THE STONY CREEK WATER WARS
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 A025261 - Stony Creek Water District

[see also http://swrcb2.waterboards.ca.gov/ewrims/wrims-permits/p017823.pdf ]

[schedule of allowed Angle Decree usage at http://www.mjbarkl.com/limits2.htm shows that SWRCB did not have jurisdiction to consider this application]

[Maps?]

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

[Inside of file front cover]

Applicant: Stony Creek Water District
Address: 940 Co. Rd. 303, Elk Creek, CA 95939

Application 25261 Permit 17823
Applicant: Stony Creek Water District
Date Filed 02/14/1977 Maps Filed ____ County No. 11 Fee $48.00
Forms Sent 10/28/1977 - 8; 8a, 8b; 12/30/1977 - 8a, 8B

Protests:
  • 110777 Contra Costa Co. Water Dist.. Answered 04/03/1978; dismissed or withdrawn, light pencil "YES on" 01/16/1979
  • - applicant Stip 05/25/1978

    Remarks 12/15/1977; Affidavit of Publication Received 02/09/1978
  • 020680 Permit 17823 Issued
  • 121585 Rec'd Extension Petition
  • 012486 Monthly Notice of petitions Rec'd
  • 111688 Ext to 112392 to complete use
  • 021693 Extension Petition Rec'd
  • 031193 Notice of Petitions Rec'd
  • 123193 order approving a new development schedule

    Fees:
  • 021077 Application $10.00
  • 020580 Permit $24.00
  • 121885 Extension $5.00
  • 021693 DFG Fee $850.00
  • 021693 Extension $50.00

    2nd Folder USBR Contract [WHERE?]

    [Inside of file back cover]

    ????77 PROGRESS RECORD


    LOOSE PAPERS IN BACK OF FILE;

    UNDATED California map showing applications 25261,25990,25939,25986, 25717,25711,25797 here & there in the state
    020680 Permit for Diversion and Use of Water Ap. 25261 Permit 17823 use, irrigation , 1591 acres within boundaries of the Stony Creek Water District in T17,18 and 19N, R 6W, MDB & M ; 4 diversions, along Little Stony and Stony Creek; SE 1/4 of SW 1/4 S2 17N 6W; [right at East Park?] NW 1/4 of SE 1/4 S10 18N 6W; SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 S16 18N 6W; NE 1/4 of N?E 1/4 S15 19N 6W; not exceed 12 cfs 03/01 - 10/31, max 3,000 a-f/year, & only so long as an exchange contract with Reclamation is in effect; annual report to SWRCB at beginning of each year "specifying the coordinates at which water will be taken under control and the amount to be diverted at each diversion point. The report shall contain a description of the diversion works at each diversion point."
    03??77 map Superseded, Stony Creek Water District proposed inclusions - and exclusions, Glenn County and Colusa County, CA, George F. Pride, Licensed Land Surveyor, 247 N. Villa Avenue 934-3715, Willows, CA 95988 East Park to Stony Gorge, 25 parcels in District, exclusions, inclusions, etc.
    ?????? bown envelope marked Superseded, empty

    021177 New Application Checklist "POD will be within limits to be defined. Maps due in 30 days."
  • 032277 Application 25261 In-Form check
  • 031577 Card 1 of 4 S2
  • 031577 Card 2 of 4 S10
  • 031577 Card 3 of 4 S16
  • 031577 Card 4 of 4 S15

    060893 memo Anton/Div WRights to all staff, flow chart to help with - processing of protests on petitions for extension of time.
  • ?????? Protested Time Extensions and Environmental Review, CHA0195R5 -

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

    1977


    021077 Application to Appropriate Unappropriated Water, Stony Creek Water District, c/o J.W. Somerville, [4J Ranch] Star Route, Elk Creek, CA 95939 415-626-7143; permanent pasture 891 acres flood & sprinkler 200 a-f annually 04/15-10/15; Corn, Sudan, Grain 700 acres flood etc. 1000 afa 05/01-10/01; pumping from creek by multi methods; percentage of flow taken depends on reservoir release, 50% will be returned to stream, increase food production & no adverse effects; nearest post office Elk Creek; no mitigation required; required to get approval from Reclamation; downstream diverters "City of Elk Creek" [?], Orland Water Users; crossed off, in addition to previous riparian right from 1870, changed to not claim an existing right;
  • 123077 Notice of Application to Appropriate Water, 25261 02/14/1977 Stony Creek Water District applied; 2 copies; 150 a T17N, 586 a T18N, 855 a T19N;
  • 120176 letter Mrs. C.W. Westcamp/Secty-Treasurer SWD to Div WRights, board resolution authorized Somerville to sign Ap
  • Table, Place of Use -
    - Browne & Durham, 1859 S. Copper Lantern Lane, Hacienda Heights, CA 91745 17 a in S27 T18N R6W
    - Alfred F. Gaddini, Stonyford, CA 95979; 85 a in S21 & S22 T18N R6W
    - E.G. Kerns, Star Rt., Elk Creek, CA 95939; 50 a in S 11 T18N R6W
    - Richard Knight, Star Rt., Elk Creek; 40 a S15 T19N R6W
    - Jas. E. Mars, 1565 E Ave Q-12, Palmdale, 93550 20 a S10 T18N R6W
    - Clayton Moore, Star Rt. Elk Creek; 21.5+5.8+42.5+39.9 a S15 & S16 T18N $6W
    - Warren Sandstrom, Stonyford; 150 a S2 T17N R6W
    - A.T. & Kenneth Smith, Star Rt., Elk Creek; 160 a in S2 & S3 T18N R6W, 160 a S34 T19N R6W
    - A.R. Soeth, P.O. Box 649, Willows, CA 95988 520 a S27 T19N R6W
    - J.W. Somerville, 520 Jessie St., San Francisco, CA 94103 240 a S22, S23 & S26 T19N R6W
    - Evelyn Spurlock Box 1006, Willows 95988 64 a S3 T18N R6W
    - C.W. Westcamp, Star Rt., Elk Creek; 33 & 20 a S35 T19N R6W, & 2 a S10 T18N S6W
    - David H. Wood, 337 [?] Polk Way, Livermore, CA 94550 80 a S2 T18N R6W
  • 021077 Check list attached to front of Application: Stony Creek Water district, OC rec'd 02/10/1977, $10 fee 02/11/1977, total fee $48, stream code 0-030-00-00-0 map code F12 Quad Stonyford, "I suggest we hold this till Monday 14 Feb 77 and talk to Spencer [?] about assignment of a portion of the USBR Max Annual Amount or petition to change the place of use of the USBR Amt. DGC 11 Feb 77; "Talked to LCS 2/10/77 he suggested calling USBR" "2/17/77 LCS said to file JMK [?] 2/14/77"

    [100% of this Ap seems chargeable against USA rights under the Decree, for which they'd have to reduce the per-acreage Project diversion to supply it]
    021177 contact report, Mr. George Wilson, Reclamation to or by Kletzman/Div WRights: "Mr. Wilson said that the application was requested of SCWD in order to keep track of the water and to alert staff to the fact that it is not an illegal diversion. The suggestion came from LCS [who is LCS? Spencer?]. [para] A water swap is involved. East Park Res. water for Black Butte Res. water in accord with the Orland water users. [para] Water from the USBR release will not be used on lands which have adjudicated rights belonging to individual members of SCWD. [para] USBR will monitor water use and will have stipulation in permit that water right invalid without USBR contract."

    UNDATED "3. Point of Diversion
  • Diversion Reach No. 1
    - Little Stoney [sic] Creek including a portion of East Park Reservoir beginning at a point on the southerly line of Section 2, T17N, R6W, MDB & M, near the south quarter corner of said Section 2. Thence northerly and downstream along said East Park Reservoir and Little Stoney Creek to its intersection with Stoney Creek near the NW corner of the S 1/2 of SE 1/4 of Section 10, T18N, R6W, MDB & M
  • Diversion Reach No. 2
    - Stoney Creek beginning at the point of intersection of the center line of said Stoney Creek and the southerly line of Section 16, T18N, R6W, MDB & M, near the SE corner of the SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 of said Section 16. Thence northerly and downstream along said Stoney Creek to its intersection with the north line of Section 15, T19N, R6W, MDB & M, near the northeast corner of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of said Section 15."

    021477 form letter Rosenberger/Div WRights to Somerville/SCWD ap accepted, additional $38.00 required by 03/14/1977
    022377 letter Somerville/SCWD to ??, enclosed balance due
    031877 letter Somerville/SCWD to Kletzman/Water Resources Control Engineer, enclosed are two maps of SCWD, let him know if anything else needed
    032477 contact report, Kletzman/Div W Rights & Somerville, "told Mr. Somerville that his acreage breakdown conflicted with the total. His map was not in accordance with Sect. 673 & 680 of Article 5 Title 23 "
    040877 contact report, Kletzman/Div W Rights & Somerville, "Mr. Somerville came in and delivered a revised place of use list and a corrected map."
    041277 contact report, L.C. Spencer contacted Glenn Peterson ; "Mr. - George Wilson of...Reclamation contacted L.C. Spencer requesting that the notice clearly state that this is exchange water. This will reduce protests by eliminating unnecessary protests. [para] An example of a notice of this type is found in A 24136 [Al Eames] except that in that case it was a partial exchange and this is a complete exchange. [para] If there are questions about this, [Reclamation] contact is George Wilson at Telephone No. 484-4474."
    050577 letter Pettitt/Senior Engineer to Somerville/SCWD, SCWD "as the - sponsoring public agency, appears to be the appropriate lead agency for the preparation and circulation of a final environmental document." Reclamation advises you want CEQA info: under 14 CAC 15080-2 lead agency conducts an "Initial Study" to determine whether EIR or NegDec. etc.
    051077 contact report Somerville/SCWD phoned Weisser/Div WRights, wanted more info on EA; & "He asked me if his application was at a stand-still because of the environmental assessment. I told him that it was not. The advertising period had not started yet and I told him he should receive some instructions soon. I also advised him not to prepare and circulate an environmental document until the completion of the advertising period and the resolving of any protests." [so how do environmental protests and resulting settlement terms make their way into the environmental review? where is the public participation? is this process backwards?]
    051277 letter Pettit/Senior Engineer to Somerville/SCWD enclosed is a copy of Title 14 CAC Art 7, initial environmental assessment
  • Sections 15080-15088
    082277 contact report M. Van Zandt & "Ken Fellows DWR says Stony Creek Water District has been an official district for some time."
    083077 letter Spencer/Supervising Engineer to Somerville/SCWD; no unappropriated Sacramento watershed July or August water available but in your case you will be getting it from Reclamation so the permit will show that; with roving PODs, you'll need to declare intended PODS at the beginning of each season;
    UNDATED Instructions to Applicant, publish notice in Willows Journal for 3 consecutive weeks starting no later that 11/17/1977 and file proof of publication with SWRCB by 12/27/1977
    102877 Notice of Application to Appropriate Water (loose ones in back of file are dated 12/30/1977 ? see below, not published within the time specified)
    UNDATED Mailing List for Application
    UNDATED form letter Rosenberger/Div WRights to Postmaster, please post
    110177 Protest Contra Costa County Water District; impairment of quality - of protestant's water supply; permit 3167 (ap 5941) & also a CVP contractor; diverts at Mallard Slough SE 1/4 of SW 1/4 of S1 T2N R1W MDB & M; settlement: "Conditions that will assure there will be no decrease in Delta inflow during dry and critical years." /s/ Frederick Bold, Jr., Attorney for Protestant [Bold & Polisner, Walnut Creek]
    111077 form letter Spencer/Div WRights to Somerville/SCWD protest received, answer due us by 01/11/1978, can extend for settlement
    111077 form letter Rosenberger/Div WRights to CCWD , protest received, no further action at this time
    120577 Affidavit of Publication, Willows Daily Journal
    UNDATED Instructions to Applicant, readvertise because original notice not published within the specified time limit; by 01/19/1878, proof of publication by 02/28/1978
    UNDATED Renotice mailing list
    123077 Notice of Application to Appropriate Water [like the loose ones in the back of the file]
    ?????? Application Route Slip many dates 02/11/1977 - 01/03/1978

    1978


    010678 certified card to SCID
    013178 Affidavit of Publication, Willows Journal
    032078 contact report John Somerville called Kite/Div WRights, callled to ask about the status of the ap; told him SWRCB was waiting for SCWD answer to CCWD protest; said hadn't received that or the form letters ofr 11/21/1977, sent him copies, gave him 20 days
    033078 letter Somerville to SWRCB re CCWD "...our belief that this - concern is unfounded. [para] We are not proposing to reduce the amount of water available to others. Rather, we are proposing to exchange with the Orland Water Users water as yet unappropriated in the Black Butte Reservoir for water in the East Park Reservoir. The net result would not influence any other water users rights. On the contrary, the Orland Water Users and others will benefit by our proposal because they will not suffer the evaporation and other losses now experienced in transporting water from East Park to Black Butte...."
    040678 form letter Spencer/Div WRights to Somerville/SCWD, response to CCWD protest received, will let you know if a hearing is necessary
    040678 form letter Rosenberger/Div WRights to mailing list; need to know if you want an "in lieu" or a hearing.
    051678 letter Spencer to mailing list, have not received your stip on hearing or in lieu
    052278 letter Somerville to Spencer/Div WRights, in lieu OK, stip enclosed
    052278 Proceedings in Lieu of Hearing, SCWD signed stip
    052378 Proceedings in Lieu of Hearing, CCWD signed stip
    060578 letter Spencer/Supervising Engineer to Somerville/SCWD, stip received from all parties, in lieu will be scheduled, usually includes a field investigation by staff engineer

    1979


    010579 contact report Webb/Div WRights [who called whom?]; "Don Kite - called [?] Mr. Somerville re a protest he filed against another application [Andreotti?]. He wanted to know why the same process can't be used re his A25261. I told him it had been assigned and that he would receive notice of the in lieu when its scheduled. I also told him I'd have L.K. Fong phone the protestant to see if there's any chance they'll withdraw the protest rather than go to an investigation. [para] He feels the in lieu will be a waste of time because there's really nothing for anyone to see and because the application is to cover water purchased from the Bureau so no water belonging to the protestant is involved. I told him it appears he does not need an application - he said he had been told this by several of our people but the Bureau will not sign a contract for the water supply unless he has a permit. [para] Action items Leo - review file - call protestant to see if protest will be withdrawn - call Somerville re results of call to protestant - put contact report in file re your contacts, schedule in-lieu if necessary"
    011279 letter Webb/Hearing Section to Bold/CCWD , listed out the terms proposed for the permit, asks based on protest terms in protest if those will suffice
    011679 letter Bold/CCWD to Webb/Hearing Section CCWD protest is withdrawn on the condition the permit include your terms
    012379 letter Webb/Hearing Section to Bold/CCWD thank you, we now show CCWD protest withdrawn & the terms will be in the permit, cc to Somerville
    020679 letter Jessie Westcamp/Secty-Treasurer SCWD heard no word, what's happening?
    020779 contact report Smith/Div WRights called Somerville/SCWD , status of environmental documents? "...said that the protest was just recently resolved and they could not start the environmental review until then. He indicated that they felt a NegDec would be appropriate for the project. I informed him that it would have to be determined by the findings of the Initial Study. Also the documents would have to be circulated through the SCH by the SCWD to ensure proper review." will call back if any questions
    030179 letter Micka/Environmental Unit to Jessie Westcamp/SCWD, processing of ap "has been slow due to the delay in resolving the protest against it. Contra Costa County's [uh, actually CCWD?] November 1977 protest was not conditionally withdrawn until January 1979." [maybe if you had phoned them earlier with your proposed terms?] now waiting for environmental docs so if you hurry up with them....
    081679 contact report Wong/Div Wrights & Somerville/SCWD, "Applicant as [lead agency] has prepared an Initial Study ready to be sent to SCH for circulation. No ND document is prepared yet to accompany the Initial Study, as I told Mr. Somerville to make mention in the Initial Study that the intention is to draw up an ND for this project."

    082279 letter Somerville to Wong/Div WRights enclosed is SCWD Initial Study
  • UNDATED Initial Study, Application 25262 [sic] of Stony Creek Water District; SCWD "consists of 15 individual ranches located along approximately 10 miles of Stony Creek. Each ranch is responsible for its own diversion which will either be through a private ditch by gravity or by portable pump placed near the ditch during times of operation and removed from that location at other times. No permanent construction along the creek is proposed and no obstruction to the normal flow of Stony Creek will be created [except by dams?]. [para] The season will be March through October of each year." "No known archaeological or historical sites are on file." [uh, no archaeologists listed in the persons contacted, either. Try John Bidwell.]
    - Persons Contacted, References [no references, just persons contacted]
    - 060279 letter Bell/Farm Adviser U.C. Ag Extension; improving irrigation improves just about everything....
    - 121278 Resolution [78-15] of the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Glenn Making Determinations and Approving the Proposed Annexation of Territory to the Stony Creek Water District Designated As: Browne EtAl Annexation
    - - list of 8 properties to be annexed
    - - Report of Executive Officer on Proposed Annexation to the Stony Creek water District Designated As Browne, EtAl Annexation.
    - 111478 Resolution [78-14] of the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Glenn Making Determinations and Approving the Proposed Detachment of Land from Stony Creek District, Designated as Moore/Ellerman Detachment
    - - list of 3 properties to be detached
    - - map Stony Creek Water District Exhibit A, parcels involved? annexed? detached?

    083079 contact report Wong/Div WRights & Somerville/SCWD; "I mentioned to Mr. Somerville that the Initial Study he sent to us would be returned for him to have circulated through the State Clearinghouse. After having looked over the I.S., I advised Mr. Somerville that it appears to be inadequate and can possibly be commented on by public agencies unless he chooses t revise it by being more descriptive. Specifically, this would be the season of diversion and uses and amounts of use. He said that they will vary at times and does not think exact numbers should be used. I suggested that it will be best if he does use the numbers as it appears on the application and mention that they will vary and include an explanation for that. The resolved protest on the application was not talked about in the I.S. so I advised Mr. Somerville to include that too. Mr. Somerville cannot find in his files the samples and instructions we sent to him before, so I said that we will send a sample I.S. and necessary forms to him and that the sample I.S. can give him an idea of what his I.S. is lacking since he has thorough knowledge of his project; but if he thinks it's appropriate already, then send 15 copies of it to SCH. I also explained the procedures for NOP & NOD."
    083079 mini-memo Wong/SWRCB to Somerville/SCWD, sending I.S. back to you, send to SCH, "blank form for circulation is enclosed along with sample copies of environmental documents."

    091379 contact report Wong & Somerville: "I called regarding circulation of documents. It is not carried out yet. Mr. Somerville is wondering why all this processing has to be done and why he has to apply with us when he said some of our staff had in the past mentioned that it was not needed. Since the filing appears to have some questionable content, I asked for an explanation of the project. Mr. Somerville said that the application is for the applicant to purchase water from USBR Black Butte Reservoir which in turn is to be exchanged for water from Orland Water Users' East Park Reservoir. He added that his water district is downstream of East Park Reervoir and upstream of Black Butte Reservoir and that there is no unappropriated water at the location. He asked if a permit from us is required if water is to be gotten from federal property. Based on this information I first questioned him about the information contained in the application, Initial Study, and our letter of" 08/30/1977 "since they indicate diversion from Stony Creek, not from the reservoir. He said that such information will have to be corrected and repeated that the application is for water from Black Butte Reservoir, not directly from Stony Creek. I pointed out the discrepancy in the first paragraph of his" 02/06/1979 " letter [p. 2] which reverses the exchange procedure. He said that it is supposed to mean what he already described, only that it should have been worded better. In C.R." 01/05/1979 ", there is mentioned that USBR will not sign a contract with SCWD until a WR permit is obtained. This didn't look right since Mr. Somerville did mention earlier that SCWD had been contracting with USBR yearly. He clarified this by indicating that SCWD wants a 40-year contract and USBR will not sign that but will sign yearly ones. Regarding his letter of " 03/30/1978 ", I asked him if he is sure about the word 'unappropriated' or is it only misused since unappropriated water cannot be stored in a reservoir. He said USBR had used that word when informing him of the water he will be contracting for but he has now found out that USBR used it to mean water USBR applied for but is not using. He now would like to know if a permit from us is needed and what we now will be doing with his application. I told him that I'll submit this information to my supervisor who will decide what more is to be done with this and I will let him know whether or not circulation to SCH is to be held off depending on the decision. I also said that I can't supply him the answer regarding [p. 3] "the need for a permit since the application review if it is to be handled again will be done by another unit here. Mr. Somerville says that USBR had, more than 5 years ago, obtained approval from us for the future contracting with other water users in selling water [Ap 18115, D1100, reservation for upstream therein, for instance? if so, not an approval but a requirement]. I then briefly mentioned that if this is true, then it might mean that SCWD will not need a permit from us; but that if there was no such approval, then he might have to apply to divert from the creek provided that there is unappropriated water available. I did, however, tell him that this is not a definite answer for him but only to give him an understanding of what we will be looking into. In answer to his question regarding the necessity for a WR permit if water is needed from Federal property, I told him that it is required unless the water is to be diverted from a source not contiguous with a waterway that runs through the property (i.e. spring)

    091479 contact report Yang & Spencer, "Check with Mr. Spencer regarding the reason to file the subject application. He said that the application was file [sic] to divert any unappropriated natural flow available in Stony Creek when the East Park Reservoir & Stony Gorge Res. and their canals are full. Since the water may not be always available during the diversion season of the year and every year, the District is required to have a valid contract with USBR to supply water for its member [sic]. The application can take water when it is available disregarding the filling of Black Butte Res. because the filling of Black Butte Res. is subject to county of origin rights. Action Items Advise the District to revise the IS reflecting the facts of the application."

    091779 contact report Larry Wong/Div WRights & J. Somerville, "Since - information that MSY obtained from LCS does not agree with what Mr. Somerville told me in my CR" 09/13/1979 ", I presented it to him to see if he disagrees with it. Mr. Somerville still says that 100% of water that SCWD wants is to be released from East Park Reservoir after it has been exchanged for with water from Black Butte Reservoir. I asked him to describe all conversations he had with USBR and us prior to filing application. His description is as such: Ken Maxie & George Wilson of USBR talked with our Division Chief. He was not told of what information was obtained by instead was paid for his travel by USBR to see our Division Chief later. Division Chief was not in at the time so he was referred to Jack Kletzman. USBR does not necessarily require him to obtain a WR permit but only to find out our decision-- if we withdraw an application he files if one is not necessary, then USBR will sign 40 year contract. USBR is presently monitoring the water use in their yearly contracts. Kletzman told him an application is needed and one was filed. The PODs are along the creek to obtain released water from East Park Reservoir. No reason was given by Kletzman for necessity of application. [para] I told Mr. Somerville that I'll submit the conflicting information again and see what action we will take. He desires to have a personal meeting with our unit and applications section arranged by us if we still do not accept this as being the correct information.

    091779 contact report J.W. Somerville/SCWD returned call to M.Yang/Div WRights, "Mr. Somerville returned my call of this morning. I told him the District's application 25261 would allow the District to divert surplus natural flow from Stony Creek against Black Butte Res. based on County of origin right. The District could then purchase whatever water deficit from USBR. He told me that the District did not want to divert any surplus natural flow and would like to purchase all of the needed water from USBR since the District had to sign contract for certain fixed amount of water. I transferred his call to Mr. Spencer since LCS was the original person suggesting the need for this application. I have no clear idea whether the application is needed if the District will not divert surplus natural flow."

    091979 contact report M. Yang & L.C. Spencer, "Asked Mr. Spencer the - conclusion of his talk with Somerville on" 09/17/1979 ". He said that Somerville already understood the case and Somerville was advised to discuss the case with George Wilson who would be the Water Master [uh, where did this come from? Angle record shows George Wilson first coming up as proposed Water Master in filing of 05/26/1982 Doc # 22; different kind of water master ? ] Somerville would get back to us in couple week to inform us if the District still wanted this application."

    092679 letter Sabiston/Hearing Section to Somerville/SCWD, "Some - confusion has developed.... [para] Please be advised that Application 25261 is required and a permit should be obtained. One of the reasons your District needs a permit is that it will be diverting unappropriated water at times and not exchange water stored in Black Butte Reservoir. This would occur when your District is diverting water during spring months of years when East Park Reservoir and Stony Gorge Reservoir were spilling and Orland Unit canals were fulll. Diversion of water by your District during such times would not be under your exchange contract because the water would not be U.S. Bureau of Reclamation water. Such water would be unappropriated water, and you would need a permit to divert it. [para] Another reason is that District lands are not included in the place of use specified under the Bureau permits. It is important that all lands receiving water under an appropriateive right be included in an authorized place of use on file with this office. [para] Another matter requiring clarification is your responsibility, as lead agency, in complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). You must circulate 15 copies of the Initial Study and Negative Declaration to the State Clearinghouse (SCH) for state agencies' review. After the SCH review is complete and you have responded to the comments received, you should file a Notice of Determination with the Secretary for Resources and County Clerk. A copy of the Notice of Determination, Negative Declaration, Initial Study, any comments received, and your response to the comments should be sent to us. To avoid confusion, your existing Initial Study should be expanded to explain the water right application and the exchange contract. It should state that the District would divert both surplus natural flow in Stony Creek when it is available and Bureau of Reclamation water released from East Park Reservoir and purchased under an exchange contract involving water stored in Black Butte Reservoir. We have expanded pages 1 and 3 of your Initial Study to take care of this. [Where?] Please see the enclosed pages. [para] Also enclosed for your assistance in preparing the proper documents are copies of Negative Declaration and Notice of Determination forms which we use when we are lead agency for a project...."

    UNDATED map Stony Creek Water District Exhibit A, 214-208-5776 [map number?]; shows SCWD parcels on photo of topo map, East Park to Stony Gorge`
    UNDATED Negative Declaration, SCWD, John W. Somerville
  • UNDATED Initial Study, Application 25261 of Stony Creek Water District - "...will divert both surplus and natural flow in Stony Creek when it is available and Bureau of Reclamation water, released from East Park Reservoir and purchased under an exchange contract involving water stored in Black Butte Reservoir." SCWD, 15 individual ranches along 10 miles of Stony Creek [aren't some parcels along Big Stony above where water from East Park comes in?] "Each ranch is responsible for its own diversion which will either be through a private ditch by gravity or by portable pump placed near the creek during times of operation and removed from that location at other times. No permanent construction along the creek is proposed and no obstruction to the normal flow of Stony Creek will be created." "Fish will not be adversely affected by the project because no changes in the creek are proposed [except for the annual dams]." "No known archaeological or historical sites are on file. [John Bidwell reported that in 1844 there were thousands of Indians along the creek through there.]
    - Persons Consulted, References -
    - 070279 letter Bell/Farm Advisor to whomever, beneficial use, more - stable community, "reduces the cost of producing animal food and fiber."
    - 111278 Resolution No. 78-15, Resolution of the Local Agency Formation - Commission of the County of Glenn Making Determinations and Approving the Proposed Annexation of Territory to the Stony Creek Water District Designated As: Browne EtAl Annexation
    - - Exhibit A, list of parcels annexed -
    - - Report of Executive Officer on Proposed Annexation to the Stony - Creek water District Dexignated as Browne, EtAl Annexation (Resolution No. 78-15)
    - 111278 Resolution No. 78-14, Resolution of the Local Agency Formation - Commission of the County of Glenn Making Determinations and Approving the Proposed Detachment of Land from Stony Creek District Designated As Moore/Ellerman Detachment
    - - Exhibit A, list of parcels detached -

    102379 route slip from Kathy Haitz, comments attached [regarding?]
    110279 contact report Perry Wong to/from CNPS Microfilm (1977) SWRCB, "no rare or endangered plants are present on or near the project area"
    UNDATED Request for Cultural Resources Evaluation, "POU is either currently irrigated, dry farmed or pasture: diversion will be through existing canals or portable pumps in creek." "No historical resources determined to be on or near the project area"

    110879 letter Peterson to Huddleson/Div Planning & Research, and - Sabiston/Div WRights; "Environmental Setting section should discuss the fisheries of Stony Creek. Possible adverse impacts to the fishery resources should include addressing the effects of the alteration of the streamflow due to the subject diversion and the possible adverse impacts related to pumping from the stream. Pumping from the stream channel can cause entrapment and destruction of fish life. [para] The fact that no sites have been recorded in an area does not mean that no sites exist which could be adversely affected by the project. In an area the size of the District, field surveys should be conducted by qualified archaeologists on any areas not already extensively disturbed by human activities, which will be irrigated by the project. These areas could include the natural pasture areas mentioned in the Initial Study. [para] In addition, supporting references or sources should be included for each of the conclusions reached in the Potential Environmental Impact section." 2 copies [none of this was done?]
    111379 memo Holland/Div Planning & Res to Burns/Resources Agency & SCWD, comments attached from SWRCB

    101679 Check for Permit, checklist, fee $24
    111979 Issuance of Water Right Permit, checklist, recommend approve
    112879 contact report Vogelsang called Somerville/SCWD "I called Mr. Somerville to explain our requirements concerning the comments we submitted to his Initial Study (as requested by Cindy Cowden of" Reclamation. "I told Mr. Somerville that the document seemed deficient in the areas of our comment and that we would like further clarification. I told him the lead agency needed only to respond to the comments to proceed to issue a Notice of Determination. [para] We reviewed the comments. I suggested he describe the situation of the fisheries as he saw it and provided him a reference for his archeological section. He felt that the lands had been disturbed to the extent that no further disturbance to any possible sites would occur because of irrigation. I told him to explain why he did not reference his conclusions as per third [?] comment as best he could. I told him to submit his response to the SCH and send a copy to us and proceed to prepare his Notice of Determination. Sent a copy of Not. of Det."

    112879 letter Somerville/SCWD President to Vogelseng/Div Wrights, - "1) In the section of Stony Creek under discussion large portions of the creek either go dry or underground during most summers. When this project gets underway there will be a more even flow of water in Stony Creek and the opportunity for fish to proliferate will be markedly enhanced. [para] In this area the most common fish found are carp with an occasional bass or cat fish. There are no trout. Sport fishing is uncommon. [yeah, now.] It is common practice to have screens over the intake hose to specifically avoid sucking up fish and other foreign objects that might be injurious to the pump. [velocity at screens?] [para] 2) There are no known archaeological sites in the project area. Nearly all of the land to be irrigated has been previously farmed. Additional Reference: File of Archaeological Site Report Sacramento - California Parks and Recreation. [para] 3) We feel the supporting reference and sources are sufficient for the document. Additional documatation [sic] should not be necessary to justify the conclusions reached." [this has to be the skimpiest initial assessment on record]

    120479 Notice of Determination, by Somerville -
    122079 Review Summary and Certification of Review of Final Negative - Declaration (SCH79102604) for Application 25261 of Stony Creek Water District to Appropriate water from Little Stony Creek and Stony Creek in Glenn County

    1980

  • 012980 Certification of Review of Environmental Document Prior to - Decision [attached to Review Summary]

    011780 memo Campos/Div WRights to Board, environmental documents attached for Ap 25261, no adverse comments
    012980 letter Dupuis/Permit unit to Somerville/SCWD, ap approvied please send $24 within 10 days
    021077 Application to Appropriate Unappropriated Water, work copy
  • 120176 letter Westcamp/Stonycreek Water District to SWRCB, authorized John W. Somerville to sign ap for appropriation
  • 040877 List of landowners & parcel size & locations -
  • 021477 Point of Diversion schedule
  • 041577 revised List of landowners & parcel size & locations -

    020680 Permit for Diversion and Use of Water #17823 on Ap 25261, max 12 cfs & 3,000 a-f/yr; in effect only so long as Reclamation contract is in effect, submit schedule of diversion points at beginning of each season
    020680 letter Sabiston/Div WRights to Somerville/SCWD ; permit enclosed, annual reports, after project is completed & inspected will issue license.
    030480 letter Beyer/Engineer to Somerville , permit had an error, s/b S15 NE 1/4 of NE 1/4, not NE 1/4 of SE 1/4

    1981


    021781 Progress Report by Permittee for 1980; "No construction is involved - each District Member will pump or gravity from the Creek as an individual." 95 acres irrigation (sudangrass 50 a, oats 25 a, perm-pasture 70 a [?]), stock watering 40 animals, domestic 14 people, 1-1/2 acres gardens & orchards, total 47 a-f for season; "#7 - We're just getting started while awaiting a permanent federal contract for water. We will be developing more acres to our maximum over a period of years...5(A) the 70 Ac. permanent pasture was seeded in sept so acreages overlaps with the sudan acreage" /s/ Jessie Westcamp, secty/Treasurer
    123181 Progress Report by Permittee for 1981; "No construction is needed as each member pumps or gravities from Stony Creek. No distribution or storage needed. 2 meters area in use, & when in use of water, other members will have meters." 70 acres permanent pasture, no stockwatering under this permit, domestic 8 people - 3/4 acres gardens & lawn, 126 a-f for season "This District of 15 membrers, by contract with USBR, has been given till 1991 to develope [sic] to full potential. At present only 3 members have used water. The season ('81) was shortened by early rains and cool temperature." Jessie Westcamp

    1982


    112382 Progress Report by Permittee for 1982 "No construction is involved in this District - we each pump or gravity out of Little Stony and Big Stony Creeks to our own fields." 72 acres, 70 pasture, 2 sudan grass, 130 a-f season; "SCWD has just gotten its permanent contract from USBR and our 15 members have a period of 10 years to develope [sic] to our full potential use of approximately 3000 a-f so we should be using more each year till then (1992)." Jessie Westcamp

    1983


    121283 Progress Report by Permittee for 1983 "No construction necessary for this project" 72 acres permanent pasture, 8 persons domestic about 1 acre, 95 a-f metered, sprinkler irrig--no runoff; "Our Bureau of Reclamation contract allows us 10 years to develope [sic] our needs to a max of 2905 a.f." Jessie Westcamp

    1984


    113084 Progress Report by Permittee for 1984 "No construction was needed - each member pumps or gravity flows direct from Stony Creek under control of the USBR; 75 acres permanent pasture; 450 head stockwatering & seasonally stockwater not measured; domestic 15 ranches 3+ acres; 133+ a-f for the season; "very little goes back into creek except thru the porous soil - mostly sprinkler irrigated" "I think not - not much is used here in the way of chemicals other than fertilizer which is under-applied because of cost." "SCWD under contract with USBR, has until 1992 to develope [sic] to a full use of approximately 3000 a.f. or whatever amount less than that we get up to by then." Jessie Westcamp

    1985


    UNDATED Progress Report by Permittee for 1985 337 permanent pasture total; 515 head of stock, 2.25 acres garden; fishing; 990 a-f total, to minimize erosion "maintaining vegetative cover & regulating amounts of flow"; "one member's 'tail water' returns to creek. Most of the water used is regulated so there are no return flows (by sprinklers or lands not draining into any but small dry creeks (1 other member)"; undated/unsigned
    120985 Petition for Extension of Time , "Because our USBR contract for exchange water from Black Butte Reservoir allows us till 1992 to make full use of our 2,920 a-f"; "the ET figures from Gerber [?] tell us we should be using more, not less, on the sprinkler projects. Water costs & / or pumping costs will force conservation more & more"; Jessie Westcamp

    1986


    012486 Monthly Notice of Petitions Received During Month of December, 1985
    013186 letter Webb/Investigation & Serveillance to Westcamp/SCWD, not in compliance, 1) no copy of contract, 2) no annual notice of points of diversion
  • 020386 handwritten thereon, "Ms. Westcamp called, will send in necessary info"
    022086 letter Webb/Investigation & Surveillance to Westcamp, thanks for the quick response, nothing further needed at this time
  • handwritten "Note: the contract is filed in the Report folder"
    022186 Protest California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Ap. Nos - 25261; public trust: need "to maintain adequate quality and quanities [sic] of water at all times, and timing of streamflows from all points of diversion and storage to protect and maintain the existing fish populations and habitat." Settlement: proof that this has been done and ordered in the permit, proof of adequate measuring devices
  • 031386 pencil "not accepted" dlH
    032086 letter Hemmer/Protest Unit to Crenshaw/CSPA cannot accept - protest, no showing of change in fishery conditions since the permit was recently considered, "issue will not be re-examined in the absence of a showing of change of conditions attributable to the extension of time."
    051586 letter Hemmer/Assoc. WRC Engineer to Baiocchi, re multiple aps, 05/06/1986 Lloy Johnson letter "outlining some of the requirements of our protest procedures", wish to amend? 30 days from this date , and thereafter for good cause case by case;
    120986 Progress Report by Permittee for 1986 ; 323 acres; permanent pasture 222 a, sudan grass 100 a, garden & orchard 1 a; watering 635 head of stock; season total 785 af "Stony Creek Water District has until 1992 to develope [sic] to its full potentiaon of 2920 a-f", Jessie Westcamp

    1987


    041387 F Annual Report for Water Season of 1987 schedule of diversion points, 5 by temporary gravel dams, one by "buried siphon in East Park Res." [out of date order]
    113087 Progress Report by Permittee for 1987 ; 220 acres permanent pasture; 500 head stock; usage tallies to 1142 a-f for season, "we are still growing and developing for the next several years."

    1988


    110988 Extension of Time on a Water Right Permit and Any Associated Petition for Changes; to 12/31/1992; "no protests"; "the extension of time will not alter public trust considerations made at the time that the permit was issued. The continuing authority term will be replaced by the Board's current version. Additional conditions do not appear warranted at this time." recommend approve
    111688 Order Approving a New Devlopment Schedule and Amending the Permit; extended to 12/31/1992 & added Term 12 public trust boilerplate
    111688 letter Mork/Petition Unit to Westcamp/SCWD petition to extend time approved, note changes
    121588 Progress Report by Permittee for 1988 ; 250 acres permanent pasture, 2 domestic uses; 998 a-f season total, "We have a 40-year contract with USBR to develope [sic] up to a total of 2920 a.f. We have 14 individual members in various stages of development - no 'system' is needed as all the diversions are by gravity or individual pumps." Jessie Westcamp

    1989


    041389 F Annual Report for water season of 1989, list of diversion points, 5 by temporary gravel, one by siphon from East Park Reservoir [out of date order]
    120589 Progress Report by Permittee for 1989 ; 300 acres or a little less, permanent pasture, plus family orchards; watering 300 head of stock; unspecified domestic, usage tallies to 1295 a-f; "We are adding new lands & other members plan to begin or add more acres to irrigation as rapidly as possible." [lands already approved?

    1990


    032990 F Annual Report for water season of 1990, list of diversion points, 6 by temporary gravel, one by siphon from East Park Reservoir [out of date order]
    120890 Progress Report by Permittee for 1990 ; 300 acres - irrigated pasture 293 - alfalfa 7; 223 head stockwatering (part-time many more); domestic, 2 farms 1 acre each; 871 a-f tallied for season; sprinkler irrigation & low-head where flooded; "runoff, if any, is into Stony Creek or dry (mostly) tributaries. The farms are widely scattered & with both water & pumping costs soaring, virtually none is discharged;" waste? if any would be mainly from livestock; "We are about half-developed as yet because of costs of efficient irrigation systems, power costs, etc. Two more ranches have been accepted into the District so projected water use should increase (if the drouth decreases!)" [change in place of use from original permit?] Jessie Westcamp

    1991


    032191 F Annual Report for water season of 1991, list of diversion points, 6 by temporary gravel, one by siphon from East Park Reservoir
    120691 Progress Report by Permittee for 1991 ; "no construction is needed"; approx 262 acres; permanent pasture 245, alfalfa 7 ac [adding problem?], 300 head of stock estimated, 4 ponds (bass fishing) [unpermitted use?]; domestic 30, 10 or more acres; 961 a-f season total; "During the 5th yr of drouth, we received only 25% of our contract amount. Our members are still in the process of trying to achieve more or full developement of the District's potential." Jessie Westcamp

    1992


    060192 F Annual Report for water season of 1992, list of diversion points, 6 by temporary gravel, one by siphon from East Park Reservoir

    1993


    020893 Progress Report by Permittee for 1992 ; "no system needed - just individual diversions on Stony Creek"; 400 + acres; perm. pasture 393, alfalfa 7, 3 ac gardens, orchard yards, etc.; 650 head of stock; 12 people domestic 5 acres estimate; fire protection; 1194 a-f season total, Jessie Westcamp
    020893 Petition for Extension of Time, "No construction is needed. We have 15 members, 7 active users, 1 planning a system who hopes to be active this season, the others trying to decide whether to proceed."; 5-year extension; used 1150-1200 a-f, 400+ acres irrigated; houses, 3 families, more indirectly as irrigation keeps domestic wells alive; "took on two more active users." estimate fully "by 1997 when a $6.00 surcharge on federal" water "goes into effect"; delaying conditions: "Energy costs, drouth, general economic malaise, time constraints on absentee owners." Conservation: "Sprinklers and/or drip are being contemplated for areas which can't be gravity-flowed. One member siphons from East Park Reservoir at no energy cost" Jessie Westcamp
  • 021693 inked thereon DFG $850.00
  • 021693 inked thereon $50
    030193 Declaration of Exemption, Falkenstein
    030893 CDFG Environmental Filing Fee Cash Receipt $850.00
    031193 February 1993 Notice of Petitions Received
    032693 CSPA Bob Baiocchi Public Trust Protest and Public Trust Complaint - by California Sportfishing Protection Alliance; no mandatory minimum flow requirements, cumulative impacts with 18115, asking for EIR on both "In 1870 the California Legislature enacted Penal Code 637 which required 'as far as practicable' fishways over obstructions in the State's rivers and streams. The court ruled that Taylor's dam on Papermill Creek violated Penal Code 637 by failing to keep the fishway in repair to allow fish to move upstream [See Taylor v. Hughes (62 Cal 32 1882)]"; & F & G Code 5937, from 1915 statute, requres dam to pass sufficient water to keep in good condition any fish that may exist or be planted below the dam, SWRCB challenge in CalTrout v. SWRCB 207 Cal.App.3d 585 (1989); public trust deriving from Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. State of Illinois (1892) 136 U.S. 452; California Constitution Art 1 Section 15 right of the people to fish on public lands [including federal lands?]; must fund an IFIM study to determine the minimum amount of water to be maintained in Stony & Little Stony "to protect public trust resources."; SCWD, Reclamation, GCID & all others must fund a "cumulative impact analysis of the Stoney [sic] Creek watershed to determine the cumulative impacts to the public trust resources from the diversion and storage of water." with a hearing by the SWRCB; & check for entrainment at the multiple diversions;
  • 092493 pencil thereon: not accepted rpm

    042893 contact report Meroney called Jessie Westcamp/SCWD, "I called Ms. Westcamp for clarification on the Extension of Time. Review of the files shows the applicant is irrigating approximately 400+ acres and has a right to irrigate 1591 acres from March 1 through October 31 in the amount of 12 cfs. Irrigating 400+ acres nets out to approximately 1.3 cfs. [meaning? permit was for 2.5 times too much?] The permit was issued in 1980 and an Extension of Time was granted in 1988. [para] Ms. Westcamp explained Stony Creek Water District consists of a group of 15 ranchers, of which only 6 - 7 are actively pursuing ranching and putting water to beneficial use. I asked if she anticipates anyone else within a year to start irrigating and she indicated there was one possibility who would irrigate between 160 - 300 acres. Ms. Westcamp also indicated the 1591 acres was not all irrigatable due to topography. Review of the petition change under #13 (reasons use of water was not complete) showed energy costs, drought, general economic outlook, and time constraints on absentee owners. Ms. Westcamp said the drought had nothing to do with not putting the water to beneficial use. Apparently, some members cannot decide whether or not to pursue ranching and a few plan on retiring in the area."

    052193 handwritten note LLS [?] to Dave RB, Pat ask [sic] to have the file looked "to determine if revocation was in order. After reviewing the file I think the hearing unit should act on the protest based on its merit... either accept or reject (current letter rejects protest). [para] We can then process extension. If the extension is denied for lack of diligence then an inspection would be needed to determine the use to date & possibly a license issued."
  • note on the note "I concur, DRB"

    061493 F Stony Creek Water District, Annual Report for 1993, lists 7 diverters, 6 by temp gravel, one by siphon
    100693 letter Anton/Div WRights to Baoicchi, protest not accepted, "time extension proceeding is limited to consideration of the effect of the time extension itself; not other issues which are relevant to a State Water Board action to approve or deny a new application." & no "specific factual evidence that the public trust resources of Little Stony and Stony Creek are being harmed, or that Stony Creek Water District is impacting the public trust resources of these creek systems." Enclosed copies of the diversion point listings that they had
    120193 unsigned, SCWD to SWRCB, additional $6.20 per a-f in CVPIA make it unlikely any additional land will be added, therefore ask to withdraw extension request, go onto licensing, and refund CDFG fees.
  • 121593 pencil note thereon, "Larry, this has been cleared through from the protest process. Pat M."

    121393 Staff Recommendation, Extension of Time on a Water Right Permit and any Associated Petitions for Changes, recommend approval extend to 12/31/1999
    123193 Order Approving a New Development Schedule, to 12/31/1999
    123193 letter Attaway/Petition Unit to Westcamp/SCWD extension approved

    1994


    020394 letter Pettit/Director to Baiocchi/CSPA , will not reinstate - the protest, "According to the rather limited environmental review done prior to this diversion, this reach of Stony Creek typically dried up in the summertime. [not so, per Angle transcripts] Therefore, most of the water reported by the applicant as diverted under this permit is actually water delivered from East Park Reservoir. Granting the extension of time would not have a significant effect on flow conditions during low flow periods, because, at these tiems, the applicant is diverting previously stored project water under contract and not using his water right permit. The only time the permit is used is during high flow events when the impact of this limited diversion on Stony Creek is not significant when compared to the three existing reservoirs and other direct diversions. [para] Your letter questions whether the Division of Water Rights' (Division) process for handling time extensions complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and our 1980 legal opinion. Yes, they do. The 1980 legal opinion you referenced points out that the" SEWRCB "can add conditions to water right permits or licenses in response to Petitions for Changes or Requests for Extensions of Time. The opinion does not indicate that such additions or review is mandatory [uh, it is always mandatory if there is a finding of significant mitigatable impact, and pretending not to see them is improper]. In many cases conditions are added at such times. The memo also points out that changes to permits and licenses are subject to CEQA. The Division conducts an environmental review on each change petition. Ed Anton's" 07/08/1993 " memo [MISSING] amd flow chart clarifies the processing requirements of change petitions. It was developed with the assistance of the Department of Fish and Game and our legal staff. It emphasizes CEQA compliance and the need to upgrade public trust and public interest terms, as appropriate. [para] Your complaint deals with flow conditions in Stony Creek below East Park Reservoir. If you want to pursue this matter, I recommend you become familiar with the existing biological and hydrologic conditions in the reach of concern, the projects that most affect flows in this reach and the specific actions you feel are necessary to protect the public trust resources and the public interest. George Wilson....Once the facts are together and you have decidedd the action the State Water Board should take, you can then file a complaint with the Division against specific water diverters and/or users...."
  • 110293 letter Baiocchi/CSPA to SWRCB including Pettit/Executive - Director "Ed Anton, and Roger Johnson have been working on in-house procedures to deny environmental protests on petitions for time extensions. Specifically Ed Anton and Roger Johnson have repeatedly not accepted CSPA environmental protests on time extensions. [para] On" 07/08/1993 "Ed Anton submitted to his staff his in-house process in dealing with petitions for extensions of time, protest, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)....[para] On" 09/29/1980 "Carole Atherton, staff counsel for the Board submitted an internal legal opinion concerning whether additional conditions may be added to permits in response both to petitions for changes and to requests for extensions of time, and whether new conditions may be added to licenses in response to petitions for change.... [para] It is clear that Ed Anton's newly adopted inhouse process has ignored the legal opinion from the Board's counsel when developing the recent process in processing protests of petitions for extension of time. Also, Ed Anton's process violates the Board's continuing authority which gives the Board the authority to order conditions over and above those contained in water right permits and licenses. [para] It is no secret that Ed Anton and Roger Johnson, and the staff of the Environmental Unit have had significant disagreements on how CEQA is applied and the environment protected. In our view the opinions of the staff of the Environmental Unit are also being ignored by Ed Anton and Roger Johnson. We do not appreciate that the environment is being treated as though public trust resources should be ignored.....We have advised Ed Anton and Roger Johnson that when petitions for extension of time and petitions for changes are filed with the Board that the Division's staff should review the water right permits and licenses to determine whether mandatory flow requirements were incorporated as a condition to protect public trust resources. Ed Anton and Roger Johnson have ignored that request...." p. 4: "Based on the records he provided me, the most water put to beneficial use is 1365 acre-feet in 1993 or less than half the amount permitted. Consequently, more than 50% of the permitted water will be used [added] by the petitioner in the future, and that increase has the potential to have direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to the fish and wildlife resources, water quality, and riparian habitat in Little Stony and Stony Creek. Permit 17823 includes use for about 650 head of cattle [no it doesn't, that was not a permitted use]. Historically, cattle grazing has adversely impacted streambanks, fishery and aquatic habitat, and riparian habitat. Consequently there is a potential that the water diverted under Permit 17823 for cattle grazing can have adverse impacts."

    1994


    012594 Progress Report by Permittee for 1993 "No construction needed"; 260 acres approx perm. pasture, 7 ac. alfafa hay, 440 head of livestock; 12 persons & 2 acres domestic; fire protection; tallied total 1085 a-f for season
    042094 F Annual Report for 1995 7 diverters, 6 by temp gravel & 1 by siphon, diversion points & amounts [out of date order]

    1995


    032295 Progress Report by Permittee for 1994 "No construction work"; No construction work; permanent pasture & alfalfa; 490 head of stock; domestic 30 persons, 3 acres, gardens, yard, etc.; 1124 a-f season tally; "The District has a water conservation plan approved by USBR"
    100295 F Annual Report for 1995 7 diverters, 6 by temp gravel & 1 by siphon, diversion points & amounts [out of date order]

    1996


    062196 Progress Report by Permittee for 1995 ; irrigation; approx 550 head of livestock; season total 717 a-f
    042996 F Annual Report for 1996 7 diverters, 6 by temp gravel & 1 by siphon, diversion points & amounts
    UNDATED Closing form for file folders, go to vol. 2

    CORRESPONDENCE VOL. 2 OF 2

    1997


    030797 Progress Report by Permittee for 1996 ; irrigation 300 acres; 425+ head of stock; 1362 a-f total season; "We have a conservation plan previously approved by the Bureau (USBR);" "#7 - We don't know - 2 members who had planned to expand have not as yet done so. Four other members are requesting exclusion because of high pump costs etc. and the depressed cattle market. We will probably just go to license when the next extension of time will be required."
    051297 F Annual Report for 1997 7 diverters, 6 by temp gravel & 1 by siphon, diversion points & amounts
    081399 F Annual Report for 1999 6 diverters, 5 by temp gravel & 1 by siphon, diversion points & amounts; J Somerville 291 acres went to Humane Farming Ass'n 300 acres, and Gaddini 30 acres temp gravel went away;

    1998


    021098 Progress Report by Permittee for 1997 ; 356 acres, 460 head of stock; 6 domestic 2 acres; season total 1167 a-f; "#7 - 2 ranches have changed hands to new owners who plan to develop more irrigated lands so we plan greater use of our contract (USBR) water; [out of date order]
    093098 F Annual Report for 1998 6 diverters, 5 by temp gravel & 1 by siphon, diversion points & amounts; "The former Gregory property [450 acres] has been sold to Jesse Turner" "The former Somerville property has been sold to the Humane Farming Association" " The Gaddini property has been withdrawn from the District" [out of date order]
  • note appended, "Dear Sirs?; This is Late - what a strange year - one member hasn't started irrigating yet! Jessie Westcamp, Secty/Treas."

    100998 F letter David H. Wood, President/SCWD to Streetars/Div WRights, - proposed reapplication to extend time to include month of November; "Conversations with your Kathy Bare today have indicated that because any and all diversions during November of water under our new contract with the Bureau of Reclamation will be purchased water, we will not be required to reapply at this time. This is because we have no rights to Angle Decree water during November. [para] However, since someone in The Bureau of Reclamation has raised the question of a State Permit, our contract is being held up. We therefore request that you provide a letter stating that a change in our permit is not necessary to allow diversion of purchased water during November...." w/copy to Reclamation contracting officer Donald Bultema

    102698 letter Bare/Div WRights to Wood/SCWD "If diversion of water by - the District during the month of November is entirely purchased water, it is not necessary to reapply for a water right permit."

    1999


    022099 Progress Report by Permittee for 1998 ; irrig pasture, orchard, alfalfa; 450 head of stock; domestic 6 acres, 10 people, yard trees, etc.; season total 646 a-f; conservation: "stipulating that the new lands planning tree & vine crops must use drip irrigation"; "We recently amended our USBR contract to include the month of November in our diversion season. This is all purchased water under USBR's right on Black Butte reservoir." "I've never really known whether to answer YES or NO on the Contruction section. There never has been any 'District' construction of a system as we are just a string of individuals, each responsible for his/her own diversion point construction & maintenance."

    123199 permit expired, no action

    2000


    030500 Progress Report by Permittee for 1999 ; 343 ac. irrigation; 590 cattle; domestic 16 people 30 acres; season total 1357 a-f; conservation: "Rising water costs cause us to be as frugal as possible"
    072400 F Annual Report for 2000, 6 diverters, 5 temp gravel & one siphon [out of date order]

    2001


    061301 Progress Report by Permittee for 2000 ; 329 ac irrigation; 405 head cattle, 40 goats; domestic 22 persons 3 acres gardens, etc.; 1592 a-f season total;
    070901 F Annual Report for 2001, 6 diverters, 5 temp gravel & one siphon [out of date order]

    2002


    050602 F Annual Report for 2002, 6 diverters, 5 temp gravel & one siphon
    052402 Progress Report by Permittee for 2001 ; 320 ac irrigation, 500 cattle, goats, 300 emus; domestic 9 persons, 4 acres; season tally total 1392 a-f ; "drip irrigation on 18 acres - water & power prices dictate prudence."

    2003


    030703 F Annual Report for 2003, 6 diverters, 5 temp gravel & one siphon
    071503 Progress Report by Permittee for 2002 ; "We amended our contract to include the month of November"; "Several members must start to take water by whatever means befoe any more fees are due or else will have to elect to go to license": irrig 325 acres, 30 bison, 250 cattle, 87 goats, domestic 3.5 acres & 10 persons; season total 1409 a-f; "Price of both water and energy demand frugality"
    102203 F return on Div WRights form to confirm mailing address [out of date order]

    2004


    040804 Progress Report by Permittee for 2003 ; "No 'work' is applicable--District members can still begin using this supplemental water"; estimated date of completion: "whenever we get a fee charge" [?]; 384 acres pasture; 300+ cattle, 250 goats; season total 720 a-f; conservation "Price of water is a natural deterrent to over-use"
    051304 F Annual Report for 2004, 6 diverters, 5 temp gravel & one siphon [out of date order]

    2005


    031405 fax, Progress Report by Permittee for 2004 ; "Only members deciding to use District water who are as yet not irrigating remain" [?]; 300 acres irrig., catle, horses, goats, wildlife; season total 691 a-f; conservation: "price precludes over-use" [out of date order]

    2006


    030906 Progress Report by Permittee for 2005 ; "11/30 amended contract"; "no physical work - only members later may decide to irrigate." [uh, annual construction of gravel berms?] completion: "Any time" [?]; 300 acres irrigation; 480 cattle, 10 horses, 200 goats; municpal: "by transfer to 2 entities, unknown population - 44 af" [are they selling water to somebody, like maybe Elk Creek?]; season total 439 a-f; conservation: "Price of water requires prudent use"

    UNDATED loose map with parcels 39 & 40 in S2 & S3 T18N R6W, "Brent Noble APN's...." may go with 2007 Annual Report

    2007


    032707 F but 08/20/2003 fax p. 4 of letter from Ted W. Trauernight of Plaintiff's Committee [?], "You also agree to stay current on the fees and costs as billed from" 05/01/2002 "into the future. Time is of the essence in making all payments referred to in this Agreement." below Ted's sig: "The foregoing is agreed to and accepted as of the date of this letter, /s/ Jessie Westcamp" & name typed [what is all this about? what Plaintiff's Committee?]
    032707 fax Progress Report by Permittee for 2006 ; "members plan to irrigate more acres"; completion: "?"; irrigate 300 acres, water cattle, horses, goats & wildlife; 536 a-f season total; conservation: "Price and delivery costs (electric & earth/gravel moving costs [sounds like construction]) pre-clude over-use"
    052307 F Annual Report for 2007, 6 diverters, 1 siphon, 2 by pump (Westcamp & Smith) rest by Dam [first record of Dams on Stony Creek in this permit file]; new ownership Brent Noble 70 acres for H. Browning

    2008


    050208 Progress Report by Permittee for 2007 ; "members plan to irrigate more acres"; irrigate 300 acres; season total 790 a-f; conservation: "Price and delivery costs preclude over-use"; Jessie Westcamp, 940 County Road 303, Elk Creek, CA 95939

    2009


    050409 F Annual Report for 2009, 6 diverters, 1 siphon, 2 by pump (Westcamp & Smith) rest by Dam [out of date order]

    Cat: 9 Misc VOL. 1 OF 1

    041982 Contract No. 2-07-20-W0261 R.O. Draft 7/23-1981 United States - Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project, California, Contract Between the United States of America and the Stony Creek water District Providing for Project Water Service and Agreement on Diversion of Water; p. 9 "amount paid for bears" ... :-)
  • Exhibit A, Schedule of Monthly Diversions of Water
  • Exhibit B, map, Stony Creek Water District 214-208-5776 [map no?]
  • 120581 Stonycreek Water District Resolution No. 81-4, approve Reclamation contract
  • UNDATED Water Season 1986, 6 users, 1 siphon & 5 temporary gravel
    Where is:
    1968 Reclamation Report "Factual Report Projected Land Use and Water Requirements - Stony Creek Water District"
    Return to Stony Creek Water Wars.

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