Freeman?
    MR. FREEMAN: No, I haven’t any questions.
    MR. BRYAN: Mr. Mills?
    MR. MILLS: I haven’t any.
    MR. BRYAN: Is there any further cross-examination by any one? Is there anything further by you, Mr. Coffey?
    MR. COFFEY: No.
    MR. BRYAN: That will be all of Mr. Weber. Have you any further witnesses you wish to call, Mr. Coffey?
    MR. COFFEY: No.
    MR. BRYAN: Mr. Hankins?
    MR. HANKINS. I will ask Mr. Durbrow to take the stand.
    - - - - - - -
    WILLIAM DURBROW,

    a witness called in behalf of Protestant Gienn-Colusa Irrigation District, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:: -
    DIRECT EXAMINATION.

    BY MR. HANKINS:
    Q. Mr. Durbrow, you are what official of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District?
    A. The secretary and manager.
    Q. When was this district organized?
    A. 1920.
    Q. And upon organization what was your position with the district?
    A. A director and secretary -- director and President.

    13

    Q. You remained in that position for what length of time?
    A. Up to April of this year.
    Q. At that time you became secretary and manager?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Will you give us briefly the scheme of the district, the plan of irrigation and the source of water supply?
    A. The Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District has inherited two sources of supply, one from the Sacramento River, and one from Stony Creek. An application of 5000 second feet has been made on both streams. The main source is the Sacramento River, Stony Creek ordinarily running dry in the summer time. The only use made of Stony Creek is that in the early spring time when we first dam Stony Creek, in order to take all the waters that we pump from the Sacramento River across Stony Creek, there is usually some water in Stony Creek that is then diverted, and is used in irrigating the lands of the district, The closing of Stony Creek usually occurs the latter part of March, or the first part of April, varying with the season; sometimes later and sometimes earlier. The amount of water taken from Stony Creek varies greatly with the season. Some seasons there is a run-off at the time we dam the creek, and other seasons the creek is entirely dry. There has been in the last few years an earlier call for water than there has been in the past, and it is quite probable that we will use more of Stony Creek water in the future than we have in the past, and may take water into our canal at an earlier date. There has been a call for earlier water than we have in the past served. Another matter which I might mention, in the early spring, before we dam Stony Creek to take Sacramento River water across, if there should happen to be rather a large

    14

    amount of water in Stony Creek, we take all Stony Creek water for irrigating our crops. That happened quite a long period this season, and Stony Creek water then becomes quite a valuable asset to us because it is the only water we can get under our present method of diverting the water from the Sacramento River, because when Stony Creek is at a point above 1600 second feet, which is the capacity of our canal, it is necessary to take only Stony Creek water, because we have no method of spilling Stony Creek water. I think I got that right. Does that answer the question?
    Q. I think so. Now, as a part of the rights obtained by the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, was there a certain agreement between the Reclamation Service of the United States and the Central Canal and Irrigation Company?
    A. Yes, there was.
    Q. And the Glenn-Co1usa Irrigation District is the successor in interest of that agreement?
    A. Yes.
    Q. That agreement provides for a certain division of Stony Creek water?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Between the Reclamation Service and that company’?
    A. It did.
    MR. HANKINS: Now, as you may know, Mr. Bryan, there was a case pending the last three or four years entitled The United States of America vs. H.C. Angle and others, in the Northern Division, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Second Division, No. 30 in equity. In that case the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District presented their entire record and chain of title to the waters of Stony Creek. The record is rather extensive, covering some 150 pages of transcript. It

    15

    includes some 15 or 16 documents, and I would ask leave, instead of presenting the evidence and introducing certified copies of all these documents - - I would ask leave to introduce the transcript made up by the official reporter at that hearing, as the case and record of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, and eliminate a great deal of time in the introduction of new records which would be purely a repetition of the matters introduced in that hearing.
    MR. COFFEY: What records are there in this case that are not already filed as exhibits attached to your protest?
    MR. HANKINS: The chain of title to the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District. I might state that, of course, our entire position here is based upon that agreement between the Reclamation Service and the Central Canal and Irrigation Company. All these other matters are preliminary to the introduction of that contract, showing the appropriations and the chain of title and the final reaching of title in the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, which creates the foundation for this agreement. If there is any way of stipulating as to a complete foundation, we would be perfectly willing to rest our case upon that contract between the Reclamation Service and ourselves as successors in interest, because that is all the claims that we make. We have no further claims, and we do not want to put anything in the way of preventing the Orland project from going ahead with their irrigation schemes, except that we want to fix our own rights under onr contract.
    MR. BRYAN: You have filed with us a copy of that contract, have you not, Mr.Hankins?
    MR. HANKINS: Yes, as part of our protest.

    16

    MR. BRYAN: You admit the contract?
    MR. COFFEY: Yes, we admit the contract. We admit that the contract that has been attached to the protest is substantially a true copy. There are some very minor errors in thcre; and whether the irrigation district has succeeded to the interests of the Central Canal and Irrigation Company is something I don’t know, and something I am not interested in, nor either is the Government, for this reason: such an agreement has been executed, and regardless of who has succeeded to the rights under that agreement, we admit that we have to recognize them in any appropriation, that they would be prior in time to any right we would get under our present permit, if the permit is issued, subject to all existing rights, we must necessarily get subject to that agreement. We don’t deny that there is such an agreement. In fact, there is, and we assume that the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District succeeded to the rights of the Central Canal and Irrigation Company. Regardless of whether they have or not, there is such an agreement outstanding, and we will have to recognize all its terms and conditions. We propose to do that..
    MR. BRYAN: Did I understand you to say, Mr. Hankins, that you wish to introduce that as an exhibit? Is that your wish’?
    MR. HANKINS: That was my desire.
    MR. COFFEY: It is already in there, so I don’t see any --
    MR. BRYAN: We have no copy of that transcript, I believe, Mr. Coffey.
    MR. COFFEY: No, but in so far as the exhibits are concerned, the transcript here is not a transcript of the record strictly; it is a transcript of testimony---
    MR. BRYAN: Yes.

    17

    MR. COFFEY: -- introduced in that case.
    MR. BRYAN: So I understand. /
    MR. HANKINS: No, I take it that this could not be introduced except by stipulation of the parties. It is not admissible as an official record.
    MR. BRYAN: Yes, we would be very glad to have a copy of that, but I don’t know as --
    MR. HANKINS: Well, the difficulty is --
    MR. COFFEY: It is not a complete transcript, is it, Mr. Hankins; it is just a portion of the transcript?
    MR. HANKINS: No, it is a complete transcript of the case of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District on this suit to determine the rights of the water of Stoney [sic] Creek.
    MR. COFFEY: You want to introduce it primarily for the purpose of proving these documents that you have attached to your protest?
    MR. HANKINS: Yes, to show the chain of title of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District to the water right and the contract referred to in the protest. As it stands, I take it we have no foundation to show that the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District is the successor in interest of the Central Canal and Irrigation Company.
    MR. BRYAN: Mr. Durbrow testified that they were the successors in interest.
    MR. HANKINS: Well, if there is no objection that is not the best evidence.
    MR. BRYAN: It is not denied, and I don’t understand that the Reclamation Service questions it, and we are not disposed to question it

    18

    MR. COFFEY: It is immaterial to us.
    MR. BRYAN: There is no showing to the contrary. We are willing to accept the statement as made.
    MR. HARKINS: I will just ask a few questions on that line. Mr. Durbrow has knowledge of these records.
    MR. BRYAN: You understand that we don’t attempt to apply technical rules of evidence, Mr. Hankins.
    MR. HANKINS: Q. Now, Mr. Durbrow, you have seen and know of a notice of appropriation of water to the extent of 5000 cubic feet per second of Stony Creek, which was dated April 11, 1903, and signed and verified by M.N. Sheldon, recorded April 16, 1903 in Book 2 of Miscellaneous Records, page 66, Records of Glenn County. You know of your own knowledge of that notice of appropriation, and it is of record?
    A. I do.
    Q. You know of your own knowledge of the notice of appropriation made by Central Canal and Irrigation Company, claiming and, appropriating 5000 cubic feet per second of the waters of Stony Creek, which is dated November 4, 1904, signed and verified by [margin "6"] Central Canal and Irrigation Company, and recorded November 25, 1904, in Book 2 of Miscellaneous Records, page 105, records of Glenn County. You know that is of record, do you?
    A. I do.
    Q. Do you know, Mr. Durbrow, of your own knowledge, and by the records that --
    MR. MILLS: May it please the Court, I would like to get out of paying for that part of the record, if he is going to put all that in. I would like to withdraw my application.
    MR. HANKINS. I am saving you considerable money here, Mr. Mills, by not introducing the record as a whole.

    19

    MR. BRYAN: He pays for the part of the record which he puts in, Mr. Mills.
    MR. MILLS: I see. All right.
    MR. FREEMAN: Does that appear in our copy of the transcript which we pay for?
    MR. BRYAN: You have to pay for your own transcript.
    MR. FREEMAN: We will have to withdraw our application for that part.
    MR. MILLS: Yes.
    MR. BRYAN: I will say for the benefit of any of those who do not know, that the copy of the transcript which comes to the Division of Water Rights is a public record, and available for examination by any one who wishes it.
    MR. MILLS: Well, if I might withdraw my application for the copy, I will do so now.
    THE REPORTER: Do you want to withdraw your order for a copy?
    MR. MILLS: Can I get a portion of it?
    MR. BRYAN: By arrangement with the reporter.
    MR. MILLS: Well, I will talk with the reporter afterwards.
    MR. BRYAN: While Mr. Hankins is looking for that, I have a question I would like to ask Mr. Durbrow.
    Q. Could you state about what proportion of the run-off at the crossing of your canal with Stony Creek is now diverted into your canal?
    A. Of the yearly run-off?
    Q. Yes, of the yearly run-off?
    A. I couldn’t give you anything, even a guess. It is a very small proportion, because it only comes from the time that we start to divert, which is possibly in March, more likely the first part of April, up to the time that the run of Stony Creek

    20

    quits. Of course, under the contract, the Reclamation Service have the right to the first 265 feet of run-off at all times; that is, the natural flow. Therefore, our use of Stony Creek quits even before the run-off stops, but it depends upon the year. This year, for instance, we diverted from Stony Creek away up into May, and saved a considerable sum of money by so doing.
    Q. That is, you saved the cost of power for pumping; is that it, Mr. Durbrow?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Prior to the time that you began to divert there was some water went on down past your canal this year, was there?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Last year probably there was none?
    A. Oh, yes.
    Q. In 1924?
    A. In 1924, in the winter time’?
    Q. Yes.
    A. Yes, there was some water.
    Q. There was some water?
    A. But, you see, the water comes down at the present time -- they only divert the upper Stony Creek and Little Stony Creek, Grindstone water and main Stony Creek, all come down past our diversion.
    Q. So in all the years of which you have knowledge, there has been water pass your point of diversion?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And flowed on into Sacramento River?
    A. Yes.
    Q. In normal years about what time do you begin to take all of the water which comes to your crossing?
    A. About the first April.
    MR. BRYAN: About the first of April. That is all.
    MR. HANKINS: Q. Now, referring to these records again, I ask you if you have knowledge of these records, and their recordation; you know that such deeds are of record? The deed dated September 20, 1909, between Sacramento Valley Land Company, a

    21

    corporation, and Central Canal and Irrigation Company, a corporation, parties of the first part, grantors, and L.D. Woodell as grantee, which deed conveys the canal system, buildings, pumps, machinery and the water rights, which deed was recorded October 23, 1909, recorded in Book 69 of Deeds, at page 301, records of Colusa County, and recorded October 19, 1909, in Book 29 of Deeds, at page 331, records of Glenn County. Do you know of such a deed, and that such deed was recorded?
    A. I do.
    Q. The same question as to a deed dated September 20, 1909, between Sacramento Valley Land Company, a corporation, and Central Canal and Irrigation Company, a corporation, conveying the canals and canal system and water rights, which deed was recorded September 23, 1909, Book 1 of Contracts and Agreements, page 624, records of Glenn County; and recorded September 22, 1909, Book 2 of Contracts and Agreements, page 215, records of Colusa County. You know of such a deed, and it is of record?
    A. I do.
    Q. Also the same question as to a deed dated September 22, 1909, between L.D. Woodell, an uamarried man and Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company, which deed was recorded October 23, [margin: "H7"] 1909, in Book 69 of Deeds, at page 303, records of Colusa County and recorded October 19, 1909 in Book 29 of Deeds, at page 333, records of Glenn County, which deed conveyed the entire canal system, and all water rights and rights of appropriation, including the appropriation of Stony Creek; you know of such a deed, and it is of record?
    A. I do.
    Q. I ask you the same question as to a deed, Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company, a corporation, to Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company, which deed is dated June 16, 1910, and

    22

    conveys the same canal system, water rights, water appropriations including the appropriation of Stony Creek water, which deed was recorded June 23, 1916 in Book 72 of Deeds, at page 138, records of Colusa County, and recorded June 23, 1910, in Book 32 of Deeds at page 305, records of Glenn County, which deed conveys the same property; you know of such a deed, and it is of record?
    A. I do.
    Q. Also the same question as to a deed to the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District from the Receiver of the Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company, and a Commissioner’s deed, under foreclosure of mortgage by the Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company to the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, and the Jacinto Irrigation District, and also a deed conveying all of these property rights, appropriations, including the Stony Creek appropriation, which deeds are recorded October 13, 1921 -- no, strike that out. The deed that I now call your attention to is dated July 11, 1921, made by and between Thomas J. Franklin, as special master, party of the first part, and grantors with other persons, and the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, and the Jacinto Irrigation District grantees, which deed is recorded August 23, 1921 in Book 76 of Deeds, at page 415, records of Glenn County; and recorded August 29, 1921, in Book 100 of Deeds, at page 125, records of Colusa County, which deed conveys all of the properties, canal properties, water rights, water appropriation, including the Stony Creek appropriation; do you know of such a deed, and it is of record?
    A. I do,
    Q. And that is the deed and deeds under which the Glenn-Colusa now claim and have title to the canal system?
    A. They are.

    23

    Q. And also to the appropriation of Stony Creek water?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And these conveyances also included all rights under the contract with the Reclamation Serive, did they not?
    A. They did.
    Q. And it is under this chain of title that the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District now claim the rights to Stony Creek water under their contract with the Reclamation Service?
    A. Yes.
    [margin: "H 8"] MR. HANKINS: I think that is all.
    CROSS EXAMINATION.


    MR. COFFEY: Q. Mr. Durbrow, you say you usually commence to irrigate about the 1st of’ April?
    A. Yes.
    Q, What is your usual requirement in second feet during the month of April?
    A. Depending upon the season, but the general plan has been the district would serve water for rice lands April 1st. Now some seasons are such that it is not necessary to do that, and they can’t use it, they have not the land prepared and ready to receive it, but several years we have served water to rice lands April 1st, which means that we have to take it into the canal some time in March, perhaps a few days before the 1st of April.
    Q. Do you ever, during the month of April have to use the entire capacity of the canal?
    A. No, we haven't yet.
    Q. Approximately, what has been your previous requirement during the month of April?
    A. I don’t carry that in mind. but I would say --
    Q. Oh, just roughly.
    A. -- as an estimation, that up to the 1st of May we do not -- we would not ordinarily use over

    24

    50 per cent of our capacity, about 800 second feet.
    Q. About 800 second feet. Mr. Durbrow, if the State Department of Water Rights were to issue a permit to the United States under this application here, snd the United States recognizes the rights as defined in this agreement of September 24,1907, in what way would an injury be done the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District?
    A. If they operated as provided for in their contract, no injury would be done, unless it might be a fluctuating supply through the operation of their dam - - of the reservoir; it would be quite possible for them to do us considerable damage by causing us to take out and put in a number of times our weir across Stony Creek, which is a gravel weir put in by a floating dredge. Now, if they should so operate their storage and their releases that one day we have more than we can take into our canal, and the next day less, we would have to continually put in and take out that weir. It is the only way that I can see that we would be damaged, provided they held strictly to the contract between the Government and the district.
    Q. That is, you would not be damaged at all as to the supply of water that would come down; the damage would not be because of lack of water for irrigation purposes?
    A. No, not if they complied with the agreement.
    Q. So, then, so far as the water is concerned, if the State Division of Water Rights issues a permit under our application, and we live up to the terms of this agreement, that is, that we recognize prior rights, you won’t be injured as regards your water supply, will you?
    A. No.
    MR.COFFEY: That is all.

    25
    REDIRECT EXAMINATI0N.


    MR. HANKINS: Q. Now, one more line, Mr. Durbrow. What is the changed, or changing situation in reference to an early water supply arising through the change of crops that are being raised, or probably will be raised in the future?
    A. There are two things that concern the early water supply. The district is planting an increasing amount of tree crops, and it looks forward to an increased amount of such planting, which sometimes call for an earlier supply of water than would other crops. Also in the lower end of the district starting this year vegetables are being raised and there has already been a demand that we give them March water. Whether that would be complied with or not depends upon our conditions, but a demand is being made that March water be supplied becaus.e of the raising of early vegetables. That would vary, of course, with the seasons. A very dry season, they might call for it, the 1st of March.
    Q. For that reason it is necessary for the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District to insist upon a strict construction of this contract with the Reclamation Service, is it not?
    A. Yes, we must look forward to a use of water in March, and the Stony Creek is the only water at that time that we could use.
    MR. HANKINS: That is all.
    MR. BRYAN: Any further questions of Mr. Durbrow? You have no further witnesses?
    MR. HANKINS: No.
    MR. BRYAN: Mr. Brownell -- or, excuse me, Mr. Freeman?
    MR. FREEMAN: Yes, we filed a protest here, and I don’t care to produce any evidence in support of that protest, but simply to the opportunity of making a statement in the record here, as to

    26

    the reason for filing the protest. It is my understanding, and also the understanding of the Brownells that any permit which may be granted by the Division of Water Rights is subject to any vested rights.
    MR. BRYAN: That is right.
    MR. FREEMAN: It is claimed by the Brownells that they heretofore filed a protest against the original app1ication of the Government, or the original plan of the Government to store water. That protest was denied. This time, at least, they wanted to be certain that there would be some record of a protest made [in margin: "H9"] by them, to the Government water interfering with their claimed riparian rights on the creek, and this way they had a record which would show a protest by them, and that is the only purpose of filing this protest at this time.
    MR. BRYAN: Mr. Mills, did you wish to make any further statement than you did at the time of opening?
    MR. MILLS: None whatever, other than we would be very glad to see the Division of Water Rights grant the application.
    MR. BRYAN: Just one or two questions I would like to ask Mr. Weber.
    Q. About how many acres of the Orland project are now irrigated, Mr. Weber, under irrigation?

    R.C.E. WEBER,
    Recalled.
    CROSS EXAMINATION, resumed.

    THE WITNESS: Approximately 16,000 acres for this year in round figures.
    Q. Out of a total of 21,000 in the project.?
    A. That is the ultimate acreage.

    27

    Q. You take it that ultimately 21,000 acres will be irrigated?
    A. That will be the outside figure.
    Q. That is not, then, the gross area of the project?
    A. That is what we call the irrigable acreage of the project which is the gross acreage, less the non-irrigable acreage, which is such land as lies too high to be irrigated, and the land occupied by the Government Canal and lateral rights of way.
    Q. About what amount of water have you been using per acre in the past?
    A. In the early history of the project’s operation we were using from 3-1/2 to 4 acre feet per acre, which has been in later years reduced to about 3 acre feet per acre [under oath?], because of the fact that the early acreage of the project was largely devoted to alfalfa, and is now going more largely into orchards.
    Q. Under what claims of right have you been diverting in the past? You have an appropriation of 260 second feet of direct diversion; is that it?
    A. We have the contract with the Central Canal Irrigation Company -- gives us the right [gives us the right?] to divert or store 265 second feet of Stony Creek flow [does this come out of the GCID appropriations?, or does it merely recognize USA appropriations?], throughout the whole year, and during the month from November 1 to March 1 we have the right to impound all water of Stony Creek as against the Glenn-Colusa, and also we have the right to impound all the rnn-off of Little Stony Creek throughout the entire year in our East Park reservoir.
    Q. What is the capacity of that East Park Reservoir?
    A. 51,000 acre feet. Now, that is our rights as involved with the Central Canal and Irrigation Company. We have also appropriation rights on the stream. We haven’t those records here. We have appropriations going back into 1906 for impounding the

    28

    water at East Park Reservoir, and also for direct diversion from Stony Creek at the project’s diversion.
    Q. What constructed capacity of storage have you at the present time, 51,000 acre feet?
    A. That is it.
    Q. You figure that it will be necessary to hold over water [margin: "H 10"] from one year to another, do you?
    A. For a possible succeeding dry year, and limiting our use during these years of normal, or more than normal rainfall, to approximately 3 acre feet per acre delivered at the lands [under oath!], and reserving the surplus storage for hold-over for use in a possible succeeding dry year.
    Q. If this permit is granted, then, you will have a total storage capacity of about 101,200 acre feet?
    A. But in a year like 1923-1924, we would not have 100,000 acre feet of water available, because of the deficient run-off of the stream.
    Q. Last year you were unable to fill the East Park reservoir were you not? There was not sufficient run-off to fill it?
    A. We only had approximately one-fourth of the storage capacity of the reservoir of which 2000 acre feet was hold-over from the preceding year.
    Q. So that in your judgment as superintendent of that project, it is necessary that the district receive this permit in order to fully irrigate the lands within the project?
    A. To irrigate them profitably and avoid the great financial - direct financial loss which was sustained during 1924 as a direct result of the water supply shortage due to deficient storage facilities. The effect of a drouth like 1924 is not only experienced during that current year, but is also felt in almost equal intensity during the succeeding year, and possibly to a

    29

    less degree in the second succeeding year, in the way of depleted alfalfa stands which require reseeding, and a stunted and retarded orchard growth.
    Q. If a permit were issued on this, when would the project be in a position to proceed with construction?
    A. Providing that Congress would appropriate the necessary funds during the forthcoming session, we would be in a position to start construction operations some time after the first of next July, which would be the next succeeding fiscal year.
    MR. COFFEY: Q. Congress has made a preliminary appropriation of money to commence that work, has it not?
    MR.. MILLS: $50,000.
    MR. COFFEY: $50,000 is correct. That is available now until Congress appropriates --
    MR. BRYAN: Q. You already have an appropriation of $50,000?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Then would you begin your construction without waiting for other appropriation by Congress if a permit were issued at this time, or would you wait until other appropriations were made?
    A. We would he obliged to wait until Congress appropriated additional money, because this $50,000 would not go very far with the construction program which involves an ultimate expenditure of $1,300,000.
    Q. So, then, you will state at this time that you would not be in a position to begin the coustruction of this project before July 1, 1926?
    MR. COFFEY: Congress may appropriate this money to be available, right after they convene.
    MR. MILLS: May I ask a question?

    30

    ME. BRYAN: Mr. Mills.
    ME. MILLS: Q. Was not the $50,000 appropriated for preliminary work?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And will be expended, showing that the Government is really committed to the project?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you will do work with that $50,000?
    A. We have done some already-- considerable work in connection with the preliminary stages.
    MR. MILLS: If I may be permitted at this time, Mr. Bryan, I would like to say on my own part, and in answer to a suggestion of my good friend, Mr. Hankins, representing the district, that we are all friends of the Orland District. We are not here with any desire to hinder the carrying out of this splendid project. We know how Orland has suffered. They are neighbors of ours, and we have been compelled to look on and see a tremendous loss by reason of the failure of water the year before last. We are very anxious on their account that this application shall he granted, and will do everything in our power, all of us, to prevail upon the Government to spend the money necessary to conserve the water required for the making of the Orland unit a success in the future. Just that statement to let the Orland people know that we are all here in a friendly mood.
    MR. GEORGE W. STERN: Mr. Weber, I think you should state regarding the loss of water in transmission. [who is George Stern?]
    MR. BRYAN: Would you come up this way, Mr. Stern?
    MR. STERN: Mr. Weber has those figures.
    MR. BRYAN: You can leave this off the record.
    (Discussion.)

    MR. BRYAN: Q.Mr. Weber, would you make a statement on the

    31

    [margin, "11"] point which Mr. Stern has raised?
    A. I think that the Division recognizes that the storage impounded is subject to certain losses at East Park Reservoir. We are subject to an evaporation loss which amounts to about 60 inches in depth per year, and we are also subject to a creek transit loss involved in transporting the water from the reservoir in the natural bed of Stony Creek to the project's diversion after that. We also have the distribution system loss, all of which results in materially increasing [changed in pencil to "decreasing"] the amount of storage available at the project lands. [is this different from the 25% conveyance in the Decree?]
    Q. When do you anticipate it will be possible to complete this work if a permit were issued, Mr. Weber?
    A. We would contemplate a two-year construction program in connection with the building of this reservoir.
    Q. The construction work would be completed, then, probably before the middle of 1928?
    A. About that time, I would say some time in the fall of 1928, so that probably the reservoir would be available for impounding the flood waters of the season of 1928 and 1929.
    MR.. COFFEY: Q:. That is the estimated cost of the storage works that you propose to construct, that is, the site where you are now asking to be permitted to store water?
    A. Approximately $1,300,000.
    MR. BRYAN: Has anybody anything further to bring up at this time? (No response.)
    MR. BRYAN: We will declare the hearing adjourned.
    - - - - - - -
    (Thereupon, at the hour of 12.30 o’clock P. M., the
    application was submitted, and the Division adjourned.)

    31

    State of California,:
    City and County of San Francisco. : ss.

    I, Harry Y. Harrison, do hereby certify that I acted as official shorthand reporter pro tem of the Division of Water Rights, Department of Public Works, State of California, on the 21st day of October, 1925, at Willows, California upon the hearing of Application No. 2212, before said Division of Water Rights and that I did at said time and place before said Division, take shorthand notes of all testimony offered or produced and of all proceedings had; that I thereafter caused said notes to be transcribed into typewriting, and that the foregoing pages, number 1 to number 31, both inclusive, constitute a full, true and complete transcript of said shorthand notes, and of said testimony and proceedings.

    Dated: October 30, 1926 [sic, s/b 1925?]

    /s/ Harry Y. Harrison
    ______________________________________
    Official Reporter, pro tem,
    Division of Water Rights,
    Department of Public Works.
    State of California.



    102825 letter Downing/V.P. in charge of Elec. Construction and Operation, PG & E to Div WRights; we're interested in power developments within our service area; "advised through one of our Division Managers that the project contemplated in the Stony creek applications that were considered at the hearing in Willows on the 21st of October involved the development of electric power. From the data available in this office we are not able to positively identify the applications wheich were heard on the above date nor to find that any of the applications recently filed on waters of Colusa or Glenn counti9es were for power developments." please advise
    101325 letter Bryan/Div WRigths to Downing/PG & E; "believe your letter is prompted by a report of the conversation between Mr. Durbrow of" GCID "and Mr. Weber, Superintendent of the Orland Project, at the time of the hearing on the above numbered application of the Orland Project. After the hearing there was some conversation between these two gentlemen r relative to the practicability of installing a power plant at the outlet of the lower reservoir of the Orland Project on Stony Creek. [para] We do not know what came of this conversation, but there has been no application filed with this office proposing the generation of power on Stony Creek.
    [Transcript received 11/03/1925

    110525 letter Bryan/Div Wrights to Pettey/State Railroad Commission; received transcript
    111725 D-83 [two copies?, one out of date order?]:

    - - -

    BEFORE THE DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS
    DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    oOo
    IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION NUMBER 2212 BY THE UNITED
    STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION TO APPROPRIATE WATER FROM
    STONY CREEK IN GLENN, COLUSA AND TEHAMA COUNTIES FOR
    AGRICULTURAL USE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ORLAND
    PROJECT
    oOo

    DECISION NO. 2212. _______D 83______
    Decided: November 17, 1925.

    APPEARANCES AT HEARING HELD OCTOBER 21, 1925:

    For Applicant - Richard J. Coffey, Atty., and R.C.E. Weber, Supt.

    For Protestant, Glenn Colusa Irrigation District. - Mr. H.J. Hankins of Hankins & Hankins, Attorneys.

    For Protestant, L.E., I.L. and R.H. Brownell - Mr. Geo. B. Freeman, Attorney.

    For Protestant Esperanza Land Corporation and James Mills Orchard Co.- James Mills.

    Examiner: E. N. Bryan, Deputy Chief of the Division of Water Rights.
    oOo

    OPINION


    This is an applicatton for a permit to store 50,200 acre feet of the waters of Stony Creek, a tributary of the Sacramento River between November 1st and May 1st of each season for beneficial use for irrigation between March 1st and November 1st. As will hereinafter appear the flow of

    [page break]

    the source is regulated by East Park Reservoir and the applicant claims an established right to use the first 265 second feet of the normal flow of the source by virtue of purchase. Protests were filed against the application by L.E, I.L, and R.H. Brownell, the Glenn Colusa Irrigation District, the Esperanza Land Corporation and by the James Mills Orchards Co.

    The application was filed February 17, 1921, completed in accordance with the Water Commission Act and the requirements of the Rules and Regulations of the Division of Water Rights and being protested was set for public hearing in the Supervisors Room of the Court House at Willows at 11:00 o’clock A.M. on Wednesday, October 21, 1925. Of this hearing applicant and protestants were duly notified, each being represented thereat.

    The protest of Glenn Colusa Irrigation District shows that by contractual relation between applicant and protestant’s predecessor in interest applicant has purchased protestant’s claimed right to the first 265 second feet flowing in the source together with a certain canal system, said 265 second feet to be directly diverted or stored as may best suit applicant’s needs. The same contract refers to a right claimed by the district, also through purchase, to appropriate any water over and above the first 265 second feet, such water being diverted by a canal of 1400 second feet capacity which canal also carries a large amount of water from the Sacramento River. Protestant admits that, under ordinary conditions, only a very small proportion of its water comes from Stony Creek and also that their diversions from this source constitute a very small proportion of the

    -2-

    annual yield thereof. This indicates that a considerable flow is subject to appropriation and at the hearing applicant agreed to recognize and observe the rights claimed by protestant under the above mentioned contract.

    Brownell Brothers protest is based on riparian claim to the right to use water below the point of diversion. At the hearing it was stated by applicant’s superintendent, without denial from protestant, that no water had been used for irrigation on these lands for at least 15 years. Protestant’s attorney at the hearing evidenced their desire as being not to interfere with the proposed appropriation subject to vested rights but to place on record their claims to right to use water from the source as riparians,

    The protests of the Esperenza Land Corporation and of the James Mills Orchards Co. set forth their claims to rights to use water from under ground sources supplied by Stony Creek and state that any infringement of such rights shall be deemed a warrant for injunctive relief. That these protestants have no objection to issuance of a permit on the application subject to vested rights was made clear at the hearing by Mr. Mills, an official of both protestant companies.

    It was brought out at the hearing that in normal years the entire available flow at Glenn Colusa Irrigation District’s point of diversion on Stony Creek is taken into their canal after about the 1st of April but in years of high yield it is probable that even after that date there will be water flowing in the stream which is not appropriated by the Irrigation District. The District’s rights, in this event, appear to be adequately protected under the above mentioned contract and the appropriation will be al-

    -3-

    lowed for the full period of diversion specified.

    It was brought out at the hearing that in addition to the above mentioned 265 second feet applicant is now storing 51,000 acre feet at East Park Reservoir. The regimen of the stream is such, however, that in an extended period of light runoff applicants [sic, no apostrophe ] existing facilities are insufficient to answer their requirements. Stony Gorge Reservoir is contemplated for correction of this condition. Studies made by applicant show the project to be advisable from their point of view and Congress has made a preliminary appropriation of $50,000 for execution of the project.

    ORDER

    Application No. 2212 for a permit to appropriate water having been filed with the Division of Water Rights as above stated, protests having been filed, a public hearing having been held, and the Division of Water Rights now being fully informed in the premisess

    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said Application No. 2212 be approved and that a permit be granted to the applicant subject to such of the usual terms and conditions as may be appropriate.

    Dated at Sacramento this 17th day of Novermber, 1925.

    EDWARD HYATT, JR.
    __________________________________
    CHIEF OF DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS
    DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    JCF:GG

    112325 Check for Permit; applied for 115000 a-f reduced by applicant to 50200 a-f; acreage 30000 reduced by applicatn to 21000; "All related applications have been cancelled" [multiple copes? out of date order in files?]
    112325 Permit Terms; charges $432.00 [multiple copes? out of date order in files?]

    120225 form letter Feeney/Div WRights to Weber/Reclamation; $432 fees now due within 30 days, else revoke approval
    121425 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div Wrights; your letter of 12/12/1925 said the permit was enclosed, did not find it
    121625 letter Feeny/Div Wrights to Weber/Reclamation, form letter sent in error, need the $432 first
    121725 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WRights; voucher enclosed, please sign
    122425 letter Weber/Reclamation to Bryan/Div WRights; "Confidential "By official letter of even date, I am requesting your Division to forward the original together with a certified copy of Permit No. 2339 for the proposed Stony Gorge reservoir to me at Berkeley, California, in care of District Counsel, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 201 Post Office Buidling. These copies are urgently required at a conference with our attorney [Coffey? Morton? Baxter?] next Monday and I would consider it a great favor on your part if you would give this request your own personal attention. [para] Trusting that the opporunity [sic] will afford itself for my reciprocating with you sometime in the future in rendering you some favor, I am [para] With best personal regards, Sincerely yours,..."
    122425 letter Weber/Reclamation to Bryan/Div WRights; "Under date of" 12/23/1925 "there was forwarded to you from this office a check on the United States Treasurer in the amount of $432.00 for payment of fee for water right application No. 2212, permit 2339 for the proposed Stony Gorge Reservoir of the Orland project. [para] If, upon receipt of this letter, you have not yet forwarded the original permit to my address at Orland, I wish that you would mail it together with a certified copy of the original to me at Berkeley, California, in care of District Counsel, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 201 Post Office Building. If the original copy of the permit has been forwarded to Orland, will you prepare a certified copy and forward it to me at Berkeley. [para] I would appreciate your prompt compliance in this regard as these documents are urgently needed at a conference to be held Monday in the office of our District Counsel at Berkeley. You are respectfully requested to forward the documents without fail Saturday, upon receipt of this letter. [para] Any additional charge for the certified copy will be paid upon receipt of your bill for the same and the preparation of the necessary Government voucher to cover it."
    122825 letter Hyatt/Div Wrights to Weber/c/o District Counsel at Berkeley; enclosed one copy by registered mail of Ap & permit issued 12/02/1925; we shortened the completion date; upon showing of diligence we might extend it.
    122825 letter Bryan/Div WRights to Weber/Reclamation; received both 12/24 letters; because of the holidays, could not forward to reach you by Monday, but are sending them now to Berkeley per phone call from Mr. Coffee [sic]
    123025 return receipt card, Weber c/o Coffey

    1926


    062326 telegram Weber to Bryan; "ARRIVING BY AUTO SACRAMENTO THIS AFTERNOON FOR BRIEF CONFERENCE REGARDING OUR PERMIT AND TRUST YOU CAN REMAIN YOUR OFFICE IF MY ARRIVAL DELAYED SLIGHTLY BEYOND FIVE OCLOCK"
    062426 Memorandum Bryan/Deputy Chief; "...Weber, Superintendent of Orland Project, visited the office for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not applciation should be made for an extension of time within which to begin construction under the permit issued on this application. [para] He stated that while actual construction work had not been begun upon the storage dam, money for the work had been appropriated by Congress, the dam had been designed, the construction surveys were made and some road construction had been carried on leading to the dam. [what roads? the county road went through the damsite] [para] He was accordingly advised that in our judgment the diligence of permittee could not be called into question and that the progress made was sufficient to be considered an actual beginning of construction upon the project."
    070826 letter Weber to Bryan/Div WRights; "...land purchase contracts (involving expenditures of $84,000) for reservoir rights of way have been executed with five of the seven owners of the property involved, the sixth will prbably be executed within the next week and negotiations have been underway with the seventh. A contract with Glenn County, involving expenditures of approximately $12,000 for public road change, has been entered into and most of the work has already been performed. Design and specifications for the dam have been prepared in the office of the Chief Engineer at Denver and have been forwarded to Washington for printing, after which bids will be asked for the construction of the proposed work. Congress has appropriated $600,000 for carrying on this work during the fiscal year beginning" 07/01/1926 "Information is desired as to whether the foregoing constitutes the performance of sufficitne work to comply with the provision of the permit which requires that actual construction work shall begin on or before":08/01/1926 "and whether it will be necessary to file a formal application with your Division for an extension of time."
    071326 letter Bryan/Div WRights to Webber [sic]/Orland Project; "we have no doubt from the statement made by you that the record of diligence of the permittee in this matter could not be successfully attacked and we feel that an extension of time for beginning construction is unnecessary."
    122226 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WRights; please send 4 more copies of your form #67, "Progress Report on Cosntruction Work and Use of Water Under Permit" for use on Ap #2212.

    1927


    010627 Progress Report on Construction Work and Use of Water Under Permit 1926; construction work not complete, will be 11/01/1928; beneficial use of water 01/01/1936; spent to date $168,000; "Final design of dam has been prepared, advertisement for its construction issued and contract let. Construction work is under way; camp is established; construction machinery and equipment are being installed. Approximately 1,600 c.y. exacavation have been removed, mostly in connection with stripping operations at the dam site. Nearly 2,200 acres of reseervoir rights of way have been acquired. Three miles of relocated county road were built." Next year: "acquisition of about 200 acres of land to complete purchase of necessary reservoir rights of way. Construction of 3.6 miles of relocation county road. Estimated construction quantities for the dam are excavation, 15,000 c.y.; concrete, 25,000 c.y. and placing of 1,300,000 lbs. of reinforcing steel, gates, valves and structural steel." acreage this past season, "14674 total. Alfalfa 5128; other general field crops, 3392; almonds, 1153; prumes, 354; citrus, 274; other orchards, 2458." max acreage irrigated under permit previous to last season, 1923, 15,500 acres; last season diversion 01/12 - 11/22; work done on clearing, etc., "Virtually all land leveled during year (except that on which work was performed during the fall) was under irrigation." [eh?]; plans for increasing acreage: "Land being prepared during winter of 1926-27 which with previous irrigated areas will result in about 15,700 acres of the project using water during 1927 season." Remarks, "Data submitted under [beneficial use] applies to the Orland project for which the work under application 2212 and permit 2339 is to provide storage facilities in addition to those afforded by the existing storage system, already constructed and being operated by the United States.'
    010627 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WRights; enclosed progress report for 1926
    111727 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WRights; received "your notice and progress report on construction work and use of water under permit" 2212, permit 2339; "please furnish us with four additional copies of the progress report for the file sof this office together with those of the Chief Engineer and the Commissioner?" [? inspection report?] "The report will be forwarded you at the close of December this year as soon as the quantities for December on the construction contract are available." [so, blank copies of the form? what?] note thereon: Sent 11/21/1927 HJ

    1928


    010628 Progress Report on Construction Work and Use of Water Under Permit 1927; complete construction 11/01/1928, complete use 01/01/1936; spent to date $748,000; done to date "Construction quantities to date at Stony Gorge dam are: 10,700 c.y. earth and loose rock; 27,200 c.y. solid rock; 3,794 lin. ft. of grout holes drilled; 22,678 c.y. concrete placed; 5236,400 lbs of reinforcing place. Four miles of new road to replace county road within reservoir basin were constructed during 1927; total to date is 7 miles." 1928 planned: "Placing of 21,500 c.y. of concrete and 1,500,000 lbs. of reinforcing steel together with installation of 815,000 lbs. of gates, valves and operating machinery." use in 1927: "14,681 total. Alfalfa, 4,700; milo, 2,633; other general field crops, 3,706; almonds, 1,195; apricots, 549; prunes, 412; citgrus, 296; other orchards, 1,149; gardens 41."; irrigated 03/24 - 10/26; "Advertisement and sale campaign in connection with 64 farms (1,787 irrigable acres) under option by owners to United States."
    010628 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WRights; enclosed 1927 Progress Report

    1929


    010529 Progress Report on Construction Work and Use of Water Under Permit 1928; construction complete; spent $1,255,000, "Final construction quantities at Stony Gorge dam include:- 11,029 c.y. earth and loose rock; 27,588 c.y. siolid rock; 43,135 c.y, concrete; 3,794 lin. ft. of grout hole drilling; 1,901,838 lbs reinforcing steel; 767,012 lbs. gates and operating machiner; 37,200 lbs. trash rack steel. In connection with the reservoir basis, 2,367.2 acres of right of way have been acquired and 7 miles of roads were built;" 1928 use: "14,465 total. Alfalfa, 4,744; milo,2,353; other field crops, 3,513; almonds, 1,222; apricots, 621, prunes, 418; citrus, 304; other orchards, 1,255; gardens and berries, 35." irrigated 03/12 - 11/03;" "Continuation of advertisement and sale campaign in connection with 59 farms, containing 1,638 acres, under option by owners to the United States."
    010529 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div Wrights; 1928 progress report enclosed

    1930


    010230 Progress Report by Permittee 1929; "1,902,000 lbs. of reinforcing steel and 805,000 lbs. of operating machinery and equipment...Total cost: $1,258,000." "Impounding of storage began in Nov. 1928 and continued during winter of 1928-29. Release of storage began in April, 1929; storage in Stony Gorge reservoir augmented during May and June by 27,400 a.ft. released from East Park reservoir. Storage from both sources depleted in November. Maximum draft on Stony Gorge storage; 12,950 a.ft. during July." "Full use of the supplemental storage facilities afforded the Orland project by the Stony Gorge dam and reservoir was impossible during 1929 on account of the low runoff due to lack of normal precipitation. The runoff available for storage amounted to less than 13,000 a. ft., which is but slightly more than one-fourth the capacity of the reservoir; said amount of 13,000 a.ft. being the runoff available for storage at the time of beginning draft on the stored supply early in April, 1929,."
    010230 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WResources; enclosed 1929 Progress Report
    010430 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WResources; your letters 12/31/1929 re: 11/01/1929 notices on Aps 2212 & 3944; 3944 was cancelled "without prejudice" on 04/13/1925; on #2212, report mailed 01/02/1930
    110530 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WResources; please send 5 copies form 67, progress report
    121030 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WResources; sending report for 1930 shortly after 1930 records are complete

    1931


    010231 Progress Report by Permittee 1930; total cost $1,259,000; "Impounding of storage began Dec. 1929 and continued during 1929-30 season. Reservoir filled to capacity March, 1930. Draft on storage for irrigation began" 05/15/1930 "and continued till" 11/15/1930. "Stony Gorge storage augmented by release at East Park Reservoir in June, September and October. Storage in Stony Gorge reservoir at end of irrigation season (Nov. 15); 3,510 a.ft. Maximum draft on Stony Gorge storage; 17,710 a.ft. during July. Acreage irrigated; 14,091." ultimate full use, estimated in 1936
    010231 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WResources; 1930 report enclosed
    100331 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WResources; please send 5 copies form 67, progress report
    111831 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WResources; will send annual report after completion of crop census for the year

    1932


    010232 Progress Report by Permittee 1931; total cost of work $1,263,100. "Impounding of storage for 1931 began in Nov . 1930. Stony Creek runoff was insufficient to fill reservoir to capacity during the year. Draft on storage began Mar. 31; discontinued" 11/16/1931. "Storage at Stony Gorge was supplemented in May and June by some 31,000 a.ft. of East Park storage. Maximum draft on Stony Gorge storage consisted of 15,500 a.ft. during July. Area irrigated - 13,895 acres. Full use, 1936
    010232 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WResources; enclosed 1931 progress report
    111632 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WResources; 1932 progress report will be sent near the first of the year after the complete project data is available; please send 3 more copies of the blanks

    1933


    010233 Progress Report by Permittee 1932; "Impounding of storage for 1932 began in Noiv. 1931. Storage to full capacity of reservoir was impounded early in May, 1932. Draft on storage began" 05/24/1932 ', discontinued Oct. 15 and resumed for short periods thereafter. Storage at Stony Gorge was supplemented during Aug, Sept., Oct. and Nov. by some 16,000 a.ft. of East Park storage. Acres irrigated during 1932 was 14,059."
    010233 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WResources; enclosed 1932 progress report
    011733 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WResources; re your post card notice, with possible need to deliver water for irrigation in December, deferring preparation of report until late December
    120433 Progress Report by Permittee 1932; "Impounding of storage for 1933 began in Nov. 1932. Maximum sgtorage of 44,220 a.ft. was impoinded in June, 1933. Draft on storage began April, 1933, discontinued Oct. 19*33 and resumed for short period in November and December. Storage at Stony Gorge was supplemented by some 15,000 a.ft. of storage from East Park Reservoir in August, 1933. Acres irrigated during 1933 was 13,946. full use, probably 1938 or 40.
    120433 letter Weber/Reclamation to Div WResources; enclosed 1933 progress report
    120733 letter unknown/Deputy, Water Rights to Weber/Reclamation; received 2 copies report, only need one, returning other

    1934


    112034 Progress Report by Permittee 1934; "Impounding of storage began in November, 1933. Storage to full capacity of reservoir was had" 03/11/3934. "Draft on storage began April 11 and was discontinued October 31. Storage at Stony Gorge was supplemented during July, August, September and October by some 32,000 acre feet of East Park Storage. Acres irrigated during 1934 was 14,000. [plug?]" full use, no sooner than 1936
    112034 letter Carmody/Reclamation to Div WResources; enclosed 1934 progress report
    071935 memo by Edson/Office Engineer; "Mr. Edwin Post, 330 Post Office Building, Sacramento, who is in the employ of the U.S. Department of the Interior, called to obtain information concerning water rights on Grindstone Creek a tributary of Stony Creek in Tehama County. He said that the United States Government is contemplating purchasing the Julian Ranch a short distance below the Junction of Grindstone and Stony Creeks, for the purpose of establishing [expanding to?] the Grindstone Indians on a reservation there. His purpose in calling was to determine whether there was sufficient water to make the project feasible. All information at hand was furnished him."

    1936


    011836 Progress Report by Permittee 1935; "Impounding of storage began in November, 1933. Storage to full capacity of reservoir was had" 03/11/1934. "Draft on storage began May 27 and was discontinued November 2. Storage at Stony Gorge was supplemented during August & September by some 22,000 acre feet of East Park Storage. Acres irrigated during 1935 was 14,000. [plug?]" full use, no sooner than 1938
    011836 letter Carmody/Reclamation to Div WResources; enclosed 1935 progress report

    1937


    021537 letter Bryan/Deputy, Water Rights to Carmody/Reclamation; several inquiries and no response, your permit expired 07/01/1936, need to inspect unless you fill out the enclosed form [which is?], if need more time to apply full beneficial use, apply for extension.
    022037 Progress Report by Permittee 1936; "Impounding of storage began in November 1935. Storage to full capacity of reservoir was had March 25. Draft on storage began" 05/12/1936 ", was discontinued November 4. Unprecented dry weather necessitated again drawing on storage for the period November 23 to December 22, both dates inclusive. Storage at Stony Gorge reservoir was supplemented during August, September and October by some 20,000 acre feet of East Park storage. Acres irrigated during 1936 was 14,000. [plug?]" full use not sooner than 1938
    022037 letter Carmody/Reclamation to Div WResources; enclosed 1936 Progress Report
    022337 [form] Memorandum Concerning Completion of Construction and Beneficial Use and the Issuance of a License"; narration about the sequence; inspection and license cuts off opportunity to continue expanding the beneficial use beyond "the amount of water expressed in acre feet which has been diverted to storage in Stony Gorge Reservoir during any single collection period (from about November 1 to about May 1) and which has subsequently been released and applied to beneficial use in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Permit. [para] Time within which to complete this project expired" 07/01/1936. "Either form 67e which is attached should be completed and returned or a request for extension should be filed."
    032537 letter Conkling/WRights to Carmody/Reclamation; no response received to our 02/23/1937 memo, we've listed your project for inspection after which "we will be reluctant to consider a request for extension. It is therefore important that good cause be shown for further extension at this time if such is desired."

    042036 H.R. 11538

    Calendar No. 2447

    74th CONGRESS
    2d Session

    H.R. 11538 (Report No, 2321)

    -------

    IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

    February 24 (calendar day, April 21), 1936

    Read twice and referred to the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation

    June 8, 1936 Reported by Mr. Burke, without amendment

    -------

    AN ACT


    For the relief of the Orland reclamation project, California.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized to execute or authorize the execution of amendatory contracts with the individual water users of the Orland reclamation project, California, by which (a) the time within which the cost of Stony Gorge Reservoir may be paid shall be thirty-five years in lieu of the seventeen years allowed for such payuent under existing contracts, the said annual payments to be graduated as the said Secretary may prescribe, and (b) any construction or operation and maintenance charges due from the individual water users and delinquent as of the date of this Act, together with the accrued interest or penalties, may be added to their proportionate part of the cost of said reservoir.

    SEC. 2. The said Secretary shall classify the lands of the Orland project and the owners of all lands found by the said Secretary to be permanently unproductive may, by supplemental agreement with the United States, be relieved of all liability for further operation and maintenance and construction charges on land so found to be permanently unproductive, and the credit for construction charges theretofore paid on such permanently unproductive lands may be transferred to other producing lands, as the owner of such permanently unproductive lands may designate in writing. The released water rights theretofore appurtenant to such permanently unproductive lands shall be transferred to other productive lands, as the said Secretary may designate and under such regulations as he may prescribe.

    SEC. 3. After the plan prescribed in section 4 hereof becomes effective, all operation and maintenance charges shall be estimated annually by the Secretary and collected in advance on the Orland project on or before January 1 of each year for that calendar year, and no water shall be delivered to any water user failing to make such advance payment. Should the estimate by the Secretary of the amount of the operation and maintenance charges for any calendar year or the collections from water users for such years prove to be too small, the water users shall be required to make a further payment in advance of the additional amount then estimated to be sufficient to meet the remainder of the operation and maintenance cost for that year, and the delivery of water shall not be continued (a) to the project unless said additional amount is paid to the United States, or (b) to any water user failing to pay his proportionate share (as determined by the Secretary) of such additional operation and maintenance cost. Overpayments resulting from too large estimates for any year shall be adjusted by credits upon succeeding years after the amount of the overpayment is ascertained.

    SEC. 4. For all water users executiug supplementary contracts as permitted herein their proportionate share, as determined by the said Secretary, of the operation and maintenance charges for the first year in which this plan is made effective for the Orland project, by the execution of this agreement by at least 90 per centum of the water users of the project, as conclusively determined by the Secretary, shall be consolidated with the construction cost of the Stony Gorge Reservoir and paid when such construction cost is paid as herein permitted. Water Users failing or refusing to execute such supplementary contacts shall not be accorded the benefit of this Act, nor shall they receive the benefit of any moratory construction charge legislation enacted in 1936 or thereafter unless otherwise specifically directed in such moratory legislation.

    SEC. 5. An appropriation of $35,000 from the reclamation fund for the Orland project is hereby authorized to enable the Secretary to make the land classification provided for in Section 2 hereof and to construst canals and other works necessary to conduct to new project lands the water supply to be released hereunder from permanently unproductive lands. The primary constructton charge of $55 per acre on such new lands shall be payable in installments as provided in section 2 of the Act of August 13, 1914 (38 Stat. 687). The supplemental construction charges for the new land shall be the same as for the old land, except that each acre of new land shall be required to pay in addition its proportionate part, as determined by the Secretary, of the construction cost of new work as authorized in this section. The supplemental construction charges for the new land shall be payable in installments over a period of thirty-five years, the first of such installments to be due one year after the due date of the last installment of the original construction charge on the new land. The supplemental construction charge installments for the new land shall be graduated in the same manner as for the old land as provided in section 1 hereof. The dates for the payment of the construction charges provided for in sections 1 and 5 hereof shall be as fixed by the said Secretary.

    SEC. 6. The said Secretary is also authorized to enter into a contract with the Orland Unit Water Users’ Association, a corporation organized under the laws of California, modifying said corporation’s contract of April 3, 1909, with the United States, if and so far as in the opinion of the said Secretary modification of said contract is requisite by reason of the execution of agreenents bettveen the United States and the individual stockholders of said corporation as authorized herein,

    SEC. 7. The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to perform any and all acts and to make such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper for the purpose of carrying the provisions of this Act into full force and effect.

    Passed the House of Representatives April 20, 1936.

    Attest: SOUTH TRIMBLE,
    Clerk.

    NOTE:- Passed Senate June 18, 1936, without amendment,

    Approved June 24, 1936.

    033037 letter Funk/Reclamation to Conkling/WRights; "...Under the terms of an Act of Congress approved" 06/24/1936 "(Public No. 786 - 74th Congress) copy of which is enclosed, a program of betterments will be carried out. This program contemplates the elimination of the poorer lands on the proect and the substitution therefor of good lands, some of which lie within the present boundaries of the project and others adjacent to the project. [para] It is expected that it will take several years to work out all of the details of this program and for that reason it is necessary that the permit be extended and it is requested that it be extended for five years from the date of its expiration. If for any reason this cannot be done, please advise us without delay. [para] This is a matter which I should have preferred to submit to our Chief Engineer for his views but on account of its urgency I did not do so. It is possible that his idea as to the length of the extension requested may not coincide with mine and that you will hear from him in the matter."

    040137 Order Granting Extension of Time within which to Complete Use of Water; "good cause has been shown" extended to 12/01/1941; 2 copies, one out of order
    040137 letter Conkling/WRights to Funk/Reclamation; "Based on the representations as set forth in your letter of March 30th," extended to 12/01/1941 to apply to full beneficial use. "...necessity of filing a petition with this office to change the place of use under" Ap 2212, Permit 2339 "if and when the proposed program is carried out."

    1939


    020439 letter WES/WRights to Reclamation; no progress reports for some 2 years, if none are submitted, will need to inspect
    021139 Progress Report by Permittee 1938; "Impounding of water started November 1937. Storage to full capacity" 12/12/1937. "Full release" 06/23/1938. "Last release" 11/29/1938. Acreage irrigated 15,000 [a plug?]; full use not sooner than 1942
    021139 letter Carmody/Reclamation to Div WResources; enclosed is our progress report for 1938
    091439 letter W.F. Linton to Division of Water Resources; "Dear Sir: I W.f. Linton of Orland Calif. wish to call to your attention violations of the law regulating the use of water for irrigation. I am the holder of final licenses 1152 and 1158. Applicatins 3215 and 6562. Certain parties that live above me on the stream that is the source of my supply have constructed a dam and made use of water on a considerable acreage, an acreage that is in the main outside of the Orland U.S. Gov't Project. This dam however is on land within the project and the man that constructed te Dam says that the project manager told him it was his right to do so and make use [to p. 2] of the water. that the Govt. was in control of the water within the project. The place where this dam is placed is on a well defined natural water course the bed of which I think must be three or four feet lower than its banks. I know the Govt has the right to carry its water from its reservoirs to its diversion dam over the bed of Stony Creek but that it should have a blanket right to the use and controll [sic] of all streams within its confines seems far fetched, and in a letter I had from your office several months ago I understand you hold the state retains control of water in watercourses within the project. I have lost that letter I regret to say. I am informed that Mrs. Harvey who has a water right above me on the stream has lately entered complaint at your office in regard to this misuse of water, and I take it from her letter to her renter here that you gave her assurance that you would put the matter right. I had supposed I would have to carry the [to p. 3] matter to the court and I have been in so great financial stress of recent years I could not see my way clear to do so, but if this matter can be adjusted through your office at moderate expense I shall be only to [sic] glad to avail myself of so generous a service. [para] I think I shall be able to secure you any data you may require in the case if you will specify same. Very Resply [sic] Yours, W.F. Linton, Gen.Del, Orland, Calif. [para] N.B. The water right Mrs. Harvey holds was granted originally to Paul Castner [penciled in 5667 Kastner, & some initials] [all this is on North Fork Willow Creek and tributaries]
    092039 letter Conkling/WRights to Linton; Reclamation under Ap "2212 and otherwise may have acquired rights to certain of the waters of Stony Creek and in the distribution thereof over the Orland Project may possibly utilize to some extent natural channels within the boundaries of the project. Such use by them to convey Stony Creek waters would not, however, give them the right to the natural flow in these channels and they have no filings before this office on these channels. [para] The Reclamation Service, and others, may have rights on these channels which were initiated prior to" 12/19/1914, "the effective date of the Water Commission Act, of which this office would have no record and they may have valid riparian claims which, however, would not give them control of the channels but simply their proportionate share of the natural flow thereof along with other valid riparian claimants...." ; table of filings on the stream, comment on Lewis Dam Ap 9533 permit 5358; invitation to have a Division engineer sort it all out if everyone agres.
    UNDATED [orphan partial sheet commenting on interpreting USGS maps]
    UNDATED USGS Sheet piece of map SW of Orland, showing Johnson, Levet, Harvey (A5667), Linton (A3215 & A6562), & Lewis (A9533) aps on Willow Creek and tributary;
    100539 Memorandum Edson to Conkling; disscussion of Linton complaint, "...Mr. Linton has advised that these parties informed him that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation gave them permission to put dams in the stream and divert water, although they have no filings [to p. 2] with this office. It appears entirely possible that they are diverting water within the Orland Project which has been released to them by the Bureau for legitimate service on their lands. This point is not clear, however, as we have received no information from the parties named in the complaint. [para] From inspections made of the two Linton filings and the filing of Mrs. Harvey, it appears that most of the summer flow is return water from the Orland Project. [para] Mr. Linton has been advised that unless all parties join in a request and agree to abide by the decision of the Division, this office would not care to undertake an investigation. Urgent appeals have been received from both parties requesting the Division to investigate. The matter is respectfully submitted for your recommendation."

    1940


    020740 Progress Report by Permittee 1939; "Impounding of water started December 1938. First release" 02/28/1939. "Reservoirs failed to fill." use full and complete: "Not sooner than 1945"
    020740 letter Carmody/Reclamation to Div WResources; enclosed is our progress report for 1939
    101940 Progress Report by Permittee 1940; "Impounding of water started December 1938 [39?]; First release" 05/17/1940. "Reservoirs filled" 02/27/1940.
    101940 letter Carmody/Reclamation to Div WResources; enclosed 1940 Progress Report

    1941


    081441 Memorandum re Applications 2212 and 9991, Permits 2339 and 5652; By: M.S. Edson; "On August 13 Mr. Robert H. Sayre [ 9991 & 5652 are not in eWrims ) called at the office to discuss the objections which have been registered by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamationa gainst diversions under Application 9991. [para] Mr. Sayre stated that the Bureau of Reclamation, acting for the Orland Project, has objected to diversions for the reason they have successfully prevented other would be diverters from appropriating from Stony Creek above their diversion points [get a list?]. Mr. Sayre said that while his company is making a non-consumptive use of water the Reclamation Bureau felt that if his company is allowed to proceed it would place the Reclamation Bureau in an unfavorable light with other parties they have prevented from using the water. [para] Mr. Sayere stated that the only actual diminution of flow which will be occasioned by his company's diversion would be the evaporation of water while in use. He further stated that his company is drilling a well some distance to the northeast and they ahve already secured a flow of from 50 to 100 gallons per minute; that they proposed to continue drilling until the well is around 500 feet deep and he anticipates that any flow ecured then will be continuous. He said the amount of water delivered from the well will then make up the evaporation losses in the creek and he was accordingly advised to forward this information to the would-be protestants in order to satisfy [to p. 2] their objections. He was advised also that if he would submit letters and other information to the Division we would be pleased to do whatever we could to assist him."

    100441 Progress Report by Permittee 1941; "Started to spill thru spillway gates" 12/22/1940. "Maximum storage reached" 04/05/1941. "First release" 06/16/1941. "Acres irrigated 15,500."; full and complete: "Not before 1945"
    100441 letter Carmody/Reclamation to Div WResources; enclosed 1941 progress report
    UNDATED Memorandum Concerning Completion of Construction and Beneficial Use and the Issuance of a License"; similar to 02/23/1937 memo; maximum beneficial use: "the maximum amount of water which has been diverted to storage in Stony Gorge Reservoir during any single collection period (from about Nov. 1 to about May 1) and which has subsequently been released and applied to beneficial use in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Permit." [para] Time within which to complete this project will expire" 12/01/1941 "Either form 67e which is attached should be completed and returned or a request for extension should be filed."
    111341 letter Hyatt/State Engineer to Carmody/Reclamation; no reply yet to the memo sent you 10/06; note from your 1941 progress report that the Stony Creek [sic] Reservoir filled to capacity on" 04/05/1941. "If the water was stored during a single collection period and subsequently released from storage and applied to beneficial use it would appear that the development may be considered as having been completed, particularly since 15,500 acres were irrigated which is the largest area which has irrigated since approval of the application. [para] We will be pleased to receive the necessary information on which to base our future action in the matter as the time heretofore allowed within which to complete the development will expire on" 12/01/1941.
    121641 letter Hyatt/State Engineer to Carmondy/Reclamation; "Did you receive our letter of" 11/13? time expired 12/01/1941. "For good cause shown we will be pleased to consider a request for further extension." [unless, of course it is a protest]
    121841 memorandum M.S. Edson to files?; "On December 17th Mr. B.L. Carmody, Superintendent of the Orland U.S. Reclamation Project and his assistant, Mr. Azbell, called to discuss the requirements for license. [para] It appears from conversation with them that the Stlony Gorge Reservoir has been filled on several occasions during one season and that the water has since been placed to beneficial use. This would become apparent when it is realized that the annual requirements of the district are some 75,000 acre-feet of water, 50,200 acre-feet of which were allowed under this permit. The remainder of the supply comes from the East Fork [sic] of Stony Creek, rights to which were adjudicated through Federal court some years ago. [tsk. same use on 2 different claims, doubles the right; remember Billy Sol Estes?] [para] Mr. Carmody also said that he had maintained very complete records of storage and evaporation in the East Fork [sic] reservoir and records of a less authentic character also in the Stony Gorge Reservoir, also very good records of use of water, copies of all of which he agreed to send in. [para] After discussing the matter he agreed that he would send in the form asking for inspection of the project during the coming summer."

    1942


    011642 letter Hyatt/State Engineer to Carmody/Reclamation; your 12/18 visit led us to believe you would be requesting an inspection, which we have not yet received, so another form is enclosed; "measure of a right...is the maximum quantity of water which has been placed in storage during a single collection period (i.e., from about November 1 to about May 1 of each season) and which has subsequently been released and applied to beneficial use in accordance with the terms and conditions of the approved application."
    062342 form letter Hyatt/State Engineer to Reclamation?; A.S. Wheeler will be at Orland the afternoon of 07/01 to inspect
    070242 F post card reply; detachable card, to meet Mr. Wheeler at project or advise where; "Will meet Mr. Wheeler at Project office in Orland and conduct him over Project and Stony Gorge Reservoir. The reservoir is patrolled by armed guards and would not admit Mr. Wheeler unless accompanied by me." /s/ Carmody/U.S.B.R.
    070242 Memorandum of Field Visit; A.S. Wheeler accompanied by Proj. Supt. Carmody, no photo, no changes, no matters requiring immediate attention, license desired; "Conduits:- Channel to N & Ditches. North Canal has measured capacity of 125 [3 char symbol: "-' ] and is 6 miles long. South Canal has measured capacity of 240 [symbol] and is 16 miles long. Both canals lined. 135 miles of distribution ditches with 114 miles thereof lined. [para] Place of use:= 20,500 ac. - Map obtained. [para] Use:- General agricultural uses and has extended from Feb. 27 to Dec. 1. Thru rotation entire area under irr. Irr. in 1941 on 15694 ac. and 1942 in excess of 16000 ac. Use for irr., dom. [?], cattle. Duty ranges from 3.82 to 4.26 ac. ft. per ac. [POD? POU?] depending upon season and crops. Entire capacity of reservoir used. [para] Storage:- Season has extended form Nov. 1 to May 1. Tabulation of reservoir operation will shortly be received."
    092242 letter Conkling/Deputy State Engineer to Carmody/Reclamation; at the inspection you said a "tabulation of reservoir operation for Stony Goirge" would be supplied. Please do so. Thereafter we will forward the application for license.
    101342 letter Mrs. [?] J.K. Teeter or Jeeter to Div Water Resources; "We would like to know if water is covered with water rights at Fruito Elk Springs [pencil, "no appl"] and Alder Springs [pencil "no appl"] and could water be obtained from Stoney Gorge [pencil "no appl"] residence [sic] and who owns it. I believe the above is in Glenn County Township 22 Range 8 and 9 West. [para] A party is contemplating developing an industry in and around there and would appreciate the above information. [para] Please mail your answer to Mr. G. Davies, 12069 Broadway Terrace, Oakland, Calif."
    101542 letter Conkling/Deputy State Engineer to G. Davies; "There are no applications before this office to appropriate from Fruito Elk Springs or Alder Springs in Glenn County." refers him to Carmody/Reclamation for info on Stony Gorge waters;
    102842 letter Hyatt/State Engineer to Carmody/Reclamation; no reply yet to our 09/22/1942 letter; no information? no license;

    1943


    062243 form letter Hyatt/State Engineer to Reclamation; Mr. Wheeler will be at your office the morning of 06/30/1943 to inspect;
    UNDATED Map to Accompany an Inspection Report on Application 2212; Orland Project California, Reclamation map, color, showing Diversions, Stony Gorge, East Park, project lands and individual numbered sections map shows Road 60 connecting with Clark Valley Road at base of grade on S. Fork Willow Creek?

    070143 Memorandum of Field Visit, A.S. Wheeler; "Mr. Carmody interviewed. No changes. License desired. 1942 crop segregation was Almonds 1825 ac., Citrus 346 ac., Olives 250 ad., Prunes 165 ac., Alfalfa 3672 ac. and Ladino 6570 ac. Total 16082 ac. 
                                    STORAGE & RELEASE
                                                               Net Use
YEAR    Total Storage   Released   Hold Over  Acres Irrigated  Ac. Ft.
----    -------------   --------   ---------  ---------------  -------
 1938                                     0           14978       3.73
 1939         34460       34460           0           15505       4.50
 1940         50200       50200           0           15534       3.99
 1941         50200       44915        5285           15694       3.82
 1942         50200       41731        8469           16082       4.22

 Max. net use in ac. ft. per ac. 4.63 in 1936.

    UNDATED memo A.S. Wheeler/Assistant Hydraulic Engineer to State Engineer; submitting attached reports of inspections of 07/01/1942 & 06/30/1943; construction complete, capacity ample, use of 50,200 a-f complete; "Diversion to storage has extended from November 2 to May 1 and the season of use has extended from February 27 to December 1; "no change in ownership or in the project except for a reduction of 500 acres in the place of use."; map attached; license desired; this is apparently p. 1 with the report pp. 2 - 6
    102643 Inspection Report:
    Applcation 2212 - Permit 2339

    INSPECTION REPORT
    Made by: A. S. Wheeler
    Made on: July 1, 1942 and June 30, 1943.

    THE PROJECT AS APPROVED 

       Permittee ...........,... U. S. Bureau of Reclamation

       Amount .................. 50,200 acre feet by storage

       Season of diversion ..... November 1 to May 1

       Source .................. Stony Creek

       Tributary to ............ Sacramento River

       Point of diversion ...... NE 1/4 SE 1/4, Sec. 16, T 20 N, R6W, M.D.B.& M.

       Purpose ................. Irrigation

       Location ................ In Glenn County at Orland.
    Construction work and beneficial use having been reported completed the project was listed for inspection and the writer was accompanied on the inspections by Mr. D. L. Carmody, project superintendent.

    SOURCE

    Stony Creek, the source under this filing, heads in the Coast Range near Goat and Snow Mountains and flows northeasterly to the Sacramento River.

    The contributory watershed above the point of diversion to storage is moderately wooded, has an area of 301 square miles and an average annual rainfall, according to Bulletin 26 of the Division of Water Resources, of about 32 inches.

    -2-

    STORAGE WORKS

    At the point of diversion to storage there has been constructed a concrete "Ambursen" type dam which has a streambed to crest height of 125’ and a crest length of 868’.

    Just south of the center of the dam there are 3 spill bays each 30’ long and vertically 15’ deep and each is equipped with a steel 30’ x 30’ overflow type caterpillar gate on a 45° slope which is operated by an electric motor driven hoist.

    Just north of the center of the dam there are two riveted steel outlet pipes each of which is 50" in diameter with 42" needle valves at the discharge end and 3.5’ x 3.5’ emergency gates set behind steel trash racks at the intake end. The combined maximum capacity of the pipes is said to be 1050 c.f.s.

    The outlet pipes are set 28.0’ above streambed and the difference in elevation between the pipes and the spiliway crest is 77.88’ and that between the pipes and the maximum water surface level being 97.5’. These figures, when applied to the reservoir capacity curve, indicate a reservoir capacity of 29,000 acre feet at the spillway crest arid 50,200 acre feet at the maximum high water level.

    The reservoir created by the dam is known as Stony Gorge Reservoir and the season at diversion to storage in the reservoir has extended from November 1 to May 1.

    -3-

    DIVERSION SYSTEM

    The water released from the reservoir is first conveyed in the channel of Stony Creek for approximately 23 miles to the intake for the South Canal and for an additional approximate 4.5 miles to the intake at the North Canal.

    At the intake for the South Canal there has been constructed a concrete overflow type dam 24’ high and 900’ long with 3 gate equipped 5’ x 5’ openings to the conduit which consists of 16 miles of concrete lined canal having a graduated size commencing with a 20’ bottom width, 30’ water surface width and 5’ depth of water to a 8’ bottom width, 12’ water surface width and 1.6’ depth of water at the lower end. The rated capacity of the canal at the head is 240 c.f.s.

    At the intake for the North Canal there is a concrete dam 8’ high and 360’ long with 2 gate equipped 4’ x 4.75’ openings to the conduit which consists of a concrete lined canal 6 miles long and having a graduated size commencing with a 12’ bottom width, 17’ water surface width, 2.8’ depth of water to a 4’ bottom width, 9’ water surface width and 1.8’ depth of water at the lower end. The rated capacity of the canal at the head is 125 c.f.s.

    From the main canals a total of 135 miles of distribution ditches have been constructed of which 114 mIles are concrete lined.
    PLACE OF USE

    The place of use is known as the Orland Project and consists of an area of 20,500 [handwritten: See letter 05/11/1944 ] acres, as shown on the map accompanying this report, of

    -4-

    which a maximum of 16,082 acres have been irrigated in any one year which occurred in 1942 and which was composed of almonds 1825 acres, citrus 346 acres, olives 250 acres, prunes 165 acres, alfalfa 3672 acres, ladino clover 6570 acres and pasture and general crops combined 3254 acres.

    In the same year a total of 9191 dairy cattle were also served.

    USE OF WATER


    The use of stored water on the project has been for general agricultural and dairying purposes with such uses having extended from February 27 to December 1.

    Through rotation the entire 20,500 [handwritten: see letter 05/11/1944 ] acres within the project has been irrigated,

    The extent of use on the project for the 5 year period preceding the date of this inspection is shown in the following tabulation: 
             Total     Released       Hold Over   Acres     Net Use
Year   Storage   From Storage   Storage     Irrigated Acre Feet
                                                      per Acre
____   _______   ____________   _________   _________ _________

1938                               0         14,978     3.73
1939   34,460    34,460            0         15,505     4.50
1940   50,200    50,200            0         15,534     3.99
194]   50,200    44,915          5,285       15,694     3.87
1942.  50,200    41,731          8,469       16,082     4.22
    The net use in acre feet per acre usually ranges from 3.82 to 4.26 depending upon the season and nature of the crops, with the maximum net use having been 4.63 and which occurred in 1936.

    From the tabulation it will be noted that beneficial use to the extent of the capacity of the reservoir has been made.

    -5-

    For the additional requirements of the project the permittee depends upon adjudicated rights on Stony Creek to 265.0 c.f.s. through the North and South Canals combined and 51,000 acre feet by storage at East Park Reservoir.

    CHANGES

    There has been no change in ownership or in the location of the point of diversion to storage or of the points of re-diversion of stored waters.

    There has been no change in the place of use except that the irrigable area within the boundaries of the project has been found to be 20,500 [handwritten: see letter 05/11/1944 ] acres as shown on the map accompanying this report instead of 21,000 acres as covered by the permit.

    FUTURE PLANS

    The permittee has no plans for further development under the filing and desires a license.

    Respectfufly submitted,

    /s/ A.S. Wheeler
    ________________________________
    Assistant Hydraulic Engineer

    ASW:GG

    Prepared on:
    October 26, 1943.
    -5-


    120225 form letter to Brownells, Geo Freeman, GCID, Mills Orchards, Esperanza land; permit issued to Reclamation Orland Project for 50,200 a-f;

    102643 Check for License

    1944


    030744 letter Hyatt/State Engineer to Carmody/Reclamation; ready for license, any of project lands in Tehama County?
    032344 letter Asdell/Reclamation to Hyatt/Dept Publ Works; small portion of irrigable acreage plus the South Canal Headworks are in Tehama County
    032744 letter Hyatt/State Engineer to Asdell/Orland Project; with a portion of the project being in Tehama Project, copy of license & map should be filed in that county also, please forward a map copy or authorization to have a print made from the tracing that is here
    040144 letter Asdell/Reclamation to Conkling/Dept of Public Works; enclosed are 3 copies of a small map, if not satisfactory, authorize to have the prints made from the tracing
    041944 letter Hyatt/State Engineer to Asdell/Orland Project; inspection report of 07/01/1942 shows 20,500 irrigable area of the project, original ap specified 21,000 acres; which number is correct for the license?
    042044 letter Asdell/Reclamation to Hyatt/Dept of Public Works; referred your questionon acreage to the Denver Office
    051144 letter Asdell/Reclamation to Hyatt/Dept of Public Works; area for the license "should be 20,648.75 acres, the total ultimate irrigable area of the project."
    051544 License for Diversion and Use of Water; 20,500 acres
    051544 form letter Hyatt/State Engineer to County Recorders, Glenn & Colusa Counties, License & map "to be filed (not recorded)", per § 19 of Water Commission Act (Chapter 586, Statutes 1913 as amended).
  • 051844 copy of license filed in my office, Jessie A. King, Recorder
  • 052044 copy of license filed in my office, R.H. Boding

    051744 received your 04/01/1944 letter & maps; enclosed is license 6262, copies file in with Tehama & Glenn County Recorders
    051844 return receipt
    052544 letter Hyatt/State Engineer to County Recorder, Glenn County, please return the copy of License 2652 for a slight correction
    052644 letter Iverson/Deputy Glenn County Recorder to Conkling/Div WResources; cannot return License "inasmuch as it has already been filed. [para] If you wish to make any corrections it will be necessary for you to file an amended license."
    061544 Amended and Corrected License for Diversion and Use of Water, Superseding License of Even Number Issued May 15, 1944; 50,200 a-f/a, "based on storage during season of 1941-1942 which was the season of maximum storage within the three year period immediately preceding the date of inspection, namely" 06/30/1943, "and use thereof." "Irrigation of 20,648.75 acres within the Orland Reclamation Project in Glenn and Tehama counties...."
    061544 letter Hyatt/State Engineer to Asdell/Orland Project; "license issued read 'fifty thousand two hundred (50,000)' whereas it should have specified 'fifty thousand two hundred (50,200)'"; amended & corrected enclosed, & sent to the two county recorders
    063044 form letter Hyatt/State Engineer to County Recorder Glenn & Tehama counties, enclosed License 2652 & accompanying maps to be filed
    063044 letter Hyatt/State Engineer to Boding/Tehama County Recorder; enlcosed is an amended and corrected license....; suggest attaching it to the front of the previously filed license; "Copy of the license and the map returned by you in response to our letter of" 05/22/1944, "are returned herewith."
    063044 letter Hyatt/State Engineer to King/Glenn County Recorder; enclosed is amended & corrected license....
    070144 form King/Recorder [Glenn] county, filed 07/01/1944 copy of license 2652
    070344 return receipt
    070344 form Boding/Recorder Tehama County to Div WResources; filed 07/03/1944 a copy of license #2652

    1946


    111546 [1952?] Report of Licensee
    - - - max a-f storage - min a-f storage - acres irrigated
    - 1944 - - - 50,200 - - - - 900 - - - - 16,400 acres
    - 1945 - - - 50,200 - - - 1300 - - - - 16,600 acres
    - 1946 - - - 50,200 - - - - 800 - - - - 16,700 acres

    1949


    102049 Report of Licensee
    - 03/1947 - 10/1947 74,270 a-f for 15,959 acres;
    - 01/1948 - 11/1948 96,042 a-f for 16,566 acres
    - 03/1949 - 10/1949 115,385 a-f for 16,566 acres
    - "The 1949 irrigation season not being completed as yet, the dates and amounts shown are estimated."

    1952


    120852 Report of Licensee for the Years 1950, 1951 & 1952;
    - "Water stored under License 2652 is used to supplement the diversions from Stony Creek to the Orland Project for irrigation purposes. [para] The total amounts diverted to the distribution system from Stony Creek for the years mentioned is as follows:"
    - 03/16/1950 - 10/25/1950 117,381 a-f for 17,075 acres;
    - 03/17/1951 - 11/13/1951 114,454 a-f for 17,130 acres
    - 03/27/1952 - 11/13/1952 125,276 a-f for approximately 17,140 acres
    - [handwritten: "50,200 stated" "includes other adjudica [sic] righs"] "'Final computations of the acreage irrigated during the 1952 season have not been completed but will amount to approximately 17,140 acres.'"

    1955


    110755 F Report of Licensee for the Years 1953, 1954 & 1955;
    - "Water stored under License 2652 is used to supplement the diversions from Stony Creek to the Orland Project for irrigation purposes. [para] The total amounts diverted to the distribution system from Stony Creek for the years mentioned is as follows:"
    - 02/19/1953 - 11/10/1953 128,236 a-f for 17,261 acres;
    - 04/12/1954 - 11/05/1954 115,631 a-f for 17,243 acres
    - 03/03/1955 - 11/??/1955 91,907 a-f to date, "Final computations of acreage irrigated during 1955 season have not yet been completed." "The Orland Unit Water Users' Association assumed the operation and maintenance of the Orland Project on" 10/01/1954.

    1958


    100758 F Report of Licensee for the Years 1956, 1957 & 1958;
    - "Water diverted to storage under License 2652 is used to supplement the diversions from Stony Creek to the Orland Project for irrigation purposes. [para] Total amounts re-diverted to the distribution system from Stony Creek at the North & South diversions are as follows:"
    - 03/16/1956 - 10/31/1956 123,477 a-f for 17,275 acres;
    - 03/27/1957 - 09/27/1957 108,641 a-f for 17,326 acres
    - 04/18/1958 - 10/??/1955 101,477 a-f to date, "Final computations of acreage irrigated and total diversion for season will not be available until later part of November." The Orland Unit Water Users' Association assumed the operation and maintenance of the Orland Project on" 10/01/1954.

    1963


    011563 letter Hill/Executive Officer to Hollis/OUWUA; where is the report for 1959, 60, 61?
    012263 letter Hollis/OUWUA to SWRB; enclosed is report for 1959, 1960, 1961;
    012263 Report of Licensee for the Years 1959, 1960 & 1961;
    - 03/10/1959 - 12/22/1959 112,856 a-f for 17,499acres;
    - 03/24/1960 - 11/11/1960 116,438 a-f for 17,440 acres
    - 04/01/1961 - 11/22/1961 113,541 a-f for 17,211 acres
    - "The water is diverted to storage and regulated releases made to supplement th diversions required from Stony Creek, to the distribution system at the South and North diversion dams for irrigation of the Orland Project." "The Orland Unit Water User's [sic, apostrophe misplaced] Association was authorized by a contract with the United States of America, on" 10/01/1954 "to operate and maintain the Orland Project."

    1965


    100165 letter Hollis/OUWUA to SWRB; enclosed in duplicate is report of License [sic] for 1962, 1963 & 1964
    120862 [? or 10/01/1965 ] Report of Licensee for the Years 1962, 1963 & 1964, multiple copies?;
    - 03/30/1962 - 11/23/1962 113,053 a-f for 17,425 acres;
    - 03/19/1963 - 10/12/1963 100,346 a-f for 17,519 acres
    - 03/16/1964 - 10/28/1964 75,703 a-f for 16,804 acres
    - 1964 from Black Butte 6,237
    - "Storage release [sic, singular] from Stony Gorge Reservoir for irrigation of the Orland Project are re-regulated through the outlet facilities at Black Butte Reservoir, as the Black Butte Dam constructed by the Corps of Engineers occupies the site of the Projects [sic, no apostrophe] South Diversion Dam described in the license for Diversion and use of water. [para] Diversions to the Projects [sic] distribution system for 1964 were supplemented by the purchase and use of 6,237 acre-feet from storage in Black Butte Reservoir. [para] The Orland Unit Water Users' Association is authorized by a contract with the United States of America, dated" 10/01/1954, "to operate and maintain the Orland Project."

    1968


    071568 letter Hollis/OUWUA to SWRB enclosed repoirt for 1965-1967;
    071568 Report of Licensee for the Years 1965, 1966 & 1967;
    - Mar. - Nov. 115,261 a-f for 17,115 acres;
    - Mar. - Nov. 126,221 a-f for 17,043 acres
    - Apr. - Nov. 110,034 a-f for 16,512 acres
    - "The Orland Unit Water Users' Association is authorized by a contract with the United States of America, dated" 10/01/1959 [sic, s/b 1954?], "to operate and maintain the Orland Project."
    - "Storage releases from Stony Gorge Reservoir for irrigation of the Orland Project are re-regulated through the outlet facilities at Black Butte Dam, as the Dam constructed by the Corps. [sic, the period] of Engineers occupies the site of the Projects [sic, no apostrophe] South Diversion Dam described in the license for Diversion and use of water."

    1971


    042371 letter Hollis/OUWUA to SWRB, enclosed report 1968-70'
    042371 Report of Licensee for the Years 1968, 1969 & 1970;
    - Apr. - Oct. 114,278 a-f for 16,823 acres;
    - Apr. - Nov. 115,841 a-f for 16,855 acres
    - Mar. - Oct. 120,624 a-f for 16,778 acres
    - end of season draw down 62.9' 1968, 52.6' 1969, 57.3' 1970; "Principally Fruits, Nuts, Hay an [sic] Pasture"; recreational "General"
    123171 Closing Form for File Folders

    [assume] Cat 1 CORRESPONDENCE VOL. 3 OF 3 RECORD OF FOLDER [" F " - date filed if date originated not evident]

    1977


    090677 memo Dolcini/DWR Northern District to Bryson/WRCB; re "Application and Feasibility Report for Drought Emergency Loan Under the Davis-Grunsky Act, Elk Creek Community Services District"; "Enclosed for your review is a copy of the subject application for an emergency loan of $49,800 to help finance the District's 'Water System Rehabilitation Project'. Please submit comments as soon as possible."
  • 082477 Application and Feasibility Report for a Drought Emergency Loan under the Davis-Grunsky Act (Commencing at Part 6, Division 6, Chapter 5, Section 12885.9 of the Water Code)"; apply to DWR for $49,800, "drought emergency loan for the Elk Creek Community Service Dist. Rehabilitation" project. /s/ Ivan F. Gennis
    - [narrative portions: ]
    ELK CREEK COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT

    APPLICATION FOR A DROUGHT EMERGENCY LOAN UNDER
    THE DAVIS-GRYNSKY [sic] ACT
    BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

    The Elk Creek Community Services District supplies water to 105 residential and 11 public or commercial services in the unincorporated community of Elk Creek (estimated population, 400), located approximately 21 miles west of Willows. Water is diverted into the plant from a 10-inch steel pipe which transports water from the Stony Gorge Reservoir to the Louisiana Pacific lumber mill near Elk Creek. Low water levels in Stony Gorge Reservoir have resulted in high suspended solids concentrations and [pencil, changed to "in"] the plants influent. The existing plant is incapable of adequately treating this influent and produces an odorous effluent of high turbidity.

    The existing water treatment plant consists of the following:
    [end p. 1]

    ELK CREEK COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
    APPLICATION FOR LOAN AND GRANT UNDER THE FHA WATER
    AND WASTE DISPOSAL LOANS AND GRANT (DROUGHT) PROGRAM
    (continued)

    A line pressure pump supplies treated water to the distribution system and to a hilltop redwood storage tank. Figure I is a schematic drawing of the existing plant.

    ITEM I
    PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (See Figure II)
    [end p. 2]

    ELK CREEK COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
    APPLICATION FOR A DROUGHT EMERGENCY LOAN
    UNDER THE DAVIS-GRYNSKY [sic] ACT (continued)

    ITEM 2
    ESTIMATED PROJECTS COSTS 

                                   Item                                  Est. Cost
                             ----                                  ---------
1. Building enclosure for treatment plant; dry chemical storage
   and chemical feed, including site grading                          20,000

2. Repair control valve in raw water supply from LPC Co. line.           500
    [end p. 3]

    ELK CREEK COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
    APPLICATION FOR A DROUGHT EMERGENCY LOAN
    UNDER THE DAVIS-GRYNSKY [sic] ACT (continued) 

                                   Item                                  Est. Cost
                             ----                                  ---------
3. Move chemical feed pots and provide new chemical feed pump.         1,500

4. Rehabilitate filters and filter controls.                           1,500

5. Install new chlorinator and scale                                   4,000

6. Rehabilitate control building and provide lab bench, sink,
   lab equipment and restroom.                                         5,000

7. Rehabilitate redwood storage tank and construct fence.              1,500

8. Install new sludge beds.                                            1,500

9. Install new line pressure pump and overhaul existing.               3,000
                                                                   ---------
                                                      Subtotal        38,500

                                         Estimated Engineering         5,000

                                               l5% Contingency         5,800
                                                                   ---------
                                                                     $49,800
    ITEM 3
    INABILITY TO FINANCE:

    The 1976-77 F,Y. operating budget of the district was approximately: 
      
         Income: Water Sales                                         $23,908

       Expenses: Salaries & Employee Benefits                        $ 3,775
                 Services & Supplies                                  11,662
                 Other Charges                                         8,311
                 Fixed Assets                                            500
                 Appropriation for Contingencies                         100
                                                                   ---------
                                                         TOTAL       $24,348
    [end p. 4]

    ELK CREEK COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
    APPLICATION FOR A DROUGHT EMERGENCY LOAN
    UNDER THE DAVIS-GRYNSKY [sic] ACT (continued)

    Present rates are $12.00 per month up to 2000 cu. ft. and $0.40 per 100 cu. ft. over 2000 Cu. ft.

    A substantial rate increase would be a significant financial burden for the local lumber mill economy. Locally backed bonds would probably not be marketable.

    ITEM 4
    EXTREME HARDSHIP:

    Low water levels in Stony Gorge Reservor have resulted in high suspended solids concentrations in the influent to the treatment plant. The treat ment plant is incapable of adequately treating this water and produces a poor quality domestic water supply. The Glenn County Health Department has received numerous customer complaints about taste, odor, and turbidity in this water supply.

    ITEM 5
    NEED FOR DROUGHT EMERGENCY LOAN:

    Drought conditions have resulted in relatively low inflows to the Stony Gorge Reservoir during the past two years, while evaporative losses within the reservoir have concentrated contaminants of reservoir waters.

    [end p. 5]

    ELK CREEK COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
    APPLICATION FOR A DROUGHT EMERGENCY LOAN
    UNDER THE DAVIS-GRYNSKY [sic] ACT (continued)

    ITEM 5 (continued)

    Rehabilitation of the treatment plant is necessary so that the plant will be capable of adequately treating water obtained from the reservoir.

    ITEM 6
    WATER CONSERVATION:

    Measures which applicant has undertaken or will undertake to reduce water consumption are as follows: ITEM 7
    WATER RIGHTS AND SUPPLY

    No additional water supply is required.

    [end p. 6]

    ELK CREEK COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
    APPLICATION FOR A DROUGHT EMERGENCY LOAN
    UNDER THE DAVIS-GRYNSKY ACT (continued)

    ITEM 8
    COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA:

    The proposed project consists of the rehabilitation of an existing publicly owned water treatment facility and is therefore a categorically exempt project from the provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970 under the State of California Administrative Code, Title 14, Natural Resources, Chapter 5, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Article 8, Categorical Exemptions, Section 15101, Class I: Existing Facilities.

    ITEM 9
    ABILITY TO REPAY:

    Loan would be repayed by increasing income from water sales. Basis of current income is given under Item 3.

    [end p. 7]

    ITEM 10
    ELK CREEK COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT
    P.O. Box 117
    Elk Creek, California 95939 RESOLUTION

    The Board of Directors, Elk Creek Community Service District on this 24 Day of August 1977, hereby adopts a Resolution authorizing Gennis and Associates, Engineers to apply to the California Department of Water Resources for a Drought Emergency Loan under the Davis-Grunsky Act for the Elk Creek Community Service District, Elk Creek, California.


    _____________________________________ President


    _____________________________________ Secretary

    [end p. 8]
    - Figure I - Existing Water Treatment Plant; 10" water line from Stony Gorge Dam, tee, main line runs to Louisiana-Pacific Lumber Mill, tee off to Gravity feed line, control valve, reactor clarifier, sludge & backwash, waste discharge, rapid sand filters, backwash pump & line pump both in "clear well", to distribution system & storage plant; not shown how hooked in [side building?], chlorinator, alum & soda ash pots & wire [?] feed pumps;
    - Figure II - Proposed Revisions to Water Treatment Plant; New building enclosure over plant, clear well & chemical storage: new chemical feed pump, relocate alum & soda ash pots & pumps, repair control valve, dock high dry chemicals storage area; overhaul existing line pressure pump, new line pump, new chlorinator, rehabilitate filters & controls; to new sludge beds; (rehabilitate redwood storage tank & construct fence); [in old side building,] toilet to septic tank & leach field, lab bench, sink & lab equipment;
    - Figure III, Project Location
    - Notice of Exemption, exempt because "Proposed project consists of rehabilitation of an existing publicly owned water treatment facility."
    - 082477 Federal Grant Application/Award Notification, State of California State Clearinghouse; Elk Creek Community Services District, Prog Title: Water & Waste Disposal Loans and Grant (Drought)/10.418; Requested fund start: 09/1977, duration 4 months; $49,800; "construct building enclosure; move chemical feed pots and provide new chemical feed pumps; install new control valve on raw water supply line; install new chlorinator and scale; and install new line pressure pump. Rehabilitate filters and filter controls, rehabilitate control building; construct sludge beds; rehabilitate storage tank." contact: "Ivan F. Gennis, president, Gennis & Associates, Engineers, 1812 14th Street, Sacto., CA 95814 (916) 446-1421"; categorical exemption, cat 1; application to Farmers Home Administration
    - [end of application]


    092277 Contact Report, Glenn Peterson/Div WRights phoned Gene Serr/Northern Dist, DWR; "I telephoned Mr. Serr about the request for a review by this division about subject Districts application for a Davis Grunsky Loan. The purpose was to determine the degree of urgency because Mr. George Wilson of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation was not available for information about water rights and whether or not all of the water obtained by the District is purchased from the Bureau. [para] The District may be obtaining a loan from other sources and there is no immediate urgency" Action: "Call George Wilson next week" A13459 [lumber mill] crossed off
    092277 Contact Report, G.R. Peterson/Div WRights "contacted Jim Onley - Dam tender at Stony Gorge Reservoir; Mr. Onley was contacted to obtain information concerning who might know something about subject districts water rights. He referred me to: Charles (Skip) Thompson - President of the Water Board, Home Phone 968-5278, Ckliff Langum 968-5344; [para] I then telephoned Mr. langum at a lumber mill owned by Commander Industries, Inc. which has a common diversion works. Mr. Langum referred me to Mr. Thompson and to Martha Harrison, a mill employee Ph 968-5344. [para] A subsequent telephone call with Mrs. Harrison confirmed that the District purchases all of its water."
    092877 Contact Report, G.R. Peterson/Div WRights contacted George Wilson of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; Mr. Wilson was contacted to obtain information about subject Districts water rights. Mr. Wilson reported that: water is diverted from Stony Gorge Reservoir to the Districts. The water rights stem from a Contract with the Orland Project. There is a separate Contract with the Bureau in connection with Black Butte Reservoirl. These are exchange contracts. All of the water supplied to subject District is purchased. Amounts are as follows: Orland Water Users Assoc. (Project) 100 A.F.; Black Butte 15 A.F. Minimum; Black Butte 100 A.F. Maximum; Marv Freeman at the Orland Water Users Association was not contacted" Action: "Advise Dept of Water Resources that Water Rights appear to be in order." [Well, that was easy. Exchange contracts from 25 years before Black Butte was even in existence....]
    100577 letter Spencer/Supervising Engineer to Dolcini/DWR; "According to attachments to your memorandum of" 09/06/1977 "Elk Creek Community Services District obtains its water from Stony Gorge Reservoir. Mr. George Wilson of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation was contacted and he advised that the subject district purchases its water by exchange agreement involving Orland Water Users Association and Black Butte Reservoir. It, therefor, appears that subject district needs no additional right to take water from Stony Gorge Reservoir." [as opposed to an original right, which does not exist; got flim-flammed?]

    1980


    021980 Report of Licensee for the Years 1977, 1978 & 1979;
    - Apr. - May. 15,688 a-f for 16,823 acres;
    - Apr. - May. 15,688 a-f for 16,823 acres;
    - Apr. - May. 15,688 a-f for 16,823 acres;
    - Apr. - May. 15,688 a-f for 16,823 acres;
    - Mar. - Nov. 86,912 a-f for 15,914 acres
    - Apr. - Oct. 67,912 a-f for 17,086 acres
    - 1977 did not spill, max, 43.32' below spillway, emptied reservoir; 1978 & 9 spilled, did not empty;
    - end of season draw down 59.24 1977, 43.28' 1978, 36.82' 1979; "Hay, grain, orchards, and pastures irrigated; Dairy and beef; domestic 250 persons; recreation, fishing 1977, fishing-boating other 2 years; reclamation: "Lining canals and laterals when feasible." after use, "Most water returns to Stony Creek." "Acre-feet that passed through Stony Gorge includes water released from East Park Reservoir."

    1981


    071381 form Minasian/atty to SWRCB; please file enclosures & return endorsed copies; "Petitions to Add Incidental Use (Power Generation) to Existing Appropriative Rights Pursuant to Administrative Regulation Section 698, and Attached Resolution of boaqrd of Directors", and 2 checks for $25 each, handwritten: "checks returned" 07/15/1981 "per JHP"
    - [Enclosures]



    - [end of Enclosures]
    071581 letter Pankratz/Extension, Change and Compliance Unit; to Minasian/OUWUA atty; "Enclosed and returned are the subject petitions and the two checks for $25 each which are not acceptable by this office. [para] A petition to add incidental power generation to License 2652 (Application 2212) must be filed by" Reclamation "and must be signed by the federal official authorized to sign for the United States. [para] Regarding the petition to add incidental power at East Park Dam, the Bureau possesses an existing pre-1914 water right, and therefore a petition need not be filed with this office to add the power."
    071681 contact report Pankratz/Div WRights and Jeff Meith/Minasian, OUWUA attys; "...He said he would write us a letter requesting a meeting to discuss the issue. I told him the meeting should include the U.S.B.R. beings [sic] the License is int heir name. Also told him I had kept a copy of the petitions for our file."
    071681 letter Meith/Minasian to Pankratz/Div WRights; confirming phone call of 07/16/1981, OUWUA "strongly believes that it does have the authority to make the filings on behalf of not only itself, but also the United States. I also indicated to you that you would be receiving, very shortly, an opposing point of view from the United States. In any event, it is our interest in having this matter considered and determined by the Water Rights Board and therefore, we are willing to meet with you and determine how we should proceed on this matter. [para] You have indicated that the Applciations have not been rejected but they have been filed as of this time. We once again request their their 'filed' status be maintained, pending contact with you in the establishment of some kind of meeting procedure to attempt to resolve these problems. [para] I note that you have returned our filing fee checks, each in the amount of $25.00, which you have indicated are not acceptable....we beleive that a filing fee is appropriate...if you wis the filing fees be resubmitted, please inform me and I will promptly remit them to you."





    [Here, 06/30/2010 ]


    [ Where is the change in POU that allowed the pipeline to the Setzer/Glenco/LP lumbermill? or to the town of Elk Creek? Is none. ]
    Return to Stony Creek Water Wars.

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