Glenn County - Tehama County - Colusa County , California.
(c) 2009, Mike Barkley (11/12/2009)

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

SWRCB APPLICATION A024758 - Andreotti/Indian Lake Investment

[see also ]

[schedule of allowed Angle Decree usage at shows that SWRCB did not have jurisdiction to consider this application]


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

[Inside of file cover]

Applicant: Indian Lake Investment, A California General Partnership
Address: 172 Cliff Valley Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89148

Application 24758 Permit 18724
Applicant Arthur Andreotti
Date Filed 07/08/1982 Maps Filed 07/08/1982 County No. 6 Fee $10.00

[received before date filed?]
  • 113076 Orland Unit Water Users Ass. Answered 01/17/1977
  • 122876 William H. & Henry H. Deans Answered 01/17/1977, Stip 04/14/1977
  • 011277 U.S.B.R 03/24/1977
  • 082500 Orland Unit Water Users Ass.
  • 090100 Bureau of Reclamation
  • 090800 John Davis - USBR

    Remarks 040276:
  • 120176 Amended Application Received
  • 010177 Affidavit of Publication Received
  • 050580 Amended Application Received
  • 061980 Statement of Posting Notice Received
  • 101680 Decision 1558 issued Order 80-18 issued
  • 011983 Permit 18724 Issued
  • 122286 Assigned to Bank of America, NT & SA
  • 052788 Received Ext. Petition
  • 071388 Monthly Not. of Pet. Rec'd
  • 120288 Asgd to D. Donald Louie, Jr.
  • 011089 Ext to 12/31/1991 to Complete Construct to 123193 to complete use
  • 030189 Name changed to D. Donald Louie, Jr. Family Trust
  • 011392 Rec'd extension petition
  • 031192 Notice of Pet
  • 043092 Ext. to 12/31/1993 to complete Const. & to 12/31/1994 to complete use
  • 053194 Ext. Pet Rec'd
  • 071394 Notice of Pet Rec'd

  • 021975 Application $10.00
  • 011483 Permit $40.00
  • 052788 Extension $50.00
  • 071392 Extension $50.00
  • 053194 Extension $50.00
  • 021192 DFG Fee $850.00
  • 053194 DFG Fee $850.00


    082708 Water Diversion Curtailment Notice, continue not diverting water until 11/15/2005, fill out Fall Term 91 Compliance Certification Statement & return it certified under penalty of perjury that you 1) cease diversion, or 2) cease & use water from an alternate source, or 3) no hydraulic continuity exists downstream of your point of diversion even when not diverting. Enforcement under CWC 1052 or CWC Div 2 part 2 ch 12
    082808 certified receipt


    012675 stamped Indian Creek Irrigation Dam Project Map, S35 T19N [sic] R6W, Hoever & Assoc., Willows, CA; Location Map, his lands in 34,35,36, 26,27,31 in 5W, 1,2,11,12,13 in 16N 6W, 6,7,8,17,18 in 16N 5W; Stage Storage, Dam Site Profile, sheet 1 of 2; Business Card Bob Feeney of Feeney-Pride-Castle, Engineering & Surveying, Willows
    012675 stamped Indian Creek Irrigation Dam Project Map, S35 T19N [sic] R6W, Hoever & Assoc., Willows, CA; Typical Dam Section; placement of dam on Topo; sheet 2 of 2; shows Leesville Ladoga Road;
    06??75 another copy of Sheet #2 with irrigation applications areas -- shown in 36,1,2,11,12 and in 5W 6,7 & 18

    06??75 Envelope marked superseded:
  • 06??75 Map 1 again, twice
  • 06??75 Map 2 again

    ????81 two curious maps of T17N R6W showing an area outlined and colored in S34 & S35, sort of above the dam but including Indian Creek?
    012501 Assesor's roll for the property, apn 10300020 440 ac S35, 10300019 320 ac S34
    012501 Assesor's roll for the property, apn 10300020 440 ac S35,
    061201 returned envelope "the caretake at (650) 343-2333 confirmed no forwarding address.
    01??80 Div Water Rights, Memorandum Concerning Applications to Appropriate Water, Stony Creek Watershed - Tributary to Sacramento River [for some strange reason, exactly the same as is appended to the Decree copy filed with the Angle Court by USA on CD-ROM on 09/05/2008 Doc 278

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


    012275 Application to Appropriate Unappropriated Water f 02/19/1975 - at 10:21 a.m. Arthur Andreotti, P.O. Box 298, Colusa California 95932 916/458-5563; applicant claims an existing [checked both] riparian & pre-1914 appropriateive right, but water sought by this ap is in addition; descripition of existing right: "Portions of ranch were irrigated during early days, evidence by irrigation ditches, number of acres has not been determined." maps in 30 days, from unnamed stream & Indian Creek? ; 3900 a-f for 1200 acres; 2 reservoirs 1) 35 feet high earth, 32 deep, 130 surface acres 2300 a-f, 2) same, 90 acres, 1600 a-f; 5000 foot pipeline, 30 foot lift, all sprinkler 3.23 a-f pasture, 2,9 a-f alfalfa, 3.12 a-f vines, 5/1 - 10/1, no significant impact, stream dry below dam 07/01 - 11/01; take 100% of low flow in May, June (dry years); 69% returned wet year, 33% dry year,
    012375 note attached, new ap no file; 021375 OK to file when maps received --KRB

    110872 [sic] letter Spencer/Engr to Andreotti can't accept ap, no minimum $10 filing fee included, 1900 a-f means Sec 680 apply and maps must be submitted with ap

    021375 ap cannot be accepted until $10 received
    022175 ap cannot be accepted until $10 received
    030575 letter Rosenberger/Div WRights to DWR re specs for Andreotti dams
    031075 letter Dukleth/DWR Div Dam Safety to Andreotti, dams of these - heights & storage subject to supervision on safety by DWR; enclosed is outline of procedure, application forms & a copy of "Statutes and Regulations pertaining to Supervision of Dams and Reservoirs"
    052275 letter Horton/Reclamation to Rosenberger/Div WRights , for S12 T15N R2W diverision from Colusa Basin Drain, can't find his rights [is this misfiled?]
    052275 letter Rosenberger/Div WRights to Horton/Reclamation , neither can we for that location
    071775 contact report Andreotti called Ken Beyer, status of his ap? in process & scheduled for November, discussed expedite, said he's send a letter, can start work just can't store until permit is issued
    072575 letter Andreotti to Div WRights, asking to expedite so he may start; letterhead H & A Andreotti, General Farming, Grimes
    080675 contact report Andreotti's Secretary to Wayne Rowlands (or vice versa), notice to be drafted next week or so & issued in about 10 days
    082275 letter Spencer/Engr to Andreotti: review shows further needs: 1) damsite on map sheet 1 different from 2, & diversion ties are different and only one shown on item 3, fix; 2) add area-elevation curve on sheet 1; 3) add max elevation on ap. & add it to sheet 2 (?); 4) 1275 would seem to make it 3200 a-f, not 3900, fix one way or another; 5) specify more precisely area to be irrigated and estimate acreage within each 40-acre piece; 6) add name of appropriation stream to map, and recheck where it is on the map because it seems to flow with the contour not across it; 7) Ap 15 says irrigate 700 acres but table you show totals 1200 acres; 8) finish 7 furnish data form 9 & 10
    082875 return receipt card

    102275 contact report, Spencer called Andreotti to see if he lost interest, he wants it ASAP, gave all to his engineer, and annoyed engineer hadn't furnished it, gonna get on him
    102375 letter Conner/Real Estate Broker to Cornelius/SWRCB, re section -- 35 where the dam is supposed to go, if dam built is there unappropriated water to fill it?
  • map Stonyford to Leesville, showing sections & features with Andreotti -- holdings and his dam location pencilled in
  • map Indian Creek at Section 35, dam site, lists of parcel numbers and -- valuations.
    110375 contact report Conner called Cornelius follow up on his letter, "has a buyer who is interested in Mr. Andreotti's property above East Park Reservoir if he can get the water rights. He questioned why the USBR & Orland ID hasn't already got them tied up. I indicated that we had a valid application 24758 but that doesn't give Andreotti the water until a permit is issued. I indicated that above East Park we have had some go through and some not, and the only way to find out is to wait out the application process. I indicated it may be 18 mo or so before we would know...."


    020676 letter Spencer/SWRCB to Andreotti, answer our 08/22/1975 letter.
    020676 return receipt card
    033176 letter Feeney/Engr to Spencer Div WRights, enclosed revised ap with additions & amendments, map under separate cover, discrepancies between the ap & map is ap was prepared using USGS topo & "A Reconnaissance Study to Investigate the Feasibility of the Upper Stony Creek Watershed" prepared by the Soil Conservation Service & map prepared later with field survey info
    ????76 contact report O'Leary called Andreotti, capacities of pumping plant, conduit, cost of works? will try to get that from Engineer but gave engr's number and asked to try and get info direct
    041476 contact report O'Leary called Feeney/engr why did he change point of diversion on working copy of ap, original showed 2 points of diversion, & he changed it to one, will get back
    042676 contact report O'Leary by Feeney/engr location numbers for the points of diversion; 11(a) & (b) 7000 gpm, (c) unknown at this time
    042976 contact report O'Leary called Feeney/engr corrected "E" maps will be needed, will send
    060176 contact report O'Leary called back by Andreotti, collection season & irrigation season have 2 month overlap; can thus store more than the reservoir capacity in any one year [but overlap period is in the Angle season]
    062376 Letter Feeney/Engr to O'Leary/Div WRights, attached list
  • list of parcels (sections, etc.) within place of use
    100176 Letter Feeney/Engr to O'Leary/Div WRights, attached list --
  • list of parcels (sections, etc.) within place of use --
    UNDATED Instructions to Applicant; publish enclosed Notice of Your Application in Colusa Sun-Herald for 3 weeks, starting by 12/02/1976, by 01/11/1977 file proof of publication with SWRCB
    UNDATED Mailing list for applications
    111676 certified cards for Andreotti & Reclamation
    111276 Notice of application to Appropriate Water
    UNDATED Notice to Postmaster, please post
    121276 Handwritten note "Protesting water grab, area already dry operating" L. Bragmann 841 - 52nd Street, Sacramento, CA 95819, G.R. Cason, 5277 Broadway Terrace, Oakland, Cal. 94618, please forward protest forms; sent 12/16/1976 KRB
    112976 Protest Merv Freeman, Manager, Orland Unit Water User's Association; settlement: "NONE -- NO WATER RIGHTS AVAILABLE."
  • Exhibit "A" Note No. 1: The entire flow of Stony Creek and all Tributary streams in the Stony Creek water shed including all streams flowing into and out of East Park Reservoir and Stony Gorge Reservoir during each annual season at and near the point of proposed diversion is necessary and required and is fully utilized by this Association and its members as the holders of water rights within the boundaries of the Orland Project of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, except for certain riparian and appropriative rights which have already been established and fixed by judicial decree." "Note No. 3: The water rights of the U.S. of America with reference to the Orland Project and other landowners within the watershed of Stony Creek (including the predecessors in interest of the applicants) were adjudicated by Judicial Decree dtated January 13, 1930, in the Northern Division of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Second Division in the case of 'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plantiff, vs. H.C. ANGLE, et al., Defendants, In Equity No. 30' to which decree reference is hereby made for further particulars with reference to such water rights. The protestants ORLAND UNIT WATER USERS' ASSOCIATION, is the successor in interest to the beneficial water rights of the U.S. of America as defined in said decree pursuant to a contract entered into between the U.S. of America and the ORLAND UNIT WATER USERS' ASSOCIATIION, dated August 26, 1954. There are no other or additional waters in Stony Creek and its tributaries subject to appropriation during the irrigation season, or reservoir storage season at East Park Reservoir, at Stony Gorge Reservoir, at diversion dams and at tributary diversion dams, reservoirs and structures." "Note No. 4:" crossed off, refers to installing an outlet pipe in the dam; [this appears to be a standard OUWUA mimeo form added to any Stony Creek stock pond protest - who crossed it off?]
    120676 letter Spencer/Superv. Engr to Colusa Sun-Herald, received the proof of publication plus the bill, returning it, applicant must pay the bill per Water Code 1312
    121476 Colusa Sun-Herald Proof of Publication [out of date order in file]
    121576 note Henry H. Deane, Star Route, Stonyford, Calif. 95979, forms, "possible injury to vested rights of stream flow and gravel deposits in Indian Creek downstream of proposed point of diversion."
    121676 form letter Rosenberger/Div WRights to Freeman/OUWUA protest accepted, no further action required at this time.
    121676 form letter Spencer/Supv Engr to Andreotti, a protest, "answer to this and any other protests against this application should be submitted to the" SWERCB & copies to protestant by January 26, 1977; time will be extended for negotiating towards a withdrawal settlement, regs enclosed
    122776 Protest (based on injury to vested rights), William H. & Henry H. Deane "Loss of 300 cu. yds. per annum of 8" minus water born [sic] stream gravel. Loss of 20000 cu. yds. per annum of 1/2" minus water born stream gravel. Loss of ground water recharging to irrigation and domestic wells. Loss of livestock watering facilities. Loss of irrigation water from stream bed. Loss of esthetic values of live stream." "Use begun prior to Dec. 19, 1914, riparian claim." "App. date first used prior to year 1900. 55 acre ft. used from Feb. to June 30 for irrigation purposes. Maximum stream flow used Oct 1 - July 1 to recharge gravel deposits. maximum stream flow used Oct 1 July 1 to recharge ground water basin. 200 gals. per day Feb 1 - Aug. 1 for Livestock watering." "Within the Southeast 1/3 of N.E. 1/4 of Section 35 T17N R6W MDB & M" downstream from applicant's point of diversion. Disregarded: "A minimum of 90 percent of natural stream flow be maintained Jan 1 thru Dec. 31", served by mail on applicant ; Environmental, etc.: "The proposed appropriation will not best conserve the public interest in that it would deny all downstream properties the present use of this water to recharge groundwater and gravel basins and would deny the present esthetic values of a live stream. [para] The proposed application will have an adverse environmental impact in that the large body of water created will have an adverse effect on the area humidity, it will provide a huge area for mosquito breeding. As the water recedes it will leave many small ponds for continued mosquito & gnat breeding."


    010477 letter Rosenberger/Div WRights to Deane, protests shows basis of claim is other than a permit or license issued by SWRCB, please file statement of diversion or furnish proof diversion is exempt
    010477 form letter Spencer/Supv Engr to Andreotti, a protest received, answer by 01/26/1977 [different from previous]
    021975 New Application Route Slip
    010677 letter Horton/Reclamation to Andreotti, "diversions to storage -- requested in your application could in most years impair the water supply of the Orland Project and other holders of prior water rights in the Stony Creek watershed. During the irrigation season, the entire flow of Stony Creek is required for adjudicated water rights including water rights of the United States. In addition, in most years the entire flow of Little Stony Creek is required for the operation of Orland Project's East Park Reservoir. The right to store water in East Park Reservoir was granted by Judicial Decree with a priority date of October 11, 1906. [para] Although we are filing the attached protest with the State Water Resources Control Board, we nevertheless would be happy to discuss this matter with you. MR. GEORGE WILSON of my staff may be contacted at (916) 484-4474 on this matter."
  • 010677 Protest Reclamation "During the irrigation season the entire -- flow of Stony Creek is required for adjudicated water rights, including water rights of the United States. Historical records indicate that flows in Little Stony Creek seldom exceed the requirement for operation of East Park Reservoir. Applicant's proposed diversions will capture such required water to which protestant has a prior right." [para] numbers, which cover your use, etc.: "Prior rights acquired in 1888 and 1897 [?], and Decree in United States District Court dated" 01/13/1930. [added thereon in red:] "S-6353 [Rainbow Diversion Dam] & S-6354 [East Park] from files KRB" 01/14/1977 [para] present and past use: "Lands within the Orland Project have been under irrigation since 1910. The project works provide a full water supply for the irrigation of about 19,500 acres irrigable land. The maximum quantity of 128,236 acre-feet was used in 1954. The quantity of water diverted annually to the Orland Project is approximately 111,000 acre-feet. The diversion period is usually from March 15 to about December 1 of each year. The period for diversion to storage in East Park Reservoir is at all times when waters are available."
    011477 letter Andreotti to Div WRights "I do not agree you have all water rights and preempty [sic] me. [para] When I got into this project, Soil Conservation sponsored it. They claimed there was enough water available."
    011477 letter Andreotti to Div WRights "I do not agree with the protesters claims of rechargeable gravel. [para] The protestors do not use the water for irrigation as alledged [sic]. As per cattle drinking water, I have never seen cattle on their small rocky portion of land west of the road. They irrigate their other land from an irrigation well stuck on my east fence line. [para] I don't know about their ramblings about mosquitos or humidity changes by irrigation. I didn't see any change when they irrigated from their well. [para] I feel the whole protest is without valid merit."
    011577 form letter Rosenberger/Div WRights to Reclamation , protest accepted, no further action at this time.
    011877 letter Spencer/Div WRights to Andreotti , received your answer to OUWUA protest, if hearing is necessary we'll let you know
    011877 letter Spencer/Div WRights to Andreotti , protest received, states copy was served on you, 15 days from date of this letter to answer, will extend for settlement discussions, copy of regs on protests & hearings enclosed
    020877 letter Spencer/Div WRights to Ms. Georgie-Rees Cason, received, filing period ended 01/11/1977, "unless substantial justification is submitted, it cannot be accepted. Your protest against Marsh, Meyers, Gobel, Venado and Vic Lagrande cannot be accepted as we do not have any jurisdiction over their obtaining water from an irrigation district." [?] Returning: if resumbit, describe point of diversion, and if copy served on applicant, granted 20 days to amend protest & justification
    020877 letter Wilson/Atty , Wilson & Hoslett, Stockton, to SWRCB , protest from Delta Water Users Association
  • 020877 Protest of Delta Water Users Association; 1) reduce natural flow & thus irrigation water available in the Delta, 2) impair supply by allowing a) salt water intrusion, & b) quality deterioration from upstream drainage, 3) infringes on/violates water & property rights by Association members and Delta lands in general ( /s/ Alex Hildebrand, President )
    021877 letter Spencer/Div WRights to Wilson/atty, protest too late unless you justify the lateness, 15 days granted to submit justification
    022577 letter Andreotti to Div WRights "In regards to the protest against my Application #24758, by John A. Wilson for Delta Water Users Association, I do not agree with their protest. [para] Their protest is based on a general denial of anything and everything. [para] I do not agree to their shot gun claim to all waters mentioned in their lengthy protest."
    030377 letter Spencer/Div WRights to Andreotti, received your answer to Delta WUA protest, protest not accepted unless justified for being late, answer filed.
    031877 letter Spencer/Div WRights to Andreotti, not received your answer to Reclamation protest, file within 20 days of this letter or we will process ap without it
    032477 letter Andreotti to Div WRights enclosed is his letter to Reclamation of 01/14/1977, please call if you need anything else
  • 032477 letter Andreotti to Horton/Reclamation "I don't quite see what the problem is. What little water I take would be as beneficial to me as it is to anyone else. [para] I pursued this dam upon the urgin [sic] of the Soil Conservation study presented to me several years ago. They said it was feasible and proper and that there was water available for it."
    040177 letter Spencer/Div WRights to Andreotti, received your answer to Reclamation protest. Will let you know if a hearing.
    040877 letter Spencer/Div WRights to applicant & protestants, either a hearing or proceedings in lieu of hearing; 1) hearing before the Board, present oral & written evidence, complete record by court reporter whose charges are assessed against the parties, decision of the Board "based on the evidence received at the hearing." 2) Engineer visits the project, looks around, interviews, collects data & info, prepares written report, Board decision is made upon this & all other documents, etc. no charges assessed, all parties must agree, else, hearing must be scheduled; tell us which you want ASAP, stip enclosed for sig if "in lieu".
    041477 F Deane stip to "in lieu"; checked off petition, not "application and protests" [?]
    040877 letter Spencer/Div WRights to Deanes, received your "in lieu" stip, will let you know if all stip
    041977 contact report Andreotti called Ken Beyer, asking about in lieu, explained the difference, he will send letter to go ahead with a hearing
    041977 letter Andreotti to Div WRights, want a hearing
    041977 letter Cook/Reclamation to Rosenberger/Div WRights, attached is an in lieu stip
  • 041977 letter signed stip signed by James E. Cook but not saying who he is
    042277 letter Spencer/Div WRights to Andreotti received your letter saying you will accept a hering, referring to Hearing section


    030178 letter Pettitt/Superv Engr to all, hearing scheduled 04/26/1978, formal notice forthcoming at least 20 days before that, notify promptly if date not satisfactory
  • 030778 SWRCB Application 24758 Arthur Andreotti, map, not to scale, showing A-24758, Deane S-9091, Reclamation Rainbow DD, East Park, Stony Gorge, Black Butte, NDD, and gaging stations

    032778 form, service of attached Notice of Hearing on each person on list attached, certified mail, return receipt
  • UNDATED Mailing List, whole bunch of people including Andreotti, OUWUA, Deane, Reclamation
  • UNDATED Notice of Hearing, 04/26/1978 10:00 a.m. Room 1131 Resources Bldg 1416 Ninth St. Sacramento
  • UNDATED Information Concerning Appearance at Water Right Hearings; 10 days prior submit in writing name of each witness & description of subject of proposed testimony & estimated time required; qualifications for expert witnesses; copies of exhibits to adverse parties, & 7 copies to the Board not later than 10 days prior to the hearing; applicant exhibits shall include environmental documents; failure to submit may be an intent not to appear and hearing cancelled
  • UNDATED Mailing list for Parties to Water Right Action
  • 032078 Staff Summary for Hearing Application 24758; Deane, prior -- right S-9091 [not scanned in yet?]; Reclamation S-6353, S-6354, A-2212, A-18115; Scope: Board decision must be based on the record at the hearing; particular attention to: 1) "existence of unappropriated water available to supply the applicant, as to amount and season of occurrence. Specifically, the amount of water in the source should be related to the entitlement of the holders of prior rights." 2) anticipated injury to protestants, with supporting data, 3) special terms and conditions warranted, 4) intent & ability of applicant to proceed with due diligence, 5) compatibility of project & use with Water Quality Control Plan for the basin involved, 6) alternative supplies considered, 7) intended water conservation measures , 8) water reuse & reclamation opportunities, 9) environmental effects, 10) mitigations, 11) whether or not in the public interest; Staff recommends that if "the project can be operated without injury to prior vested rights," the ap be approved; Docs on file will be offered by reference: 1) Files of Aps 24857 [sic, that one is in Nevada County, s/b 24758], 2212, 18115, Diversions S6353, S6354, S9091 [not online?], 2) Water Quality Control Plan Sacramento River Basin 5A 08/21/1975 as amended , 3) USGS Water Resources Divison "Water Resources Data for California, Water Year 1975, Volume 4, Northern Central Valley Basins and the Great Basin from Honey Lake Basin to Oregon State Line," "and all appropriate predecessor publications." 4) Reports by DWR on Sacramento-San Joaquin Water Supervision, 1924 to 1955, 5) DWR Bulletin 23, "Surface Water Flow", 1956 - 1962; 6) DWR Bulletin 130 "Hydrologic Data", "all pertinent volumes and appendices for the period of published record", 7) NOAA Climatological Data for California, "for the period of published record." 8) "Topographical maps published by the United States Geological Survey covering the area under consideration"

    032878 4 Certified return receipt cards
    041178 Note Deane to Rosenberger/Div WRights, Henry H. Deane will appear as witness, on each of the items in the staff list, plus summary of the area, time for direct, 15 minutes
    041378 letter Minasian/atty to Rosenberger/Div WRights, OUWUA will - appear; Merv Freeman will testify as to the effects on OUWUA plus the difficulty of enforcing any conditions [as they well know from their own behavior]; President of the Board Harvey Moranda or another board member on OUWUA utilization of water and the problems in 1976-77; no experts but are cooperating with Reclamation; insufficient funds for an attorney appearance.
    041478 letter Horton/Reclamation to Rosenberger/Div WRights, 7 copies of exhibits enclosed; Chief, Water Resources Branch Billy E. Manderscheid will testify pertaining to "hydrology and water rights associated with the Stony creek Watershed and the Orland Project", 20 minutes
    041978 letter Virgil O'Sullivan/Williams atty to Rosenberger/Div Wrights witnesses: Andreotti; Robert James Feeney, Civil Engineer; & will call Billy E. Manderscheid; asks for judicial notice of: "A reconnaissance study to invistigate the feasibility of the Upper Stony Creek Watershed Project, Glenn and Colusa Counties, CA., for construction under Federal Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, PL 566" "Report for the State Soil Conservation Commission, Sacramento, CA, by Division of Soil Conservation, Department of Conservation, State of California, February 1964."; 04/18/1978 "we received copies of the correspondence from" Reclamation & Minasian, "which we interpret to be one interest only. We had anticipated primarily proceeding upon staff report, but in view of the correspondence and list of witnesses, it will be necessary to produce some rebuttal"; under an hour
    042778 internal memo R.J. Baines to file hearing on application on 04/26/1978 by Board Member W.W. Adams; applicant and protestants were represented by [inc'l] John Rice USBR Atty; Leslie Westcamp Stonyford ID interested party [not pre-announced?]; "Testimony and exhibits were received and the hearing was closed. An Engineering Staff Analysis will be made on the record developed at the hearing."


    012579 contact report Wayne Hubbard called Dan Klar Colusa Public Works , said county had no regs pertaining to dams; leveling or grading that would alter a natural stream required a ministerial permit
    012579 contact report Wayne Hubbard called Andreotti, who said dam was still in preliminary planning state, no construction; unfamiliar with the various permits required, referred Hubbard to his atty; atty called and said he believes County Board of Supes would be the lead agency, asked for copies of any CEQA correspondence.
    012979 contact report Wayne Hubbard called Andrew Clark, Colusa Supes, said County would be lead agency; Andreotti or his atty would have to submit an ap first; Doc would have to go through State Clearinghouse since SWRCB is a responsible agency; he would submit a doc, probably NegDec to State Clearinghouse `
    013179 letter Micka/Environmental Unit to Andreotti, your project requires a permit from Colusa County, which will lead to an environmental review; once SWRCB has received the environmental doc will continue processing the ap.
    022479 2 certified return receipt cards, Andreotti & Guiseppi Berta [who?]
    030879 letter Micka/Environmental Unit to O'Sullivan/atty sending a copy of 01/1979 letter to Andreotti, apologies
    060479 [1980 NegDec ahead of all this] letter Clark/Exec Secty to Bd. of Supes of Colusa County, to SWRCB, they feel SWRCB is lead agency, not county
    061979 contact report atty O'Sullivan called Larry Wong, in response to 06/04/1979 letter, who is lead agency?
    120779 contact report Larry Wong called Andreotti and mentioned SWRCB is lead agency, asked him if he applied county permit yet, no construction & grading yet, asked to send him all copies of correspondence with O'Sullivan
    120779 contact report Larry Wong called Bruce Parker, SCS Colusa Field Office, no copy of soil survey for Colusa in [SWRCB? ] library, can neither send nor loan soil survey, SWRCB can visit there and look at it; asked him for soils descriptions over the phone; mentioned a few of the many, slopes 2-51% with zero to very high erosion; soils suitable for wildlife and recreational, dry cropland, orchard, range, cultivation
    121079 contact report Larry Wong called Andreotti; 1) 1200 acre POU no undeveloped areas, 2) mostly dry farmed since Andreotti took over, 3) wastewater treatment by percolation, 4) no pipeline in and still considering whether surface or underground, 5) no excavation in reservoir bottom [then where is borrow area?]
    121079 contact report Larry Wong called Bob Mapes, CDFG, no problem there; no endangered species of fish or wildlife there
    121079 contact report Larry Wong called Edwin Crawford RWQCB Region 5, no problems unless POU undeveloped; sprinkler OK, wastewater by percolation will not affect water quality
    121079 contact report Larry Wong called Stan Walker Colusa Co. Planning, zoned agricultural preserve; said there is no permits required for projects, but said A24758 might require environmental study by the county; asked if county wants to accept Lead Agency status, he said no; told him all he has to know is if project is in compliance with County & Regional Plans; he said it appears so, but first needs to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, next meeting 12/17/1979;
    121079 contact report Larry Wong called Stan Walker Colusa Co. Planning, Planning Commission decided the project is in compliance with the Plans and no permit required


    010380 Contact report M. Yang returned O'Sullivan's call; when can permit be issued, told him we're preparing IS & ND & just got all info back from Regional Board, etc., 2-3 weeks to complete the doc & another 45 days for SCH circulations; Board would then act, he asked for a letter stating all this
    011180 letter Yang/Enviro to O'Sullivan/atty; conducting an environmental assessment, 2 more months including public review; then Board has to adopt a decision before any permit, so overall 4-5 months for permit
    030780 Request for Cultural Resources Evaluation, /s/ M. Yang date is sig date; incl field survey 03/03/1980, neg findings from field survey 03/07/1980
    UNDATED Negative Declaration -
  • 041180 Martin/Enviro Specialist, Initial Study, Application 24758 of - Arthur Andreotti to Appropriate from 1) Unnamed Stream and 2) Indian Creek in Colusa County; proposed onstream reservoir with a capacity of 3,200 a-f & surface area of 196 acres, earthen dam "spanning both Indian Creek and the unnamed stream" [huh?] would be 35 feet in height, 1150 feet in length with a 3 foot freeboard; water conveyed from dam in 5,000 foot long 2' diameter asbestos cement pipe; staff recommends reducing diversion season to 11/01 - 04/15; elev. 1280 feet, average annual precip 30 inches; no special county Planning permits, no conflict with Regional Water Quality Control Plan "Water quantity will not be significantly affected since collection will be made primarily during the rainy season when adequate unappropriated water is available." "Engineering Staff Analysis of Record prepared subsequent to the hearing concludes that unappropriated water is available in some years. Subject to certain conditions, such water may be collected to storage and used without causing damage to any lawful water user. However, the diversion season is recommended to be reduced to November 1 to April 15. The applicant will be required to release all but the surplus runoff to fulfill the downstream senior water rights of the Service and others. Water will still flow pass [sic] the Deane's property. Thus, the Deanes' alleged adverse effects should not be a problem." "No surface signs of archeological or historical sites were revealed in a survey conducted by a Division of Water Rights Staff archeologist on March 3, 1980." small unnamed faults, "construction and safety of the dam is under the jurisdiction of the Division of the Safety of Dams." Recommend NegDec
  • UNDATED Persons Consulted, References
  • UNDATED portion of Lodoga 15' topo sheet, shows place of application but not location of the dam?

    UNDATED Instructions to Applicant or Petitioner for Negative Declaration; 4 copies of the NegDec notice enclosed, post 1 in a conspicuous place near the project, 2nd in a high traffic area like a post office or general store; by 04/20/1980; file poof of posting by 04/30/1980 with the 3rd copy, keep the 4th
  • 041080 Mailing List for Notice of Preparation - Ap 24758 (Baiocchi NCFFC Paradise, CA ? )
    042280 Environmental Document, Statement of Posting Notice, 1) Stonyford Post Office on Bulletin Board, 2) Ladoga Inn 3) on a board on fence by Indian Creek near dam site along road
  • 041180 Notice of Preparation of a Negative Declaration by Pettit/Div WRights
    042580 Acknowledgement, Project Notification and Review System, OPR received 04/18/1980, review period ends 05/21/1980, report IMD45A
    052180 letter Williamson/State Clearinghouse, no comments from anybody, verifies your compliance with environemtal reveiw requirements of CEQA

    061980 SWRCB Meeting, Item 4, staff recommends adoption of the proposed decision;
  • 050880 SWRCB Workshop Session - Water Rights, fiscal impacts, within budget, no additional

  • UNDATED Engineering Staff (George H. Nishimura) Analysis of Record -- Application 24758; "a supplementary supply to a predominantly dry farming operation.... No alternate groundwater supply is available.... Andreotti plans to use up to 2,000 acre-feet per annum (afa). In some years there will be carryover storage. Operaring experience may prove that considerably less than 1,200 acres can be regularly irrigated. Andreotti expects to use about three acre-feet per acre for the pasture and the alfalfa and about one acre-foot per acre for grain crops. [para] ...In the past, the grain crops and alfalfa have reportedly been dry farmed in the area for many years and are expected to survive without irrigation. [para] ...large enough to be under the jurisdiction of the Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams." "Protests...[Reclamation] protests that during the irrigation season the entire flow of Stony Creek is required for adjudicated water rights, including water rights of the United States. Its records show that flows in Little Stony Creek seldom fill East Park Reservoir, and the proposed diversions will retain needed water to which [Reclamation] has a prior right.... It claims prior rights acquired in 1888 and 1897 and also by decreed rights set forth in Untied States v. H.C. Angle, et al., Equity No. 30 dated January 13, before the U.S. District Court. [para] Lands within the [Reclamation] Orland Project has [sic] been irrigated since 1910 [unless you append SCIC & Lemon Home & Hall & Scearce?]. About 111,000 acre-feet per annum (afa) is diverted to the Orland Project for irrigation of about 19,500 acres. Water is usually diverted from March 15 to about December 1, while water is available in East Park Reservoir and Stony Gorge Reservoir. [para] [Reclamation] operates, as part of the Orland Project, two storage dams and a diversion dam in the upper Stony Creek watershed.... East Park Reservoir, on Little Stony Creek at the confluence of Indian Creek, stores 51,000 acre-feet. It was built in 1910, and [Reclamation] has filed a Statement of Water Diversion and Use S6354... Water is stored whenever it is available. Its' priority is October 11, 1906.... [para] Rainbow Diversion Dam on Stony Creek diverts up to 250 cfs via the East Park Feed Canal to offstream storage in East Park Reservoir.... The dam and canal were constructed in 1915, and [Reclamation] has filed Statement S6353.... Water diversion in the Feed Canal has a 1913 priority. Diverting early in the rainy season insures maximum usage of the available capacity of East Park Reservoir. When the reservoir fills from imported water and watershed inflow, additional inflow is bypassed downstream to Stony Gorge Reservoir. [para] Stony Gorge Reservoir and dam on Stony Creek is situated about 18 miles downstream of East Park Dam and stores 50,200 acre-feet.... This project was completed in 1928 and is covered by License (Application 2212) to store from November 1 to May 1.... [para] The quantities and priorities for the pre-1914 rights are decreed in Equity No. 30 of [Angle] (Staff Ex. 1.) [para & page] Black Butte Dam is on Stony Creek about 35 miles downstream from East Park Reservoir. [DWR] filed "State filing" 18115 on April 30, 1958. The application, which was assigned to [Reclamation] on November 15, 1960, is for appropriation of 160,000 afa by storage (55,000 afa for conservation) to be collected year round * [* Collection season was shortened in permit.] for irrigation, domestic, municipal, industrial, recreational, and flood control purposes. Black Butte Reservoir is not a part of the Orland Project. [para] The permit issued on Application 18115 includes a permit term which states: 'In conformity with Water Code Section 10505, this permit shall be subject to any and all rights of any county in which the water sought to be appropriated originates to the extent any such water may be necessary for the development of the county.' [para] Black Butte is in Glenn and Tehama Counties, while the applicant's requested water originates upstream and is proposed to be used in Colusa County. Therefore, Andreotti's right would be superior to that for Black Butte Reservoir." Deane "Statement 9091 [now Russell W. King, not scanned in yet at SWRCB?] reports use of 55 afa between February and September for irrigation of 25 acres of pasture and for watering of 30 head of livestock.... The Deanes pump from Indian Creek whenever water is available and have a well for supplement supply.... The flow of the stream is also used to replenish deposits of several hundred cubic yards of sand and gravel each year.... However, the Deane property covers 120 acres in the SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 and E 1/2 of SE 1/4 of Section 35, T17N, R6W, MDB & M... This property is included in Schedule C of the Equity Decree under the ownership of Mary Ann Newton.... Schedule C lists those defendants who failed to answer the Court and therefore forfeited claimed rights during the irrigation season, which is specificied as April 15 to September 15...." [uh, it's worse than that....] [para and page] Availability of Unappropriated Water. Andreotti's proposed reservoir has a watershed covering about 6,700 acres and ranges in elevation from 1,200 feet above sea level to about 2,500 feet. By contrast, the East Park Reservoir has a watershed of about 77,800 acres and elevations ranging from 1,200 to 6,000 feet above sealevel. Accordingly, Andreotti's watershed amounts to only about nine percent of that of East Park Reservoir and has lower precipitation. [para] [Reclamation] Exhibit 2 shows that East park Reservoir (51,000 af capacity), during its 70 years of record (Water Year 1908 to 1977), did not fill during 42 years or 60 percent of the time from natural watershed inflow. Using prior year carryover storage and imports via the East Park Feed Canal, East Park did not fill 14 years out of the 70 years of record. [para] [Reclamation] prepared a graph [Reclamation Ex. 3] depicting the natural watershed inflows to East Park Reservoir for water years 1909 - 1964 * [*Reclamation "could not differentiate Feed Canal imports for water years 1964 through 1974"]. it shows the erratic filling pattern of the reservoir as well as the occasional high inflows that had to be bypassed. The applicant realizes that water will be erratically available but intends to take advantage of the large volumes that are occasionally available.... The applicant expects to use about 2,000 afa for irrigation but proposes to construct a 3,200 acre-foot capacity reservoir to have available carry-over storage for use during dry years when possible. [para] To estimate the availability of water to the proposed reservoir, [Reclamation] reported East Park Reservoir bypass (inflow beyond 51,000 af, [Reclamation ex 3] was prorated on the basis of relative watershed areas (about 9 percent of East park watershed) and plotted (Figure 1). In the 55 year span from 1909 to 1964, Andreotti's proposed reservoir would have filled eleven times to its 3,200 af capacity and would have had carry-over storage in eight years. In ten of the 55 years, the reservoir would have partially filled. Therefore, in 26 years or 47 percent of the 55 years there would have been water in the proposed reservoir. Feasibility of the proposed reservoir project would ordinarily be considered marginal, but the applicant claims that he can effectively irrigate on the basis of this erratic available water and is willing to invest his money for construction of this project based on these conclusions. [para] Both East Park and Stony Gorge Reservoirs have priority over Andreotti's application. In the hearing the Bureau contended that Andreotti should be permitted to collect water only after natural runoff to East Park was sufficient to fill that reservoir. Andreotti should not be entitled to benefit from the large watershed tributary to the Feed Canal.... [BUT] The same argument can be said about East Park Reservoir. It benefits from a larger watershed because of the Canal also. East Park seldom fills from watershed runoff and thus [Reclamation] elects to use the Feed Canal early in the rainy season to insure that the maximum available capacity in East Park Reservoir is used.... Should the season's runoff exceed the capacity of the reservoir, the excess can be impounded in the downstream reservoirs.... [para] Andreotti applied for a diversion season of October 1 to July 1, but unappropriated water is not available throughout this period. [Reclamation] asks that, if a permit is granted, the permit should restrict the diversion season to end by March 15.... the Angle Decree defined the irrigation season as it applied to the Riparian Schedule as beginning on April 15 and ending on September 15. Board Decision 1100 for the Black Butte Reservoir project found that during the period of November through April when water is flowing into the Sacramento River, the flows of the Sacramento River exceed the quantities needed to fulfill downstream requirements. Unappropriated water was deemed available for diversion from Stony Creek during this period. Therefore, on the basis of diversion seasons defined in the Decree and in Decision 1100, the diversion to storage for Application 24758 ordinarily would be limited to November 1 to April 15. [para] However, in D1100 the Board determined that water was available for appropriation in the lower Stony Creek watershed from about November 1 to the succeeding April 30. D1100 granted a diversion season of November 1 to the succeeding April 30 for Black Butte storage on Stony Creek but in term seven (7) of that decision Black Butte was subjected to any and all rights of any county of origin. Since Colusa is a county of origin and Application 24758 is in Colusa County, applicant Andreotti should have his season extended to April 30 in the spring. [para] Groundwater depletion, a basis of the Deanes' protest, is not a serious threat. Since Andreotti will be required to release all but the higher peak flows to fulfill the senior East Park Reservoir water rights, he will be impounding flow peaks that would normally flow past the Deanes' property rather than percolate to groundwater. Groundwater recharging flows will still flow past the Deanes' property. [para] The Stony Creek Irrigation Dsitrict (SCID), represented by Leslie Westcamp, requested that Application 24758 be deferred until after SCID's application was approved. The Board's record shows that Application 25261 for SCID is for direct diversion of 12 cfs from March 1 to October 31 with a maximun [sic] annual use of 3,000 acre-feet. However, it was filed on February 14, 1977, and is junior to Application 24758, filed by Andreotti. [para] Conclusions and Recommendations - I conclude that unappropriated water is available some years. Subject to certain conditions, such water may be collected to storage and used without causing damage to any lawful water user...."

    - 030778 map Application 24758 Arthur Andreotti, Indian Creek to -- Orland, not to scale?
    - UNDATED Figure 1 Calculation of Watersheds Tributary to East Park -- Reservoir & Andreotti's Proposed Reservoir, 2 pp,
    - Chart , by quad, watershed in acres for East Park & Andreotti, total 77,800 East Park & 6700 acres Andreotti
    - Chart , Tabulation of Estimated East Park Reservoir Overflow which would be tributary to Andreotti's Reservoir, by years 1909 - 1965; uses USBR East Park numbers; calculated evap for Andreotti 745 a-f/year

    061980 Decision D1558 Approving Application 24758 in part; reservoir will -- supplement a dry farming operation [not exactly; entire "background" is too simplistic on senior rights, etc.]
    063080 letter Freeman/OUWUA to SWRCB 1) allowing collection - 11/01 - 04/30 would conflict with Orland Project Angle rights at Decree p. 157 of 03/15 - 09/15; 2) would like other language for Term #4 (install a pipe for releases) [what is sought is not clear, is their dispute about where the pipe is to be installed? "as near as practicable to the bottom of the natural stream channel" vs. "at natural stream flow line" ? ]


    070280 letter Minasian/atty to SWRCB; 16,000 acres served by the OUWUA; - water master service being reinstated per petition attached; concerned about not having additional users allowed by SWRCB not under water master service; flood control sentence "Any water released from East Park and Stony Gorge Reservoirs before April 30 for flood control purposes shall be counted as water collected to storage in those two reservoirs." neither reservoir has a flood control criteria, so there is no existing definitiion for that; if water is released first from one and then the other, does OUWUA get charged twice?
  • 052580 Petition [ F 071880 ? ] to USDC restore water master service -
  • 071680 tele call to Paul Minasian, pencil on the letter, "this was intentionally not categorized as a petition for reconsideration since Paul Minasian said Orland was not a party to the proceedings." [uh, see 071680 mini-memo]

    071680 Objections to and Petition for Reconsideration of Decision 1558 - by United States; 1) erred by not following Section 685 of CAC Title 23, Waters; 2) no authority over flood control; 3) erred in determining spilled water as stored water; 1) by the Boards regs, water spilled is not water stored; 2) D990 states regulating flood control would be improper by the Board; 3) ask that SWRCB recognize both Angle & lic 2652 storage rights, but when both reservoirs are spilling, no objection to applicant collecting water to storage, ask to delete last sentence of condition 7 on p. 12 of D1558, and include a requirement that "'Permittee (licensee) may not divert water to storage unless both East Park and Stony Gorge Reservoirs are spilling.'" and that he may call the association any time from 11/01 to 04/30 to find out if they are both spilling;
    071680 letter Wirtz/Interior to Pettit/Div WRights, enclosed 10 copies of "Objections to and Petition for Reconsideration of Decision 1558...."
    071680 mini-memo Harris called John [sic] Minasian , who said his letter was not a "Petition for Reconsideration" since participation was minor and he thought OUWUA was in a weak procedural position to file one; told him [Reclamation] filed one, and if OK would consider his matters at the same time.
    071880 letter Sabiston/Hearing Section to Wirtz/Interior, placed letter & petition on board agenda for Special Board Meeting 07/30/1980, for whether to grant the petition, not the merits
    073080 Agenda item 2, petition for reconsideration: 3: 1) Interior, 2) OUWUA ask to remove from "decision any uncertainty as to the requirement for an outlet pipe in the dam.", 3) Minasian; Board must accept or deny petitiion within 30 days, by 08/15/1980; staff recommends adoption of D1558
  • 063080 letter Freeman/OUWUA to SWRCB another copy
  • 070280 letter Minasian/atty to SWRCB another copy
    - 052580 Petition [ F 071880 ? ] to USDC another copy
    - 071680 Objections to and Petition for Reconsideration of Decision 1558 another copy

    073080 WR 80-13 Order Granting Reconsideration of Decision 1558; "raise substantial issues which provide basis for reconsideration as set forth in Section 737.1, Title 23, California Administrative Code", "should be granted on the grounds that substantial issues are raised", does not imply any decision on the merits, OUWUA letters should be considered as petitions for reconsideration,
    UNDATED mailing list
    080680 Certified return receipt cards
    090680 letter Sabiston/Hearing Section to Bold/atty acknowledging added to mailing list on 22 aps.
    101780 letter Sabiston/Hearing Section to all interested, attached is WR 80-18 amending D 1558
  • 101680 WR 80-18 Order Amending and Affirming, as Amended, Decision 1558; [but: SWRCB lacks jurisdiction to require water master to accept, or modify in any way its duty of monitoring Angle compliance, but of course the term is surplussage since the applicant is already bound to the Angle Decree; flood control can be within SWRCB jurisdiction as relates to environmental effects.]
    101780 letter Sabiston/Hearing Section to all interested, another copy

    111480 Colusa Superior [ #15473 ] ; Petitioner's Memorandum of Points - and Authorities in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate; water code section 1360
  • 111480 Colusa Superior [ #15473 ]; Petition for Writ of Mandate; - verified; East Park under Angle; Stony Gorge from SWRCB predecessors; Black Butte an "intrical" part of the CVP, not a unit of the Orland Project [except when they argue that it is]; verified: "maximum quantity of 128,236 acre feet was used in 1954. The quantity of water diverted annually to the Orland Project is approximately 111,000 acre feet." [or 30 to 50,000 acre-feet more than the Decree allows.], the complaint, 1) allows Andreotti to store water during 03/15 - 04/30 Project direct diversion period, 2) makes it so that flood flows through the Project reservoirs jeopardize storage rights, violating reg 23 CAC 685, 3) attempt to regulate flood control releases infringes on exclusive USA jurisdicition; exhausted administrative remedies; verification by Acting Interior Regional Solicitor attached [para. VII contains typo? should read "Reservoirs prior to April 30,"?]

    112580 letter Attwater/Chief Counsel to Connett/Assistant Atty General - ???, mentions that state & federal actions are parallel? is that the purpose of this letter?
  • UNDATED Summons, USDC Eastern District, Calif. 80-900 RAR ?, serve - answer within 20 days
  • 111480 F Complaint for Declaratory Relief; jurisdiction 28 USC 1345; - declaratory judgment 28 USC 2201 "for purpose of determining a question of actual controversy betwen the parties"; venue 28 USC 1391(b) in Eastern District of California; state petition verified, federal not? [same typo para 11. as VII in state?]

    112680 letter Minasian/atty to O'Sullivan/atty ; same as one R 112880 - in Angle Record, 80-583; Judge granted intervention if term included: "ARTHUR ANDREOTTI has, by stipulation, agreed to be bound by the terms of the Angle Decree and the provisions of such Decree, including any provision, regulation or orders of the Watermaster herein as applied to lands owned by ARTHUR ANDREOTTI."; O'Sullivan returned it without that paragraph even though Minasian says he agreed to it in court; if object, file to withdraw from the case;
    120980 letter Dupuis/Permit Unit to Andreotti, USA sued in state & - federal court, won't issue permit until litigation is settled
    121980 memo to files from unknown; Staff Attorney David Barber says Angle is in the USDC ED Calif. now [but the number is not the current one]


    112481 memo Leidigh/Staff Counsel II to Markle & Attwater re 80-900 - meeting 11/06/1981 w/Lloy Johnson, Dave Sabiston, Barbara Leidigh and Cliff Lee from [Calif.?] AG office; differences are on the interp of Term 7 in D 1558, capable of more than one interp; SWRCB staff interps meaning that Reclamation should receive what it claims; thus, only clarification of that term is necessary to settle; agreed to take steps to settle, back to the Board for decision, if that doesn't satisfy Reclamation or Andreotti, more litigation; 11/20/1981 hearing scheduled on AG motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, 11/06/1981 AG asked for continuance of that to give more time for settlement, Judge Ramirez continued to 01/04/1982; US has done nothing to move the case along, [but then again why would they if SWRCB won't issue permit while litigation pending]


    011182 letter Lee/Deputy [state] AG to Somach/Special Assistant to the - U.S. Atty General; enclosed signed originals: 1) Colusa Superior #15473 stip to Remand to the Board; 2) Colusa Superior #15473 stip granting peremptory writ of mandate; 3) Colusa Superior #15473 peremptory writ of mandate; 4) stip & order for dismissal, USDC 80-900; federal stip requires state stip be filed first & appended to federal stip

    011482 Colusa Superior #15473 Peremptory Writ of Mandamus, commanded - to reconsider Term 11, return by 06/30/1982 telling the Court how complied
    011482 Colusa Superior #15473 Stipulated Judgement Granting Peremptory Writ of Mandamus; writ shall issue remanding; reconsideration of Term 7, a) clarification of the type of releases for which Andreotti must provide compensating releases, b) & the time period prior to 04/30, and c) clarification of Andreotti's duty to release in relation to Project carryover;
    011882 clerk's note that judgment issued this date

    020382 memo Leidigh/Staff Counsel II to Lee/AG, attached are papers served on the Board 01/26/1982 (writ & stip); return on writ 06/30/1982, interp as "date by which Board must have taken some steps in its reconsideration process." Asked WRights to put on Board's March Workshop & Meeting agendas, 2 weeks before "we should agree on the language for the proposed order", thence to Somach & O'Sullivan for consult;
    020382 memo Leidigh/Staff Counsel II to Lee/AG, another copy, out of order, with attachments
  • 011482 Colusa Superior #15473 Peremptory Writ of Mandamus, another copy
  • 011482 Colusa Superior #15473 Stipulated Judgement Granting Peremptory Writ of Mandamus; another copy

    UNDATED proposed Term 7; changes: 1) Project to fill both reservoirs, 2) fill includes replace for releases from carryover, 3) Andreotti does not fill between 03/15-10/15
    022482 letter Leidigh/atty to Somach, Turner, O'Sullivan, enclosed - proposed draft amendment, meet 03/03/1982 2 p.m. here
    022482 letter Leidigh/atty to Somach, Turner, O'Sullivan, enclosed
    031782 contact report Sabiston, meeting on Term 7, including Andreotti himself, agreement reached
    032382 memo Sabiston to files, Lloy Johnson & Sabiston met 03/22 - w/Colon & Rider of Reclamation to change draft of Term 7 tentatively agreed to 03/17; 1) change to make clear releases by Project allowed into early part of collection season (like November) in a dry year, and 2) Colon? : "Although Application 24758 enjoys priority over Black Butte Reservoir by virtue of its county of origin status, there will be years when Andreotti must release stored water even though Black Butte Reservoir will collect water to storage. This is because part of the watershed tributary to Black Butte is not tributary to East Park or Stony Gorge Reservoirs and can be stored independently." [that would be when the 2 upstream reservoirs have not stored their full allocation?]

    072182 letter Lee/Deputy AG to Renda/USDOJ enclosed is original of - modified stip discussed with Somach on 07/20/1982; if all can agree, intend to append stip to the State's return
  • 072182 [Lee sig date] Stipulation and Agreement for Settlement; Agreed - to, & will present to the Board new Term 7: "'During any water year (October 1 of each year) when runoff, including water from the East Park Feeder Canal, entering East Park and Stony Gorge Reservoirs is insufficient to provide net collection to storage of the lesser amounts of either 51,000 acre-feet in East Park Reservoir and 50,200 acre-feet in Stony Gorge Reservoir, or water sufficient to fill those reservoirs to those storage levels by April 30, the permittee shall release water collected during the current storage season to flow downstream to East Park and Stony Gorge Reservoirs to satisfy such amounts. Net collection to storage in East Park Reservoir and Stony Gorge Reservoir shall include water sufficient to replace any water released from carryover storage at those reservoirs. The permittee shall release said water at as high a rate as possible not to exceeed the capacity of the stream channel. Also, between March 15 and October 15 of each year when inflow is being bypassed at East Park and Stony Gorge Reservoirs to fulfill downstream direct diversion rights, permittee shall bypass inflow to his reservoir. Nothing in this term shall require release of water legally collected during previous water years.'" USA and Andreotti agree not to seek administrative reconsideration or judicial review of these amendments to Term 7

    081982 Fiscal Impact, Workshop - Water Rights, 09/01-09/02/1982, Reconsideration of Decision 1558 as Amended by Board Order WR 80-18; Term 7, no fiscal impacts
    091682 SWRCB Meeting Item 6, Reconsideration of Decision 1558 as Amended - by Board Order WR 80-18 (Application 24758 of Andreotti); Reclamation found even the amended Term 7 unaccepable and file actions in both State & Federal Courts the same day; reconsideration limited to when releases are required of Andreotti; staff recommends adoption

    091682 SWRCB Meeting Item 6, Reconsideration of Decision 1558 as Amended - by Board Order WR 80-18 (Application 24758 of Andreotti); another copy
  • 081982 Fiscal Impact, Workshop - Water Rights, 09/01-09/02/1982, another copy
  • 022282 Fiscal Impact, Workshop - Water Rights, 03/03-03/04/1982
  • UNDATED Mailing list

    092982 memo Dupuis to Files; Term 91 was ordered in D 1558, but only applies to priorities after 08/16/1978 so it won't be included in the Andreotti permit for which Ap was filed 02/19/1975
    091682 WR 82-10 Order Amending Decision 1558 as Amended by Board Order WR 80-18 ; stips in Colusa County & USDC actions; recites limit in the remand order; staff, USA & Andreotti have agreed on amended Term 7; order that term adopted

    111682 Negative Declaration [out of date order in file]
  • 041180 Initial Study, another copy
    - UNDATED Persons Consulted, References
    - UNDATED clearer map of parcels to be irrigated
    111682 Notice of Determination [out of date order in file]
    112682 letter Dupuis/Div WRights to Andreotti, ap approved, permit fee of $47 now due within 10 days.
    121582 memo Walsh/Div Wrights to Johnson/Secty for Resources t/l notices of determinations, incl 24758

    012275 original (& work copy) Application to Appropriate Unappropriated Water;
  • UNDATED 06/23/1976 & 10/01/1976 letters? full list of quarter/quarters or smaller for place of use
    - 2 photos of East Park spillage ?
    110780 Check for Permit, checklist


    011983 Permit for Diversion and Use of Water [out of date order in file]
    011983 letter Sabiston/Hearing Section to Andreotti, permit enclosed, submit annual progress reports
    121383 letter O'Sullivan to Mork/Investig & Licenses, enclosed is executed progress report
  • 121283 Progress Report by Permittee for 1983; "My Engineer, Charles St. Maurice, died recently. Now I have to get restarted on engineering. I don't know exactly what my bill will be." "Engineering is not finished."


    100384 letter O'Sullivan to Mork/Investig & License; farm economy depressed, Andreotti has money problems
  • 100384 letter O'Sullivan to Colusa ASC Office; any assistance available from SCS for engineering, etc. & financing?


    121886 Progress Report by Permittee for 1986, card attached, Ed Hawkes, Farm Management Officer, Agricultural OREO Department; small diversion dam constructed to serve stock & duck pond, Remarks: "Property was an involunary acquisition by Bank of America in July of 1986. A detailed history of the establishment of the existing pond and the plans for expansion are not available to the bank. The Bank of America does not intend to develop the reservoir to its full potential, but would like to keep that option available for any potential purchaser of the property. We also would like to have a copy of the permit sent to us." [is this the first mention of the PREVIOUS POND? who did it?]
    122286 letter McAnlis/Permit & License to Hawkes/BofA received your [annual] report, changing mial address and enclosing copy of the permit


    121487 Progress Report by Permittee for 1987, no change; "Property is currently being negociated [sic] for a sale. The Bank would like to keep the option of enlargement open for the potential buyer. The Bank does not intend to develope the reservoir. To its full potential."


    052388 letter D. Donald Lonie, Jr. to Dave Cornelius/Div WRights, ap for extension enclosed for reservoir on 4,366 acre ranch in Indian Valley which he is purchasing from BofA, wish to continue with construction of the reservoir
  • 052388 Petition for Extension of time; nothing done, Andreotti gave back to BofA, work to begin 10/01/1988, ask for time to work with SCS, ask for 3-year extension completion 12/31/1991, use 12/31/1993

    061388 contact report R.Gunby/Petition Unit called Donald Lonie; called him about the status, he said he'd sent a petition for extension which got filed instead of forwarded; called him back, need more answers, which he recited; SCS said no help other than advice, mentioned DWR Division of Safety of Dams, he'd heard that from SCS, started work on extension & contacted DWR Safety who would contact Lonie
    071388 Notice of Petitions Received During June 1988 including Ap 24758
  • UNDATED Mailing list
    072?88 note William & Henry Deane, please send protest forms
    080688 Protest , Injury to Vested Rights, Stony Creek Water District - [sic] /s/ Jessie Westcamp [SCWD? what happened to SCID?], "our use from East Park alredy [sic] experiences shortages in all dry Spring seasons, 40% of the time. 3200 Acre Feet is 6.4% of the whole reservoir and is more than SCWD has for 14 ranches. We strenuously object to the diversion date of April 30 as this reservoir will be too far from East Park even if they release collected water by then." "Adjudicated rights under Angle Decree of 1930 and USBR contract to exchange water from Black Butte for East Park water since 1982." "Permit #17823" "Angle water since 1878. Contract water since 1982 diverted Mar. 1 - Oct. 31 if available. There are approximately 1300 A.F. under Angle and the District in addition uses about 700 AF with capability to develope [sic] to 2920 AF. This irrigates permanent pasture, home gardens and orchards, and stockwater."
    081188 letter Gunby/Petition Unit to Deane, enclosed 3 protest forms
    081288 R Protest from William & Henry Deane "This project has already been pursued with the expenditure of public funds, resulting in the pitting of government agencies against each other, and went through Federal Courts. [para] To grant this extension and begin this waste of public funds all over again would certainly adversely affect the public trust assigned this Board and is not in the public interest.... (Protest forms not received)"
    081788 memo MGT to BJL, re Deane letter, "pulled a file on this" Andreotti, assigned to Lonie; Bureau, OUWUA & Deanes protestants to the original application, hearing held, note mentioning Cliff Lee and Ailene Zanger [where is Zanger note?], notices 07/1988 for time extension & adding term 91, Deane note may be a timely response; Gunby handled the notice and ....?
    093088 letter Meroney to Deane, forms sent to you too late to allow you to protest within the specified period, we are allowing further time, enclosed are more forms, "you must provide factual data in support of your allegation that the petition for a time extension will adversely affect the public trust and will not be in the public interest as stated in your letter of" 08/10/1988, protest & supporting info within 30 days,.
    102488 letter Maughan/SWRCB to Westcamp/SCWD received protest; - considerations: 1) in the public interest, 2) due diligence exercised in development & use of water under the permit, and 3) failure to comply with previous time requirements could not reasonably be avoided & satisfactory progress will be made if an extension of time is granted. 23 CCR 844; "extension proceeding is limited to consideration of the effect of the time extension itself, not the other issues which are relevant to a Board action to approve or deny a new application." We reject your protest.
    120288 contact report Gunby/Petition Unit called Walter/Closing Mgr for B.A. AG-ORO [REO?] Dept. to confirm sale; property conveyed to "Bank under a stipulated judicial foreclosure, sale to Lonie 06/02/88


    010389 Extension of Time on a Water Right Permit and Any Associated Petition for Changes; notice in compliance "following the resolvement of one protest dated September 30, 1988" [nothing further from Deanes?]; permit para 12 to be replaced by current version; "The Board considered public interest and public trust uses at the time the permit was issued. the extension of time will not alter those considerations. The current version of the Board's continuing authority term will replace paragraph 12 of this permit. Additional protections do not appear warranted at this time."
    011089 Order Approving a New Development Schedule, and Amending the - permit; "has proceeded with diligence and good cause has been shown for the extension of time." to 12/31/1991 & 12/31/1993. Amendment to condition 12 states that the permit is subject to continuing authirity of the SWRCB "in accorance with law and in the interest of the public welfare to protect public trust uses and to prevent waste, undeasonable use, unreasonable method of use, or unreasonable method of diversion of water." etc. [which rather contradicts their comments to SCWD, now, doesn't it?]; action under this term would be if the Board determines, after notice & opportunity to be heard, that it's "consistent with the public interest and is necessary to preserve or restore the uses protected by the public trust."
    011089 letter Cornelius/Petition Unit to Lonie, extension approved, new development schedule in enclosed Order; term 12 amended to reflect current common law public trust doctrine in 23 CCR 780(a)
    011289 letter Lonie to Mork/Investig & Compliance, enclosed is the Progress Report & ap for extension of time, received Cornelius letter today saying time-extension letter approved, now working on starting the project.
    011289 Progress Report by Permittee for 1988, changed completion to 12/31/1993
    UNDATED empty extension form
    030189 form Okada/Permit & License to Lonie Family Trust, received report of water development, etc. 01/12/1989. changing records to "D. Donald Lonie, Jr., Family Trust"
    120189 Progress Report by Permittee for 1989, no work yet


    050790 letter Gunby/Petition Unit to Lonie, atty George Boggs atty who represents Indian Lake Investments informed SWRCB that POU for 24758/18724 is being sold. If so, let us know the new owner, enclosed Notice of Assignment may be used
    050790 letter Gunby/Petition Unit to atty George Boggs for Indian Lake Investments , escrow closing 05/08/1990, let us know if you need copies of the permit
    052190 letter Lonie to Gunby/Petition Unit; under option, but the option has not yet been exercised & may not for up to 18 months, please continue to show Lonie as owner
    120790 letter Boggs/atty to Mork/Investig & Compliance, received the annual form, sent it to Lonie, Boggs' client has an unexercised option
    121090 Progress Report by Permittee for 1990, no progress


    080891 letter Lonie to Div WRights, own approximately 1000 acres that has Permit 18724/Ap 24758; Mr. Shen bought the other 3,300 adjoining acres on which the water from 24758 would be used; Mr. Shen asks that the permit be extended, granting authority to Mr. Boggs to pursue an extension
    121191 Progress Report by Permittee for 1991, 100% remains, "plan to commence construction soon." [out of date order]
    123191 letter Boggs/atty to Cornelius/Petition Unit ; represent Lonie in ap for extension & Indian Lake Investment Co. of which Mr. Sam Shen is the managing partner, sale to be consummated in 06/1992; partners' have agreed to jointly pursue compliance , "substantial efforts have been made in this regard. There is a commitment that progress will continue unabated."
    123191 Petition for Extension of Time; what has been done: "attached Exhibit 'A'"; Mr. Boggs has: A. Looked at the SWRCB files; B) Met with SCS; C) talked with Lonie & Shen; D) looked into the law; E) contacted DWR on dam safety and got forms; F) made some non-engineering plans; G) contacted civil engineers about stuff; [this project is going backwards?]; selling the property has complicated things....both agreed to go forward


    012392 letter Attaway/Petition Unit to Boggs/atty, received your petition but can't accept it, recent enacted Section 10005 of the Public Resources Code requries a CDFG $850 filing fee for each permit; make payable to Calfironia Department of Fish and Game & return to Div WRights.
    012492 letter Boggs/atty to Miner/Div Wrights , $850 check enclosed for the filling [sic] fee
    021092 receipt CDFG $850 filing fee
    022192 Declaration of Exemption
    02??92 Notice of Petitions Received, including 24758
    042192 Extension of Time on a Water Right Permit and Any Associated Petitions for Changes; no protests received; condition added requiring a water conservation program or action.
    043092 Order Approving a New Development Schedule and Amending the Permit; complete by 12/31/1993 use by 12/31/1994
    043092 letter Attaway/Petition unit to Lonie Petition for extension of time approved;


    043093 letter Armstrong/Permits & License to Sam H.T. Shen, informed you have acquired the property wtih the permit, enclosed is 1993 progress report [not 1992?] complete & return promptly
    060893 letter Shou-tai An, P.E. to Armstrong/Div WRights, update record, owners: 1) Indian Lake Inverstment [sic], a California General Partnership, 2) Chiu Hai Lung, 3) James H.S. Laio and Joanna C.P. Liao Housband [sic] and wife
    061793 letter Armstrong/Div WRights to Shou-tai An, P.E., have updated our records and will show you as agent unless hear otherwise


    011094 letter Shou-tai An to Beringer/Investigaton & Compliance, enclosed is Progress report, ask for extension, working on funding, figure start in 10 months, completing spring 1995
  • 011094 Progress Report by Permittee for 1993, "we are owners for this water right for short time and due to insufficient funding, we were not able to start construction yet. We plan to start the application for dam construction in 1994, and expect a completion time in the early 1995. Please consider an extention [sic] of this water right."
    052694 letter Shou-tai An to Attaway/Div WRights, enclosed checks for SWRCB & CDFG, looking for funding, start middle of 1995 & complete early 1996
    052694 Petition for Extension of Time, no work yet done, looking for funding,
    070894 Declaration of Exemption, Falkenstein
    071394 June 1994 Notice of Petitions Received
  • UNDATED mailing list
  • 060794 CDFG receipt, applicant name "James Brothers & Company"
    091694 Extension of Time on a Water Right Permit and any Associated Petitions for Changes; no protests; complete 12/31/1998, use 12/31/1999
    101194 Order Approving a New Development Schedule
    101194 letter Attaway/Petition Unit to Shou-tai An/Indian Lake Investment petition to extend approved;
    101194 route slip, extensions of time
    UNDATED Information Sheet, list owners


    031495 Progress Report by Permittee for 1994, [no progress]


    062896 Progress Report by Permittee for 1995, "No construction yet" "This project is currently on hold"


    110899 letter Hitchings/Somach to Stretars/Petition Unit, enclosed is original & one of 1) petition for extension of time, 2) information sheet, 3) CDFG $850 check, 4) SWRCB $50 check
  • 110599 Petition for Extension of Time, 2 copies
    - UNDATED Attachment to Petition for Extension of Time, "Item 9. The - existing diversion dam and reservoir [where is permit for that?] have been surveyed to determine the extent of needed repair and improvements, and to analyze the most effective method of additional water storage for full beneficial use of the water permitted under the subject permit. Pursuant to the petitioner's 1603 permit issued by the California Department of Fish and Game, the reservoir bottom was recently cleared of eroded silts and shales, and other sediments, and clayey soils were applied on the bottom of reservoir to reduce seepage. [para] In addition, the old spillway has recently been replaced with a 36-inch diameter pipe with a weir to control outflows. Additional surveying is currently near completion to provide for the installation of a depth/volume gage for the reservoir. [para] Item 13: Ownership and management of the property where the enlarged storage dam is to be built, and where the water will be applied, have been in several periods of transition since the last extension was granted. A long-term ownership and management structure is now in place, however, and it is anticipated that plans and specifications for the new dam will be submitted to the DWR Division of Safety of Dams within the next 12 months. [para] The other primary reason that construction was not completed within the previously allowed time is the very short time frame within which the necessary survey and repair work could be performed during the last five wet years. In all of these years, there was at most a 2 month time frame when the existing reservoir was emptied and dry enough to accommodate the necessary work....' 2 copies
  • Information Sheet
    111099 CDFG $850 fee receipt
    111899 letter Stretars/Petition Unit to Hitchings/atty , backlog of 400 petitions, protest period, CEQA review....
    UNDATED Information Sheet


    071400 Notice of Petitions Requesting Changes, Corrections or Extensions - of Time in Water Right Permits and Licenses [boilerplate is more expansive than the 10/24/1988 abrupt dismissal of SCWD ; "The current owners have irrigated about 200 acres [where did that info come from?] using an existing diversion dam and reservoir and anticipate .... The existing diverison dam and reservoir have been surveyed to determine the extent of needed repair and improvements, and to analayze the most effective method of additional water storage for full beneficial use of water...."
  • UNDATED Mailing list
    062400 letter Russell King/MNC & K Farming Ltd. to Mr. Greg - Wilson/Div WRights, enclosed Protest , King diversion same section 35 NE 1/4 NE 1/4 T17N R6W, diversion is downstream from petition; also purchased Deane to get additional water?, 2 copies
  • "Exhibit A, Note No. 1 The water diversion as proposed in Application - 24758 and Permit 18724 will deprive Protestant of water it requires for irrigation of land within its boundaries and to whcih it has vested rights. Protestant has in existence 250 acres of walnut orchards which require approximately 600 acre-feet (drip irrigation) of water per growing season. This is now provided from sources as detained in Notes 2 & 3. [para] Note No. 2 Protestant has riparian water rights on Indian Creek initiated prior to to December 19, 1914 in the Angle Decree of 1908 [?]; [para] Note No. 3 Additional sources of water are a series of wells developed for irrigation purposes, including 5 wells on property known as the Deane Ranch which was recently purchased. As shown in the attached diagrams, a large portion of water recharge comes directly from the Indian Creek Drainage. Interruption of water flow by the insertion of a 3,200 acre foot reservoir as proposed will seriously affect the amount of water available during the summer months. Indeed, even now available water from wells is often reduced by approximately 35% during the latter months of the growing season. The Indian Creek drainage area is estimated at 3,700 acres. If rainfall were to be perhaps 18" in a year, then over 50% of the drainage area rainfall would be available for entrapment by the Permittee." [para] 4 Dismissal terms, "A. Permittee shall legally enter into an agreement with Protestor that if and as needed, a quantity of water up to a maximum of 500 acre-feet shall be made available for use by Protestor during any single growing season. B. Permittee shall legally enter into an agreement with Protestor that any required right-of-way for water lines or pumping facilities will be made available at no cost to Protestor." C. A & B shall be transferrable & binding. "...all of the land (1,200 acres) proposed for the irrigation purposes is totally separate from the site of water impoundment [what happened? wasn't it contiguous?] Necessary access would have to be obtained from either this Protestor, or one other landowner. [para] Secondly, to our knowledge (i.e. since 1983) the only dam constructed at the proposed point of diversion was a small earthen structure designed to back-up a limited amount of water for a commercial duck shooting operation. This operation extended only for a two or three year period in the late 1980s or early 1990s. Since demise of the club, the facility has been either dry, or used limitedly as a pond for cattle. To our knowledge, no water so impounded has ever been used for crop irrigation. [para] Thirdly, East Park Reservoir had an original capacity of 51,000 acre-feet of water. Assuming this has been reduced somewhat by soil erosion over the many years of it's [sic] existence, it is of interest that the proposed private reservoir can divert over 7% of the water normally earmarked for East Park Reservoir. 3,200 acre/ft. / 45,000 acre/ft. = 7.1%" "Walnut Valley Ranch", 2 copies
    - Figure 1, Location map, Walnut Valley Ranch, Lodoga, CA, 2 copies -
    - Figure 2, Geology, Walnut Valley Ranch, Lodoga, CA, 2 copies -
    - Figure 3, Drainage Basin, Walnut Valley Ranch, Lodoga, CA, 2 copies -
    - - Water Budget, Figure 3: Drainage Basin "The drainage basin boundary - follows topographic highs and defines the area for which surface water will drain into the Project Area. Recharge to an area is in proportion to the available drainage area and the infiltration of precipitation and surface water in the area. [ para] There are three primary drainages into the Project Area (Figure 3). Of these three, Indian Valley Basin is the largest with an estimated area of 11,100 acres. Indian Creek drainage and High Valley Basins provide additional drainage into Indian Valley, with areas estimated at 3,700 and 1,500 acres, respectively. [para] Both the Indian and Little Indian Creeks, which are the primary stream channels for the basins, intersect the Project Area. Additional recharge to the Project Area may be possible from the streams through subsurface leakage.", 2 copies
    - Figure 4, Well Locations, Walnut Valley Ranch, Lodoga, CA, 2 copies -

    072800 letter Massa/OUWUA to Erickson/Div WRights, thanks for extension of time copy, by Indian Lake Investments; per phone time to answer extended to 08/31/2000, please contact him in writing if not correct; want copies: 1) Annual Permitee [sic] Reports, water useage, place of use documentation since original permit date 01/19/1983; 2) annual staff gauge readings per item 15, permit for diversion; 3) all time extension permits before this recent one; 4) all Item 10 Progress Reports; 5) Stony Creek standard permit terms
    073100 contact report Louise Lindegard/Reclamation called Coats/Div WRights for extension of time, granted to 08/31/2000.
    080300 [?] contact report Erickson/Div WRights called Hitchings/atty ask about what was currently developed; "Hitchings said it was his understanding that there was a very small reservoir [not so small] at the POD but that no work had been done on the large reservoir proposed in the permit." Asked him about the missing progress reports, he expressed surprise, said he would call the permittee & get them in.
    082400 letter Erickson/Div WRights to King/MNC & K Farming, protest accepted, petioner instructed to answer your protest within 15 days; let us know if settled
    082300 Protest OUWUA, environmental & public interest: public interest, - contrary to law: "The proposed diversion is based on inaccurate assumptions of available unappropriated water and is contrary to and infringes upon the Angle Decree (determining the rights to the waters of Stony Creek), and the applicant has not diligently pursued the project and should not be permitted to maintain the permit"; settlement terms: Amend permit Term 17 to set diversion season from November 1 to March 15; to add reference and subordination to Angle Decree; to delete reference to East Park Feed Canal in Term 17; to require release of stored water when East Park and Stony Gorge do not fill; to prohibit diversions when natural flow of less that 279 cfs are available and required by the Orland Project; and to clearly subordinate the rights of applicant to the rights of the Orland Project under the Angle Decree (see attached)."` vested rights: "violates the term of the Angle Decree"; see other side plus attachment;
  • OUWUA Attachment, "As further grounds for the Protest as injury divested rights of this Decree [sic], the following is offered:" "1. Research indicates that the lands which are subject to this proposed permit were specifically addressed in the Angle Decree at the time the Bureau required [sic] the water rights and said lands were 'debarred and estopped from claiming or asserting any right, title or interest in or to any waters or use...' (See Article IV, Section C, Pages 26-28 of the Angle Decree.)" "2. The rights of Orland Unit Water Users Association as established by said Angle Decree [weren't any, they are a successor or assign], include diversions from natural flow of 85,050 acre feet at a rate of 279 c.f.s. during the entire irrigation season. The permit references a 'net collection' to storage. Therefore, the net inflow for the entire twelve (12) month year to Stony Gorge East Park Reservoir [sic] should not be restricted to reservoir capacity under the provisions of Term 17. As read, Term 17 could arguably limit the water rights of the Orland Unit Water Users Association aquired from the United States Bureau of Reclamation in accordance with the Angle Decree." "3. Paragraph 17 also incorporates water supplies delivered via the East Park Feeder Canal as a condition governing when applicant in this case must bypass flows. Effectively, it mandates that the Orland Unit Water Users Association operates the East Park feeder canal in order to supply additional water to the applicant. [in margin, "??" ] As a practical matter, the water rights of the Orland Project as specified in the Angle Decree are not reduced in any way, shape or form by the input from the feeder canal, and the applicant's rights under this water rights permit should not be expanded." "4. We recommend that Paragraph 17 be revised in part to incorporate the following language to protect the Protestant's rights under the Angle Decree: 'This Permit is subject to prior downstream rights, including those defined in the Angle Decree, Equity No. 30. Permitee [sic] shall allow access to Project facilities to the water master appointed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California to determine compliance with the terms of this permit [water master already has access]. Permitee shall comply with all orders of the Water Master, including orders to bypass and/or release water previously stored, to prior downstream rights [up to this point, this is surplussage as already being provided by the Decree] unless otherwise directed by the State Water Resources Control Board or its representative. Permitee shall pay all assessments for its proportionate share of the cost of the water master service being provided which had been approved by the United States District Court [violates Decree]. Between March 15 and November 1 of each year, Permitee shall bypass all inflow to his reservoir. Nothing in this term shall require release of water legally collected during previous years [no, only release flow when natural flow past diversion dams less than the total of all downstream diversion rights from natural flow."
  • 082300 letter Meith/Minasian to Erickson/Div WRights, enclosed original Protest, served copy on both Indian Lake Investment & Hitchings.

    083100 letter Davis/Reclamation to Schueller/Div WRights, protests, - based on USA prior rights for Orland Project; asks that this "permit be further conditioned to limit the diversion season so as not to interfere or impair the water supply for the Orland Project under those rights held pursuant to the Angle Decree and License 2652"; asks that "Term 17 of the existing permit be amended to delete reference to the East Park Feed Canal." Dismissal terms: 1. modify season to 11/01 - 03/15; 2. include standard Board term 92; 3. Delete reference to East Park Feed Canal in Term 17. [ as long as the Feed Canal is in there, if Reclamation has sufficient water in combined Big & Little Stony, 24758 can divert, a public interest sort of requirement. Without it, USA can manipulate its supply to deny 24758 ]
    090500 contact report Hitchings/atty called Erickson/Div Wrights, asked for 30-day extension to 10/08 to respond to MNC & K Farming protest; agreed
    090800 letter Erickson/Div WRights to Lindgard/Reclamation protest accepted, 15 days for petitioner to answer
    090800 letter Erickson/Div WRights to Meith/Minasian Office protest - accepted, provide additional info: 1) identify by name the owner of the property bound by the Angle Decree; 2) "you express your concern that Term 17 of Permit 18724 has the potential to limit the water rights of the Association confirmed by the Angle Decree. It is unclear how the Association will be harmed when permittee is required to bypass inflow to the project during the period of time outside of the permitted winter storage season. In addition, Term 17 requires permittee to release any water that may be stored during any water year when East Park and Stony Gorge reservoirs do not receive their rightful allotments of water. Please submit further explanation of your argument."; also, petitioner required to answer protest within 15 days.

    092100 letter Meith/Minasian to Erickson/Div WRights, 1) place of use - land in Decree W.G. Henneke Decree p. 55, Stovall-Wilcoxson Decree p. 86, point of diversion Mary E. Cook Decree p. 38; map depicting attached; 2) "The storage season for East Park Reservoir is 12 months, and 51,000 acre feet of natural flow, for the project [not necessarily]. The storage season for Stony Gorge is November 1 through May 1. However, irrigation has occurred in the Orland Project in every month of the year over the history of the Project [not permitted by the Decree]. While the irrigation season is generally described as March 15 to October 15, depending on the kind of year, irrigation may be required at other times and the rights of the [page 2] Orland Project ot use the water for that purpose is not limited by the Angle Decree [oh yes it is]. [para] Our concern, therefore, derives from the fact that there may be certain circumstances where adequate inflow to the reservoirs is present to fill them, but the Orland Project is still exercising direct diversion rights downstream for irrigation purposes. The Project is not limited to the supply necessary to fill the reservoirs, it is entitled to fill the reservoirs AND to exercise direct diversion rights of natural flow, up to 279 cfs [not exactly]. We would expect flows to be bypassed by the applicant to meet irrigation needs in any month regardless of the storage conditions at East Park and Stony Gorge Reservoirs and regardless of the time of year up to the needs of the reservoir plus 279 cfs, if needed. Term 17, in part, addresses this by requiring a bypass by the Applicant when flows are being bypassed at the storage reservoirs to meet downstream irrigation needs after March 15. [para] You note that the permit requires release of water when the Orland Project's reservoirs do not receive their rightful allotment. The key is your definition of 'rightful allotment.' If it's defined as the water needed to fill the reservoirs, PLUS up to 279 cfs natural flow for direct diversion, we are in agreement. The problem is it does not say that. Paragraph 17 refers to 'net' to storage. [para] The first issue would arise if both reservoirs are not full due to lack of rainfall and irrigaton has commenced. In that circumstance, we would be bypassing all natural flows and irrigating via direct diversion downstream of the natural flows. It appears to us that if the reservoirs are not filled, and we bypass flows to irrigate downstream of the reservoirs, prior to March 15, then the Applicant is not thereby required to evacuate their own storage to release those waters for downstream use if our irrigation bypasses were sufficient to fill the reservoirs. [para] The second complication could occur due the fact that Stony Gorge Reservoir has no flood storage in it and, therefore, we must bypass all high flows above the maximum winter elevation (831 feet or 38,211 acre-feet) until approximately the end of February, depending on the long-range forecast. If Orland Project begins irrigating in February or March, we may be required to bypass a sudden increase in inflow caused by a storm and yet, with a dry spring thereafter, we may not fill the reservoir. Our concern in part is driven by the fact that D1558, which approved Application 24758, indicated that water released for flood control purposes shall be counted as water collected to storage in those two reservoirs. [para] We should add that, our neighboring district, Glenn Colusa Irrigation District, also has a right to divert 500 cfs from March 1 to October 1 [not exactly, and not anymore]. [para] Our principal goal, as noted above, is to make sure that the rights of the Orland Project [page 3] under the Angle Decree are fully protected. We are not seeking more than that, but we ARE seeking protection to make sure that no storage in operations of the Applicant detract from our ability to use the full rights available to us under the Angle Decree. [para] We do have one final issue which would have to be dealt with in the context of this application. Assuming that we can reach agreement that the requirements of the Angle Decree will be satisfactorily met before the rights of the applicant can accrue (or more appropriately that the rights of the applicant are going to be fully subject to the Angle Decree rights of Orland Unit), we are concerned as to the communciation and coordination between Orland Unit and the applicant. to the degree that the Water Master has to enforce the terms and conditions of the Angle Decree that should be specified in the order as well as provisions for payment of the Water Master for those purposes. We also are somewhat concerned as to how Orland Unit would communicate conditions of the project from the standpoint of the Angle Decree in its own operations in order to ensure compliance with the terms of the permit. Again, since, as written, Term 17 does grant certain leeway to the applicant( even assuming our recommended changes are incorporated), it is not clear how there is going to be coordination of operations in communication of information in those circumstances." cc Hitchings & Indian Lake
  • map showing Angle Decree parcels and parties thereon for general - Indian Creek/Little Indian Creek/Squaw Creek area [where is original?]

    100600 Burch/Somach to SWRCB, enclosed is 1999 Progress Report;
  • 092600 Progress Report by Permittee for 1999; $32,000 spent; irrigating - "Approximately 200 acres surrounding existing small diversion dam" [where? how?]
    - attachment, same as to 110599 Petition except 12 months changed to 9 months for DWR dam plans & specs
    100600 letter Marsha A. Burch/Somach to Meith/Minasian enclosed is - Indian Lake Investments' answer to OUWUA;
  • 100600 Answer to the Protest of Orland Unit Water Users Association - 5 pp ruled & numbered; OUWUA protest s/b dismissed 1) "impact to prior vested rights is an issue outside the scope of a time extension proceedings [sic]"; 2) OUWUA is estopped from seeking administrative review of Term 17 by stip on file with Colusa County Superior & SWRCB order; 3) prior vested right are adequately protected by SWRCB Decisions & Orders; on 1) "A time extension proceeding is limited to consideration of the effect of the time extension itself, not other issues which are relevant to an SWRCB action to approve or deny a new application." 23 CCR 844 & 749; OUWUA was a party to the 24758 hearing & failed to protest any of the intervening applications for time extension, outside the scope & untimely considering its "previous silence on the issues" [on the extensions?]; 82-10 para. 4 bars OUWUA from protesting Term 17; as a surrogate for USA, the stip binds OUWUA; Permit & previous orders already provide for Water Master's authority (Term 20, 80-18 p. 3); "5. Association asserts that the Angle Decree prevents Indian Lake from claiming or asserting any water right (citing to Angle Decree, Article IV, Section C, pages 26-28). This is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. It is, however, important to note that the Angle Decree addressed only the water rights that existed at the time of the adjudication. [sort of] The Angle Decree does not preclude [but does limit] the subsequent granting of appropriative water rights to unappropriated flows in the Stony Creek watershed. Such water rights are simply subject to the senior water rights adjudicated under the Angle Decree. As a consequence, the water rights granted under Permit 18724 cannot injure senior water rights adjudicated under the angle Decree." [all of this is absolutely false]; [p. 4] 6) allegations of lack of diligence should fail for "failing to include factual allegations to support protest." "time extension is in the public interest because of the nature of Indian lake's project, which would provide irrigation supplies with carry-over storage of water that would otherwise not be put to a beneficial use. Additionally, the project will have a beneficial impact on groundwater recharge in the Indian Creek area. (SWRCB Decision D-1558, pp. 9-10)" Due diligence: surveys, more surveys, clearing bottom of existing, re-sealing with clay by CDFG permit, 36" pipe to replace spillway [bad idea?]; failure to comply with time: multiple changes of ownership, wet weather; /s/ Andrew M. Hitchings
  • Proof of Service

    100600 letter Marsha A. Burch/Somach to Davis/Reclamation enclosed is - Indian Lake Investments' answer to Reclamation;
  • 100600 Answer to the Protest of United States Bureau of Reclamation; - ditto;
  • Proof of Service

    100600 letter Marsha A. Burch/Somach to King/MNC & K Farming enclosed is - Indian Lake Investments' answer to MNC & K;
  • 100600 Answer to the Protest of MNC & K Farming, Ltd.; - ditto; p. 2 "4. With respect to MNC & K's claims that diversion under the terms of the Permit will injure MNC & K's sources of irrigation water, specifically, '5 wells on property known as the Deane Ranch which was recently purchased,' such claims similarly have no merit. William H. Deane and Henry H. Deane ("Deane") protested the original application for the permit on the grounds that the diversion would injure prior vested water rights under the Angle Decree, and that the diversion would have an adverse impact on groundwater recharge. The SWRCB found that concerns over groundwater recharge were 'insignificant for several reasons.' (SWRCB Decision, D-1558, p. 9.) The SWRCB found that when flows are captured in an upstream reservoir and then released at a slower rate, the quantity of water that will move into the underflow or adjacent groundwater basins will be proportionately greater. The SWRCB concluded that in wet years the issues raised by Deane will not be a concern because of high flows, and that in dry years the applicant's reservoir will provide a benefit to protestant Deane because it will regulate flow. (Id., at p. 10.) [para.] 5. With respect to the time extension application, MNC & K makes a conclusionary assertion that Indian Lake has not pursued the project, other than for the purposes of a 'commercial duck shooting operation.' This comment should be dismissed under 23 C.C.R. section 745 for failing to include factual allegations to support a protest." [uh, the facts are in the cumulative Progress reports, 20 years of "come next spring" we'll get on that project. Does "hope to" equate with diligence?]
  • Proof of Service
    100600 letter Hitchings to Erickson/Div WRights, enclosed are all 3 Answers, with letters sent to each

    111400 contact report Meith/Minasian & Massa/OUWUA called Erickson/Div WRights, are meeting with Indian Lake Investments to negotiate, Massa called next day about something else, Erickson asked how the meeting went, Massa was hopeful
    121500 letter Davis/Reclamation to Schueller/Div WRights, Reclamation disagrees with petitioner's Answer but are meeting with petitioner & OUWUA and hope for a settlement, will keep advised


    021401 letter Erickson/Div WRights to petitioner & 3 protesters; let us know how the negotiations are faring
    030101 letter Burch/Somach to Erickson/Div WRights continuing to negotiate
    031601 contact report Meith/OUWUA called Erickson/Div WRights, have an outline of an agreement, Burch to prepare, soon
    042401 letter King/MNC & K Farming to Erickson/Div WRights, proposed - reservoir is remote from proposed place of use, most direct path between them is across MNC & K land, applicant unwilling to negotiate a right-of-way, King feels establishing a delivery path should be precedent to granting an extension; 1) MNC & K offered a right-of-way if applicant will share the water; 2) if applicant has a right of way (any right of way?) King will withdraw protest; 3) applicant asserts, & King will withdraw protest if Board confirms: "'With respect to the issue of whether our clients must acquire easements, if any are necessary, to transport water from the dam pursuant to the permit, you correctly state that our clients are responsible for obtaining such easements. It is not, however, an issue that will enter into the State Board's determination regarding the pending request for extension of time.'" [well it should, it goes to readiness to proceed]; [his position is not exactly clear. He's worried about his water supply, but what does the right of way have to do with it unless he's trying to get a piece of the storage?]
    051101 letter King/MNC & K Farming to Erickson/Div WRights, further - discussions with Marsha Burch/Somach, best if King withdraws his protest & does so. [what did they do to him?]

    053001 letter Stretars/Petition Unit to Hitchings/atty; since permit was issued, new listings of species under ESA & CESA, your water use permit expired in 1999, extension requires environmental review; will need to do an EA, and will need: 1) MOU defining responsibilities of Indian Lake Investment & SWRCB in developing a appropriate environmental document, 2) a work plan by 09/30/2001: a & b) description of activities & time line for EA, c & d) ditto for completing the development, e) list of required permits, f) correspondence showing permits obtained or diligently pursued, g) an approved budget, h) copies of professional service contracts on all the above; failure to submit "may be considered as a lack of diligence", thence revocation
    053001 letter Erickson/Div WRights to King/MNC & K Farming, protest dismissed; true, right-of-way is not within Board jurisdiction [doesn't it relate to the general board policy of requiring that the applicant own the land?]
    070901 email Burch/Somach to Erickson/Div WRights; Indian Lake principals are out of Country, asked Falkenstein if OK to extend MOU to 09/10/2001 and he saw no problem, can we chat?
  • 071001 call Erickson/Div WRights to Burch/Somach, inked on copy of the email, clients expected back next week but difficult to get ahold of, didn't want to have to ask for more extensions, 09/10/2001 approved;
    071001 letter Burch/Somach to Erickson/Div WRights; enclosed a copy of a letter from Meith/OUWUA counsel & Turner/Interior counsel; Indian Lake has agreed, they will be notifying you to withdraw protests;
  • 062501 letter Meith/Minasian to Burch/Somach, agree to "permit - conditions comparable to those in the MNC & K Farming, Ltd., Partnership Permit" [what permit?]; OUWUA will withdraw protest if: 1) term 5 cutoff to 03/15 from 04/30; 2) Substituted Term 17 "17. This permit is subject to prior downstream rights, including those defined in the Angle Decree, Equity No. 30. Permittee shall allow access to project facilities by the Watermaster appointed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California to determine compliance with the terms of this permit. In diverting and storing water, permitee shall comply with orders of the Watermaster, including orders to release water stored adverse to prior downstream rights, unless otherwise directed by the State Water Resources Control Board or its representatives. Permitee shall pay any assessments for its proportionate share of the cost of watermaster service which have been approved by the United States District Court.'"; discussed these conditions with Watermaster who agrees they would be consistent with earlier permits & acceptable to him; not yet talked to Reclamation
  • 071001 letter Turner/Interior to Burch/Somach, Meith proposal OK & will dismiss protest if accepted

    071001 letter Burch/Somach to Erickson/Div WRights, confirm MOU to 09/10/2001, also, work plan to 11/30/2001 OK? let know if not
  • 053001 letter Stretars/Petition Unit to Hitchings/Somach, another copy
    071101 letter Meith/Minasian to Erickson/Div WRights, confirm agreement of OUWUA

    071901 letter Davis/Reclamation to Schueller/Div WRights, Reclamation withdraws its protest in accordance with conditions in attached letter from Meith to Burch
  • 062501 letter Meith/Minasian to Burch/Somach, another copy
  • 111501 letter Anton/Div WRights to Indian Lake & 2 protestants; per 07/10/2001 letters the terms proposed are [written out], unless objections in 30 days, protests of OUWUA & Reclamation considered abandoned; more conditions will be amended & added per current SWRCB policy; incidental take permits, CDFG stream alteration agreement ; stop & notify if any artifacts
    120601 letter Meith/Minasian to Anton/Div WRights, terms OK
    121101 letter Iyer/Licensing Unit to Brothers & Co/Indian Lake Agent, changed our records to show you as new agent, followup on info from Colusa County Assessor's office
    121101 letter Iyer/Licensing Unit to Brothers & Co/Indian Lake Agent, now with yet another new address written thereon. . . .
    122701 Progress Report by Permittee for 2000; 1000 animals, stock; "not much" for irigation "for no equipment to hold water"; "As yet, we have not used much water for Irrigation purpose. The reasons are (1) no license has been issued, and (2) no equipment to reserve water [?]


    010902 letter Iyer/Lincensing Unit to Liao/Indian Lake Investment, changed your address per your request
    030402 letter Anton/Div WRights to Burch/Somach & 2 protestants, no comments opposing proposed terms, permit will contain terms requested plus other Board term changes
    091002 letter Beck/Eco-Analysts to Falkenstein/Div WRights enclosed - MOU for participation in Indian Lakes project, "Repair work completed on the current dam and reservoir, under a DFG 1603 permit, and site review has iondicated that the best design for this project is excavation into the soft shale underlying this area and limiting dam height. The bottom would be sealed with clay. This would create a long narrow, deeper reservoir with less water surface for evaporation, and less ground surface disturbance. The current deeper reservoir has water throughout the year rather than drying up by July or August. [para] I will be going out with survey teams in a couple of weeks, with a spring follow up for plants. Our preliminary survey team will include biologists and an archaeologist. A geological report will be prepared based on existing data, including hydrogeology from nearby parcels under the same ownership. We will prepare and submit reports on our findings. [para] There are no fish in the reservoir but it is one of the locations used by the local population of pond turtles. My goal is minimization of impacts, with incorporation of mitigations as part of the project design."

    UNDATED Fall 2002 Term 91 Compliance Certification Statement, return by 10/24/2002, blank form with Indian Lake Investment address, etc.
    101002 Water Diversion Curtailment Notice, & send back the enclosed certificate
    102102 Certified return receipt
    102202 Fall 2002 Term 91 Compliance Certification Statement, "No diversion" checked;
    102802 email Hobgood/CDFG to Swenerton/Water Rights, "Thank you. I expect the call(s)"
  • ?????? email, Swenerton to Hobgood, working on CEQA documents for extension; Sutton of Div WRights staff plus applicant's consultant will be contacting Gary to cooperate with Cal DFG


    052203 contact report Sutton/Div Wrights called Stan Shen, to determine if him or Shou-tai An the correct contact, make it Shen
    061703 email Staci Li/NOAA to Sutton/Div WRights , your NOAA contact s/b Michael Aceltuno Sacramento
  • ?????? email Sutton to Dr. Li, looking for appropriate NOAA point of contact for this project
    063003 contact report Albert Beck/Eco-Analysts called Sutton/Div WRights - status of MOU? told him WRights had a problem pinning down applicant's contact person and getting "the appropriate NMFS Fisheries contact person", MOU in preoapration, should get it in a week; "He said that the reach had no fish in it. I told him that Fisheries would be concerned with effects on downstream water volume. [para] We also discussed the status of the project. He said the geology of the area was such that they persuaded the applicant to not build a high dam, but rather to dig out a pit behind the present dam. The bottom is shale, which they will seal with clay. He also said they are looking at changing the place of use and putting in an organically-grown vineyard. I indicated that a change in POU would necessitate a notice, with attendant considerations of possible protest, etc. He was aware of that. He also said that they were apparently changing owners again. [para] He said they want to put in two spillways, and also a drain pipe through the existing small dam they have, to provide minimum flow downstream in condjunction with a 1603 agreement they have with DFG."

    071303 Memorandum of Understanding for Preparation of Environmental Documents; Indian Lake Investors, applicant, & Albert Beck, dba Eco-Analysts, consultant [standard SWRCB form?] [out of date order]
    071503 letter Anton/Div WRights to Shen/Indian Lake MOU, received 09/10/2002 MOU, executed, sending you a copy, Jim Sutton assigned to be Division MOU manager. Within 60 days Dr. Beck must submit a preliminary work plan to Mr. Sutton w/scope of tasks to be performed including scope of WAA/CFII analysis ( Water Availability Analysis/Cumulative Flow Impairment Index ), specific environmental studies, list of permits required , schedule of consultation with CDFG & NMFS and any other
    071703 contact report Sutton/Div WRights called Dr. Beck/Eco-Analysts, told him sent the MOU & letter to the applicant, discussed contents, offered copy, Dr. Beck said much of the studies are done including "fall and spring plant surveys, avian surveys" "He said he already had met with DFG on most items except fish."
    072503 letter Sutton/Div WRights called Dr. Beck/Eco-Analysts, enclosed is a copy of the executed MOU
    082403 letter Dr. Beck/Eco-Analysts to Sutton/Div WRights , "Last fall we went to the site and did preliminary botanical, vertebrate species, and archaeological field surveys. I also had our geologist review existing data on the area to determine if the original dam proposal was feasible. This spring, I one of our botanists [sic] carried out a late spring survey for grasses and forbs that were not detectable in late fall, after heavy cattle grazing. [para] I reveiwed the orignal 1975 dam proposal with Mike Smith of M.H.M. Engineering to determine cost and feasibility. Our geologist, Christine Brown had concluded that the soft shale rock at the dam site was not a suitable foundation for the originally proposed 31 foot high dam. We had experiment [sic] earlier with the effects of repairing the existing dam and deepening the existing reservoir under a 1603 permit from the California Department of Fish and Game. The clayey topsoil was returned to the reservoir to seal the bottom. This resulted in a reservoir that persists through the fall months rather than drying up in late June or Jul. [how much did they excavate? para] Our proposed project will expand upon this successful trial. We will retain the existing dam and modify it to include a drain/seepage pipe at the base of the dam and the level of the downstream channel, and add two reinforced spillways. Storage capacity will be created by excavating into the soft shale and coating the bottom and sides of the reservoir with local clay soils. All surface soils will be stockpiled for the reservoir bottom and sides. The shale will be crushed onsite and used for improving the road system on the ranch. [para] In September 2003, I will contact the" CDFG, USFWS, NMFS. "They will be provided with maps, a brief description of the project and summaries of our field survey results. We will solicit their input on the project. Depending upon their schedules, it may take six to twelve weeks for responses. [para] the next phase will be to apply to" CDFG "for a 1603 permit to excavate the stream channels leading to the current reservoir. [? is that a diversion from Indian Creek? ] This will be concurrent action. [para] We will prepare an Initial Study to describe the project and include a mitigation plan to prevent or reduce impacts below a level of significance...."

    102203 Advance Noitice - Probable Water Diversion Curtailment during 2003; mid-October thru 11/15/2003


    042204 2003/04 Petition Annual Fee Review, 4 criteria for imposing an annual $1000 fee "for each water right permit or license covered by the petition" if any of 4 conditions: applicant ask for a delay? premature diversion? stalling environmental docs? not submitted requested supplemental information?
    120204 2004/05 Petition Annual Fee Review


    091205 2005/06 Petition Annual Fee Review


    080106 2006/07 Petition Annual Fee Review; Yes on supplemental info: Initial study not done; CEQA Workplan due 60 days after MOU signed 09/09/2002, 08/24/03 letter does not have timeline to prepare CEQA document. No progress on CEQA document. --kdm


    090407 2007/08 Petition Annual Fee Review; Yes on supplemental info;
    090407 contact report Brian McKosker called Katherine Mrowka, new owner of Indian Lake Investments, called back, needs to fill out the ownership assignment form on the division's web site
    101002 Water Diversion Curtailment Notice, & send back the enclosed [sent to Liao, not McKosker?]
  • undated, certified receipt


    060308 Order Denying Petition for Extension of Time, failure of due diligence, etc., 2 copies
    060308 Notice of Proposed Revocation, failure of due diligence, etc., 2 copies
    060308 letter Whitney/Div WRights to Indian lake, Laio, etc Denial of Petition for Extension of time, & Notice of Proposed Revocation
  • 060308 Certified mail receipt for Indian Lake Investments & 3 others
  • 060308 unable to forward, Liao
  • 060308 unable to forward, Lung
  • 060308 forward expired, Indian Lake Investments , Stan Shen
    090908 004 $1,000,000 160 acres Indian Lake Inve to Indian Valley Ranch
    090908 all 4 parcels
    122308 004 same


    022509 letter Mrowka/Inland Streams to Indian Valley Ranch, Concord, Colusa Assessor shows APN 010-300-004-000 010-300-011-000 010-300-019-000 010-300-020-000, previously Indian Lake Investments, unless hear otherwise will change SWRCB records, liable for fees, to change address, etc.
    022509 letter Mrowka/Inland Streams to Indian Valley Ranch, Concord, Denial of Time Extension Petition and Notice of Proposed Revocation permit 187254 Ap 24758; 06/03/2008 notified previous owner by certified letter of review of time extension, documents not completed [ out of date order]
    062309 Order Revoking Permit, failed on due diligence; recites the - history of promises "18...Irrigation is the only beneficial use authorized by Permit 18724...." 2 copies [actually they got all the way down to the engineering, and found the shale wouldn't support the project]
    062309 letter Herrera/Permitting to Indian Valley Ranch, Order Revoking Permit enclosed, 90 days to request to set aside & reinstate; permittee's responsibility to remove or modify diversions for water subject to the revocation
  • 062309 Certified mail receipt attached

    Category 20 Volume [1?], Transcripts and Exhibits

    080878 folder, Index
  • Item 1 - Transcript
  • Item 2 - SWRCB Exhibits (by reference0
    - 1. Files of applications 24758,2212,18115, and Statements of Water Diversion and Use S6353, S6354, and S9091
    - 2. Water Quality Control Plan, Sacramento River Basin 5A, approved by the State Water Resources Control Board August 21, 1975
    - 3. United States Department of Interior, Geological Survey Water Resources Division, Water Resources Data for California, Water Year 1975, Volume 4, Northern Central Valley Basins and the Great Basin from Honey Lake Basin to Oregon State Line, and all appropriate predecessor publications.
    - 4. Reports by the Division of Water Resources and it's [sic] predecessor agencies on the Sacramento San Joaquin Water Supervision, 1924 to 1955.
    - 5. Department of Water Resources Bulletin No. 23, Surface Water Flow, 1956 to 1962
    - 6. Department of Water Resources Bulletin No. 130, Hydrologic Data, all pertinent volumes and appendices for the period of published record.
    - 7. United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climatologica Data for California, for the purpose of published record.
    - 8. Topographic maps published by the United States Geological Survey covering the area under consideration.
  • Item 3 - Applicants Exhibits
    - 1. Document with map
    - 2. Map
    - 3. Map
  • Item 4 - U.S.B.R.
    - 1. Document
    - 2. Table
    - 3. Graph
    - 4. Document

    Folder 2, Item 1 - Transcript, Andreotti Hearing, 04/26/1978, Resources Building Sacramento, 10:00 A.M. (2 copies); Board: W.W. Adams, Chairman, David Barber, Counsel, Richard Baines, Engineer, Milt Jones, Environmentalist; for Andreotti: Virgil O'Sullivan; Reclamation: John Rice of the Regional Solicitor's Office; himself: Henry Deane; OUWUA Merv Freeman & Harvey Moranda; for Stonyford Irrigation District, Leslie Westcamp; Witnesses: Arthur Andreotti, Robert J. Feeney, Bill Manderscheid, Merv Freeman, Henry Deane, Harvey Moranda;; p. 4, O'Sullivan going to use Mr. Wilson as his witness, but apparently not;
  • p. 5 "I am Leslie Westcamp, representing the Stonyford Irrigation District, and we would like to enter a technical protest because we feel that this particular application should not be allowed until after our application is approved." ;
  • Barber introducing 1. "Files of applications 24857" [no, that is in Nevada County];
  • p. 9 Andreotti owned property since 1965 or 6, resides there for a week or 2 at a time; SCS engineer Isaacson did surveys Andreotti's land and got him interested; p. 12, 2nd copy of the Reconnaissance Study has an additional map in it of a service area [not described in the study but pertaining to Andreotti]; SCS p. 16 from p. 12, "Lower Indian Lodoga Are, Line 1", project Mr. Andreotti was considering; p. 18 Andreotti Colusa County resident since 1919; p. 20 Andreotti has developed 9,000 acres of his property for irrigation: rice, beans, all kinds of grains, safflower, tomatoes, sugar beets, seed crops like watermelons & cucumbers, alfalfa; p. 21 dry land alfalfa for 60 or 70 years there, although evidence of old ditches water source unknown; p. 32 p. 7 of SCS dismisses Andreotti's project as too expensive;
  • pp. 39-42, Mr. Leslie Westcamp asserts a prior ap for the SCID, turns out to be a subsequent ap;
  • p. 42 Adams to Feeney & DWR Division of Dam Safety, were waiting to see what SWRCB would do;
  • pp. 42-3 Rice to Feeney, could be earlier than 03/15 if for frost protection for grapes;
  • p. 44 Moranda to Andreotti, "in the case of what appears to be a dry year, how soon would you plan to store water in your reservoir? Would you attempt to store water from the first date, I believe it was October 1, or would you wait until the reservoirs downstream are full and overflowing? A. Well, that's a hard question to answer. The Orland water users have dumped a lot of water in the past out of that dam. I don't know whether it was for flood control or what. I would hate to see any water get away." "...that would have to be worked out because I have watched the Orland water users operation for many years there and I've seen them dump the water because they were going to do something with the fish. I have seen them dump the water because they were going to inspect the dam. I have seen them dump water because they were supposedly going to do repairs. I mean, I don't know. That's something that would -- I think that water should be stored and before you dump any water down there -- I'm not trying to get your water. I just don't want to see it all run down that creek like a lot of it has been doing." "...There has been a lot of water dumped there in the past that I couldn't see any reason for dumping unless it was for storage or repairing your dam or whatever you claim."
  • p. 45 Adams to Andreotti: "What was the basis for selecting those dates.... A. ...the reason of starting out early is I've seen some tremendous rains in the first of November that would just have that dam running over and I thought that would be a good time to collect the water early, like October or November. And we wanted a full storage as quick as we could get it because if we went to a grape deal and we had to frost protect, we need a big volume of water for a short time in the cold time. We need a big head to protect the grapes from freezing, you know. And that's why we wanted that thing ready to go." p. 47 "Well, I would like to collect the water as early as possible because I observed the Orland water users many times spill the water up until after the first of the year, and if I could fill my dam before the first of the year, it would just be water that would be running away anyhow." "I would like to get it before it disappears down the creek."
  • p. 47 O'Sullivan to Andreotti: "Q. ...isn't it a fact that in years like this, you would be storing, if your dam wasn't already full, you would be storing water now because we had a late rain, as late as yesterday and the day before? A. Correct. Q. And the season of rain up there varies from year to year and sometimes it starts the first of November and may go as late as June? [p. 48] A. That's correct. Q. Isn't that a fact? A. That's correct. Q. And in the nature of it there's not only a great cyclic variation, but there is sometimes a great variation within the year, and you don't know when you're going to get a heavy rainfall in that country. Isn't it a fact that this year there's over 100,000 acre-feet of water was dumped out of Black Butte? A. That's correct. Q. And that this year the streams were under flood conditions and isn't it a fact also that the need for a flood-control factor in the East Park Dam is no longer there, that there is a big flood-control dam down at Black Butte now? A. That's correct. Q. And there's no need for a flood-control factor to be kept in those upper dams insofar as the City of Orland is concerned anyway because you have Black Butte which stores 160,000 acre-feet [uh, now 125,000 a-f, and that's against a seasonal max of 1.4 million a-f, so in a really bad year 160,000 a-f wouldn't do it], and that what you have in that country, from what I understand, you have adopted or accommodcated yourselves to a highly cyclic stream, not only over a long period of time but also insofar as the rainfall seasons are concerned. You might get your heavy rains in November and December and not get any for two months, and then you might get another rain as late as June? [p. 49] A. We have had big rains in November and December and then it would be dry the rest of the year. And that's why dry-land farming up there is pretty touchy. If you could give it a little shot of sprinkler irrigation in a dry year like January and February, you could keep the thing alive, the barley and wheat."
  • p. 52, Rice to Manderscheid: "A. It is the bureau's position that the diversions requested in the application would in most years impair the water supply of the Orland project and other holders of water rights in the Stony Creek watershed. Q. And [on?] what do you base your conclusion that additional diversion requested in the application would in most years deplete the water supply for the Orland project? A. Historically, there have been many years when the runoff from the Stony Creek watershed was not adequate to provide a full supply of water to the Orland project. [para] The average annual water requirement delivered to the project is approximately 125,000 acre feet. [is the word "requirement" perjured?] This requires direct diversion when available from the creek during the irrigation seasons plus releases of stored water from the reservoirs which suffer a loss in transit of approximately 25 percent. [para] In order for the Orland project to be assured an [p. 52] adequate water supply, East Park Reservoir must be full at the beginning of the irrigation season." ...In 1910, East Park Dam was constructed. However, it soon became apparent that the inflow to the reservoir was not adequate to fill in most years." [p. 54, testimony forgets to mention Decree limits on project or GCID diversions] p. 55 "Black Butte project is integrated with the Central Valley project and is independent of and provides no additional water for the Orland project. [para] At times there have been exchanges of water between Black Butte and" OUWUA; SCS didn't recognize other rights in its survey but SWRCB has, and limited the storage season in permits 16527, 16666, 16838 [Aps 23995, 24136, 24811]; p. 56 "...based on historical data, we feel that due to the frequency of years with less than adequate inflow to provide for existing water rights and needs, it would not be in the public interest to grant a permit." "...We have been informed that since about 1945, there have been many stock water and recreation reservoirs constructed in the Stony Creek watershed. [para] In some years, these reservoirs deplete the Orland project water supply. None of these reservoirs has a right ahead of the project and some have no recorded water rights. [para] Many of those with an appropriative water right contain a permit term which obligates them to release water in the event the project reservoirs do not fill. However, to our knowledge, no water has ever been released from these reservoirs to comply with this term, including the year 1977. [para] Past experience indicates policing other reservoirs in the Stony Creek watershed is not effective."
  • p. 57: O'Sullivan: "Q. Mr. Manderscheid, how much water has wasted down Stony Creek since November 22 of 1977 through today? A. I have no knowledge of that, I imagine -- [p. 58] Q. Did you keep records of the 1977 flow down Stony Creek below the Black Butte Dam? A. Pardon me? Q. You have no records of that? A. Oh, yes, we have records. Q. How much water, actually how much water wasted away down Stony Creek below Black Butte Dam in 1978? A. Well, we have records. Mr. Wilson has some of our records that we have been collecting. I don't have them in front of me. Q. Well, do you know? Do you have any idea? A,. If I look at that record, I can probably -- Q. Did you prepare this map, this bar chart? A. Yes, we did. Q. Are you familiar with all the information on the bar chart? A. Yes, much of it. Our bar chart ends in 1977. Q. You don't have any information after -- you don't have any for 1978? A. No, because it's not a complete water year. Q. Over 100,000 acre-feet of water went to waste below Black Butte this year? A. Black Butte has collected into storage probably more water this year than in any previous year in history. Q. As a matter of fact, you have run 100,000-odd acre-feet of water through it now this year, haven't you? [p. 59] A. I can't personally answer that. Quite a significant amount of water has gone through, I can say that. Q. But you are familiar with all the figures on the bar chart, aren't you? A. Yes, we have them in Exhibit 2. Q. Well, the yellow area above the 51,000 acre-feet, what does that mean? What do the bar charts mean, the yellow section? A. The yellow figures indicate the years in which East Park Dam filled from natural flow, natural runoff. The red figures indicate the years in which East Park did not fill. Q. What is the yellow? A. The yellow, that's the one I said in which East Park filled due to natural inflow. Q. Is there anywhere on the map that shows how much water went down after the filling of the 51,000 acre-foot dam? Do you have any records on that? A. 51,000 acre-feet is this line, the black line right across that separates the yellow and the red, and so all the figures above, all the yellow indicates the flow that went past. Q. If you took a calculator and added up all the yellow area, it would tell you how much water was wasted down Stony Creek in that period of 70 years, isn't that correct? A. Yes, and I think on Exhibit 2 we show that natural [p. 60] flow-- Q. Would you answer the question, please? Isn't it a fact if you took a calculator and added up the yellow area above the lines, it would tell you how much water was wasted down Stony Creek during the period of 70 years? A. Yes. Q. It was not put to beneficial use? A. That I cannot answer. It may have gone to Stony Gorge and been used. It may have been diverted downstream and be used beneficially. Q. Well who would use it other than Orland Water Users? A. GCID. MR. RICE: By that, you mean Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. O'SULLIVAN: Q. Do they have a right to that water? Are they protestants in this hearing? A. Which question do you want -- Do they have a right? Q. Do they have a right to that water, that yellow area? A. I think my testimony is they have a right to divert in the Angle decree some 500 second feet. Q. That would be each year, any year, is that right? [well, not exactly] A. That's correct. Q. Is that a right that is ahead of yours or behind it? A. I would have to go back and read the Angle decree. Perhaps Mr. Freeman can answer that. [p. 61] Q. And the red, what is the red area below the line? A. Those are the years that East Park did not fill from the natural runoff. Q. Well, did it fill this year? Did it fill in 1978, or do you know? A. I don't know that it's filled yet or not. Mr. Freeman nodded his head, yes, that it has. Q. Does Mr. Wilson, who is here, know about the records on Stony Creek? [George Wilson, later the Water Master?] A. Yes. Q. Does he know about the amount of water that ran down Stony Creek this year? A. I guess you would have to ask him. Q. Well, who keeps the store? Who keeps track of the recording and the records? A. Okay. The records come into our regional office, into our operations, and the records are kept in our Central Valley operations report, which we collect and keep updated, and we have those figures all on file. They are collected monthly. Q. Let me ask you, you said that you had a permit on that stream since 1909? A. For 51,000 acre-feet. MR. RICE: Are you referring to Little Stony Creek, Mr. O'Sullivan? MR. O'SULLIVAN: Q. Yes. Any of the Little Stony [p. 62] or Big Stony or any of them. Your first permit was in 1909 and your second was in 1915, and you built a dam in 1909 and 1915? A. In 1910, East Park Dam was constructed, and in 1915, Rainbow Diversion Dam. Q. And although this large yellow area you're talking about, water escaped down the stream since 1915 and you haven't built anymore dams to recapture the water for the Orland water users under their permit? A. Well, outside of Stony Creek. Q. Isn't it a fact -- A. Stony Gorge. It was constructed in 1928. Q. All right, since 1928, you haven't built anything. You have built three dams on the stream, but since 1928, you haven't built any dams to preserve any of the water that escapes, is that correct? A. To the best of my knowledge...." pp.63,66,69 Mr. Wilson testifies without having been sworn or identified.
  • p. 75: "MR. O'SULLIVAN: No. We want a permit. We feel that if we are going to spend all that money on the dam -- here's exactly the position of my client. Water has run down that stream, unappropriated water has run down that stream since 1928. The United States Government hasn't done anything except the building of Black Butte Dam, which is a flood-control dam, and anytime someone wants to develop something upstream in the way of a dam, they find 42 Catch 22 answers and we want a permit from the State of California if we are going to build a dam. We can't afford to go out and spend a lot of money and build a good dam and put the water to beneficial use if we don't have a permit from this board. We just can't do it. And so we are not going to subject ourselves to the jurisdiction or a contract with the Bureau of Reclamation when we are building our own dam. We don't feel that's a proper thing. We are here submitting ourselves to the jurisdiction of this board and will let this board rule. MR. ADAMS: I understand that. MR. O'SULLIVAN: We are not going to submit ourselves to the Federal Government, when we have to spend our money to build the dam and they sit there with the whole watershed in their hands and they have for the last 40 years, and they furnish us with a bar chart that shows a great mass of yellow above the line where they are diverting that is available. [p. 76, para] Mr. Westcamp needs water. I don't know what the development on the upper end of Stony Creek is eventually going to be, but they are going to need some of that water up there, and it seems to me that this thing has to be resolved sometime. If we can't have any, we will dry up our ranch and won't come back. But that's just it. We are here. We want the permit. If we can have the permit, we will go ahead and do it, but we don't want to leave here and leave any impression with the board that we are going out from here and negotiate with the bureau, because we certainly are not going to do it."
  • p. 78: "MERV FREEMAN: ...manager of the Orland Water Users, and I would just like to make the statement that I believe, speaking for the project, that if this water is approved, it will infringe on our water rights and also any riparians downstream from East Park. [what riparians? para] I feel that using the Feed Canal, we start that as soon as possible, but in many years, like last year, we couldn't even attempt to get hardly anything through the Feed Canal because there was no flow in Big Stony as well as nothing in Little Stony, and the project has suffered immensely for the last two years. [para] Also, I'm quite concerned and I talked to some of the people here at the Water Rights board about the many stock ponds that have been granted approval to be put in there, and my question is, how many do we allow? Where do we draw the line, 100, 1,000, 10,000? Because these by our records are showing that from the time the stock ponds started in 1945, the water has been depleted to the project, and if this gentleman is allowed to irrigate land which has never been permitted in this watershed before, I have another one on my desk that was submitted to irrigate another 20 acres, so where are you going to draw the line here without infringing on our water rights? [para] I also would like to state that everything that is [p. 79] spilled or released from Black Butte Reservoir does not in any way come close to what is released or spilled at East Park, because you have another North Fork on that, and so the ratio is probably 12 to 1. [?? para] And I also would like to correct Mr. Feeney on his statement that the average rainfall in this watershed is 30 inches, which it is not. That's above average. It's approximately 18 inches. And as of today, we have in that watershed approximately 30 inches of rainfall and in the project we have 34, and this is an exceptionally wet year. [para] Another thing I would like to know is if you do grant this water right, who will police this [this testimony was during the water master hiatus] ...because I know a lot of these stock ponds are not being policed. [para] And for every one that has been built with a water right, there's two, I bet you, without a water right, and I can name quite a few which I have been in communications with the board about that have been built right next to our reservoir with no water right, and they are still standing and full of water today. [para] And then this property will be sold and they've already got the water right and infringed on our privileges...." [p. 80] "MR. BARBER:... Would it be fair to characterize your interest, since you receive water from the Orland project, as essentially the same as the bureau's?... Is your interest in the project, I mean in [p. 81] protesting this application, essentially the same as the bureau's, or not? A. Yes, it is."
  • p. 83: "HENRY DEANE,...These streams do not merge at the dam site. The stream in question, that is Indian Crek, and the unnamed tributary, do not merge at the dam site, but further down the stream." [p. 84] " well for my domestic use in my house is pumping sand. This leads me to believe that with the full use of this stream to date for percolation purposes, that we have still not recovered our water table and that is just now beginning [p. 85] to really come through, and this has been an unusually high rainfall year." "...and that all costs of any litigation by downstream parties be borne and guaranteed by applicant or assignees." [p. 86] "...the ten years that I have observed this area...." [p. 89] "MR. ADAMS: Do you have an appropriative right or what right do you rely on for your diversion out of the stream? MR. DEANE: Riparian. I believe it is S9091....[p. 90] Q. ...S-9091...55 acre-foot annual use.... A....I just pump out of the creek and utilize mainly the sprinkler nozzles and pressures as the criteria to figure the acre-feet, the gallonage."
  • p. 92: HARVEY MORANDA,...board member of the Orland Water Users Association...[p. 93] Most of our farms are small by standards of today. They consist of 100-acre ranches or smaller and are family-operated units.... Water requirements for most of our soils range between three and five acre-feet of water per year, less in some cases for orchards on heavy soils, but considerably more on some of our lighter, gravelly soils.... In 1976, we had a reduced storage carry-over in our reservoirs. In fact, we had no carry-over, as I recall. We had a short rainfall year. We were prorated, if my [p. 94] memory doesn't fail me, we were prorated to approximately one and a half acre-feet of water per acre. We were able to obtain through the Bureau of Reclamation additional water from Black Butte Reservoir. This was on a temporary contract. It was purchased water over and above our normal allotments. [para] We also installed pumps in the Tehama-Colusa Canal and received some water from the Tehama-Colusa Canal. This was a temporary measure, especially in regard to the Tehama-Colusa Canal.... since 1962, we have obtained additional water from Black Butte in three or possibly four years that we do not normally have a water right to. This is temporary water purchased, or the purchase of temporary contract water through the Bureau of Reclamation. [para] In the 1977 year, we were assured at the beginning of the season that the Bureau of Reclamation could provide no additional water to our project. We were faced with storage supplies due to the dry winter of approximately ten or fifteen thousand acre-feet of water in our two reservoirs, East Park and Stony Gorge. [para] As the year progressed, we did obtain a small amount of additional water from Black Butte and also a little from [p. 95] the Tehama-Colusa Canal. [para] many of the farmers also supplemented our meager water supply with water obtained from the ground water. We put in wells, irrigation wells, some large, some very small, but approximately 40 or 50 wells were drilled and utilized for irrigation purposes [from underflow?]. [para] Mind you, this is in a project that normally depends on surface water supplies so these irrigation wells were emergency measures over and above what we normally would have to spend for our water for the years. [para] So it became a very expensive venture. But many of us chose to do this. I might add that during the years 1976 and 1977 that numerous stock ponds in the Stony Creek watershed that supplies our water, that those that do have a water right that was issued after the Orland Water Users rights were issued, and those that to our knowledge to not have a water right, in other words, illegally constructed ponds to our knowledge, none of these ponds released their water to us due to the fact that we did have prior water rights. They did not release the water. [uh, most, if not all of those dried up, and even if they'd allowed full flow-through during the winter most of those tributaries in that year had no continuity with the creek so Mr. Moranda is blowing smoke; para] Possibly a rough estimate would be four to five thousand acre-feet of that water was water that the water users rightfully had a right to, that we never obtained. [para] I'm afraid that this would also be the case should more stock ponds and reservoirs for irrigation purposes be constructed, even though he did have a permit. [p. 96, para] One of the problems, or one of the reasons this occurred is the fact that we do not have adequate policing of these stock ponds. A water master would be required. [para] We have had a water master there before, but we have borne the brunt of the cost of supplying this person and really the cause of the problem has not been ours [blind, are we?], [OUWUA complaint about Water Master Cost] and we feel that with additional stock ponds and irrigation reservoirs, this would just compound the problem....I feel that not only East Park Reservoir filling is very important, but also Stony Gorge Reservoir below East Park. Obviously, the Black Butte storage for conservation purposes should come ahead of any water rights granted upstream. There are riparian rights [where?] or other existing water rights people below this project, and also one thing I don't believe was brought out earlier, is the right to live stream flow during irrigation season that we [p. 97] as the Orland Water Users Project are entitled to...."
  • p. 98: "CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. RICE:....have there been times, other than times when the dam spilled, that water was released from East Park and wasted? A. To my knowledge, no. There have been instances when water was released from East Park at the end of the season, I believe. The reason in once case I believe was the Department of Fish and Game wished to kill the trash fish. This water that was released was retained in Black Butte Reservoir. The Orland Water Users retained ownership of this water and did utilize it next season [how, with USACE having to make flood-control releases by formula, para]. Another instance I believe we had to do some work on needle valves in East park and the same type of situation occurred. We released the water to a lower reservoir. I'm not sure if it was in our own or in Black Butte, but the water was not wasted. I don't recall now what happened the following year, if there was enough water, natural inflow, to completely fill East Park in each instance or not, but it was not wasted water. It was trapped or controlled further downstream and utilized...." [how? and how about the other times? is this evasive?]
  • "CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. O'SULLIVAN:...[p. 100] Q. Is that a water district? A. It is a water district. The technicalities of describing it, I couldn't say. Q. Association? A. It is called the Orland Unit Water Users Association. Q. It's not a water district of any type? A. I'm not -- Q. It doesn't have the power of assessment? [p. 101] A. We do assess landowners for O and M and construction charges.... Q. And it overlies one of the largest untapped subterranean water supplies in the State, isn't that correct? A. The State Department of Water Resources maintains so. We felt so at one time, about a year ago. Having been one of the individuals that did drill an irrigation well in the area, I would tend to disagree to some extent. Yes, there is water underlying our area. The majority of it, or the more available supply appears to be downstream from our particular district. In other words, I might -- Q. But there is underground water supply underneath all that district. A. This is correct. I might -- Q. In addition to that, you have contract with the Bureau of Reclamation to divert water from Black Butte Dam, [p. 102] is that correct? A. We have had a one-year contract for a temporary diversion -- I would like to divert that question to Mr. Freeman. Q. Weren't you divering water last year? A. From Black Butte? Q. Yes. A. Yes, we did some. Q. Did you the year before? A. Yes. Q. And you have had a contract last year to divert water from the Tehama-colusa Canal, isn't that correct? A. We diverted some water from Tehama-Colusa. I believe some of the water came from the Delevan Irrigation District that we purchased and I'm not sure, I think the rest came from the bureau. It was bought directly from Delevan. The bureau did receive a wheeling charge, is my understanding. Mr. Freeman could answer these questions better than I. Q. I'm just trying to find out how much water you got cornered up in that district. You deny we should have any. A. No, I certainly wouldn't deny that you should have any. I merely am stating that I feel -- Q. Why don't you buy some under contract from the Tehama-Colusa Canal?...[Adams cut it off as straying]" [p. 103] "Q. Do you have objection to anybody upstream -- well, do you have objection to Mr. Andreotti diverting any water at the time and in the areas where the yellow area extends up two, three or four squares? A. Well, one comment I might make -- obviously if it were to go way up in years like we're experiencing this year -- at least this would be my opinion. [para] Not having been here back in 1912 or so, whenever it happened to be, in a year where you state the bar is about four blocks above the storage capacity of the reservoir, we don't know from this if this runoff was in November or March. We don't know when we started our irrigation season. If there was, in fact, heavy water in March and we did start our irrigation season very soon after that, a portion of this water would have been picked up below as part of our live stream flow entitlement. This would entitle us, or enable us to carry over additional water to the next seson, should it happen to be a dry year such as you would see back here in 1921, 1927, a couple of two good examples here, could be some here and here. Anywhere that there's a year of high water followed by a year of low water, it's possible that we may have retained some of this water as carry-over storage through the winter and utilized it next year."
  • p. 106: "MR. RICE: Among the staff exhibits, was the Angle Decree included? MR. BAINES: Yes. MR. BARBER: Yes, it is." [where?]

    Folder 2, Item 3, Exhibit 1 - 02??64 A Reconnaissance Study to - Investigate the Feasibility of the Upper Stony Creek Watershed Project (Glenn and Colusa Counties, California) for Construction under the Federal Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public Law 566, a Report for the State Soil Conservation Commission, Sacramento, California by Division of Soil Conservation, Department of Conservation, State of California; 2 cards in front, Donald E. Greiner & William E. Jensen, office, 655 Fremont St., Colusa; in summary, Pleasant Valley Dam & Reservoir on North Fork of [Big] Stony Creek for irrigation of Stonyford area, divert via Rainbow Canal with laterals from that, natural flow sufficient 1 year in 3; several unreadable maps (copies of copies of....) are for south of Lodoga; p. 6 "Venado soils in the proposed service area may present problems of magnesium toxicity under irrigated crop production"; Pleasant Valley damsite just below Goulding Creek, drains 23.5 sq. mi, estimated average annual flow 16,500 a-f, 105 foot earthfill structure of 260,000 yards; at spillway elevation gross volume of 2700 a-f, 90-acre surface; natural flows at Rainbow sufficient one season in three for predicted irrigation plus 17.5 cfs fishery demand; looked also at: 1) Indian Creek, and Mill Creek in Bear Valley; 2) Dry Creek, to serve north Stonyford area, below Red Bridge, South Fork at Fouts Springs but roads and camp relocation; 3) Briscoe Rocks, good site but not proximate to service area; 4) pumping plant to Chrome; 5) pipeline East Park to Stonyford

    041478 letter Horton/Reclamation to Rosenberger/Div WRights, 7 copies of proposed exhibits
  • Reclamation Exhibit 1, Resume, Billy E. Manderscheid -
  • Reclamation Exhibit 2, East Park Reservoir, Years Natural Inflow was - Less than Water Right - Entitlement and Reservoir Capacity of 51,000 Acre-Feet, 1908-1977
  • Reclamation Exhibit 3, Bar graph of the same: Historical Inflow - East - Park Reservoir, 1908-1977, y = average annual inflow in hundreds of acre-feet "does not include imports [?] from Stony Creek via Feed Canal except for water years 1964 through 1974 where no records are available";
  • Reclamation Exhibit 4, Table 3112, East Park Reservoir Feed Canal - 1915 - 1977 , Diversions (acre-feet)

    042678 Applicant Exhibit 2, map, sheet 1 of 2, Indian Creek Irrigation Dam Project Map, June 1975
    042678 Applicant Exhibit 3, map, sheet 2 of 2, Indian Creek Irrigation Dam Project Map, a portion of S35 T17N R6W [shows dam across Indian Creek also; does this dam Indian Creek or only its small tributary?]
    092702 Notice of Probable Curtailment of Water Diversion During Fall 2002

    101680 tag clipped to file, Decision #WR80-18 Item #16 Petition for Reconsideration - Arthur Andreotti, return to Kathy Maggard, Div WRights
    UNDATED only content of that file is a sheet entitled Mailing List with Andreotti, OUWUA, Deane, [Reclamation] & O'Sullivan

    062304 Progress Report by Permittee for 2003 , remains: "Completion of Environmental Assessment, *1602 permit from the California Department of Fish & Game", completion date depends on WRCB review, sig illeg.,
  • form letter? Beck/Eco-Analysts (Chico), 2003 Progress Report for - Indian Lake Investors Colusa County (Application A024758); "Environmental assessment for this project was completed in 2003. Spring botanical surveys were conducted to establish the specific identify of serval [several?] plant species located during the prior fall. Biological and archaeological surveys and assessments were completed in 2002. No rare or endangered plants or animals were located during the surveys of the parcel that contains the reservoir. [para] We anticipate one meeting with biologists from the National Marine Fisheries office in Sacramento to discuss their concerns about downstream impacts upon anadromous fish. [para] A review of the original proposal which included a 35-foot high dam spanning two valleys was rejected. A review by our geologist of the underlying formation indicated that the shale substrate would not support a 35-foot high concrete structure without a very expensive foundation. An earthen dam of the same height would occupy too much area. The reservoir would be about 300 acres in surface area, and require the loss of many specimen valley oaks. Surface evaporation would cause a significant loss of water. [para] Based on earlier work completed on the existing reservoir, it appears to be more feasible to improve the existing dam and to excavate down into the shale to create a deep narrow reservoir which would retain water throughout the growing season. The deepest areas would be 45 feet below the current soil surface, with an average depth of 25 to 30 feet. The surface area would be between 100 and 125 acres. [para] Soil would be stockpiled and then placed in the reservoir before the rainy season to help seal the bottom. Expansive clay soils or bentonite would be used to supplement the available soil from this parcel. [para] The excavated shale would be crushed onsite and then used as road base throughout the reminder [sic] of the ranch. [p. 2] The existing dam would be modified to include a pipe at the base to allow winter and spring flows in the creek below the dam similar to those that occurred before the dam was improved to reduce leakage. [para] Two concrete lined spillways would be constructed on each side of the dam to allow flows greater than the capacity of the dam and reservoir. Since the area is subject to adiabatic storm events, it anticipated that more than one storm will create overflow events during the winter or spring months. [para] A pump and pressured pipe would be used to deliver water to the irrigated areas, using the applicant's property only. [para] If the water rights renewal is granted then the owner(s) will proceed to the engineering design of the dam and reservoir. Albert J. Beck, Ph.D. Principal Consultant [no sig. So, was this a modification of a previous unpermitted dam? Is there some other Ap? How does this report fit with the rest of this file?]
    062304 Progress Report by Permittee for 2003 [fax copy of above]
  • form letter? Beck/Eco-Analysts (Chico), [fax copy of above]

    073080 WR 80-13 Order Granting Reconsideration of Decision 1558
    101680 WR 80-18 Order Amending and Affirming, as Amended, Decision 1558
    091682 WR 82-10 Order Amending Decision 1558 as Amended by Board Order WR 80-18

    Return to Stony Creek Water Wars.

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