Glenn County - Tehama County - Colusa County , California.
(c) 2009, Mike Barkley (06/11/2009)

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

THE STONY CREEK WATER WARS - SWRCB APPLICATION A027382 - Colusa County at Stonyford [Stonyford Service Area]

[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 ]

[Inside of file cover]

Permit to be Issued Before 2-8-84 Unless Protested
Application Permit 20308
Applicant County of Colusa
Date Filed 07/08/1982 Maps Filed 07/08/1982 County No. 6 Fee $10.00

  • 031083 James E. & Mary Mars. Answered 04/26/1983 Dismissed or Withdrawn 01/23/1986
  • 031083 Elaine G. Kerns A. 04/26/1983 D. or W. 01/23/1986
  • 031183 J.W. & G.F. Somerville A. 04/26/1983 D. or W. 01/23/1986
  • 031583 Gary G. Gregory A. 04/26/1983 D. or W. 01/23/1986
  • 031583 A.T. Smith A. 04/26/1983 D. or W. 01/23/1986
  • 032283 JeAnn Elaina Soeth Brock A. 04/26/1983 D. or W. 01/23/1986
  • 032283 Dept. of Interior Kerns A. 04/28/1983 D. or W. 03/06/1986
  • 032283 Charles W. Westcamp A. 04/26/1983 D. or W. 01/23/1986
  • 032283 Richard Knight A. 04/26/1983 D. or W. 01/23/1986

  • 030283 Stmt of Posting
  • 030789 Permit 20308 Issued;
  • 083000 Report of Inspection

  • 070882 Application $10.00
  • 022289 Permit $100.00

    Map Code

    F-12 Quad Name Stonyford 7-1/2


    110885 Return to sender/not forwardable envelope, Gary G. Gregory
  • 110885 letter Bieg/Div WRights to Mcdonough/atty, re request for Hearing; 1) CEQA issues accepted for hearing, 2) availability of unappropriated water between May and November in normal and dry years accepted for hearing, 3) public interest in allowing a municipality to appropriate water without provision for future growth is not relevant, & availability of water from East Park seems part of issue #2, 4) use under the ap degrade quality of water used by protestants & others, received same issue after protest period expired from Elk Creek CSD & Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, but no evidence offered so not accepted for public hearing;
    012386 Return to sender/not forwardable envelope, Gary G. Gregory
  • 012386 letter Bieg/Div WRights to Mcdonough/atty, received stip for dismissal of protests, signed by Basye [pronounced "basey"] for applicant, McDonough for Mars, Somerville, Kerns, Smith, Gregory, Knight, Westcamp, Brock; stip limits diversion to 09/15 - 04/15 & 10 a-f/year, protests are dismissed
    032186 & other postmark dates Return to sender/not forwardable envelope, Gary G. Gregory
  • 030686 letter Bieg/Div WRights to Hancock/Reclamation, as per their instructions protest dismissed

    October 1966 Map, County of Colusa, Stonyford Service Area, Legend: School, House [& businesses?] (51?), Abandoned House (5)
    June 1977 Map, County of Colusa, Stonyford Service Area (2 copies)
    July 1979 Map, County of Colusa, Record of Survey, location of well sites across Stony & N/W of town

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


    052678 memo Spencer/Div WRights to Parsons/Div Planning & Research; -- last year all flow down Stony Creek ceased by early summer many Stonyford area wells went dry [how deep?]; Conclusion "The Stonyford area is little more than a wide portion of the Stony Creek valley. The Stonyford area probably has a small storage capacity, filling up during the winter and spring months. During Summer and fall, groundwater pumpage and groundwater outflow to the lower Stony Creek canyon drains most of the stored water." but see engineer's declaration, Declaration D.E. Kienlen, Civil Engineer w/Colusa County, in Angle archives, 06/15/1984, Doc. #58, aquifer/underflow total estimated at over 10,000 a-f, rapidly recharged at the beginning of each season. (another copy)
    060578 letter Spencer/Div WRights to Landon/Landon Engineering; re: -- Mr. Parsons' report, wells pump from underflow


    060482 Colusa County Board of Supervisors, Resolution No. 82-38; -- condemnation action, County v. Westcamp, for well sites & constructed wells to serve Stonyford; court issued conditional judgment requiring County to obtain water rights for the wells; County argued and argues the water is percolating groundwater, but the Court adopted SWRCB referee's report that it's underflow; authorizes Kienlen to file with SWRCB for a permit for 40 a-f 01/01 - 12/31; no waiver of legal position; Kienlen & Basye authorized to negotiate for contact with Reclamation for water outside of availability period;
    062382 New Application cover slip, stream code 0-030-00-00-0; In -- adjudicated area? "No (is Federal)"
  • 062382 Application to Appropriate Water, S 1) 140' & 2) 400' W 1155' -- from center Section 29, N/E 1/4 S/W 1/4 S29 T18N R6W, Colusa County 2 wells; municipal & fire protection, 01/01 - 12/31; agent D.E. Kienlen, 2012 H Street Suite 201, Sacramento, CA 95814 916/443-2593; supplement "2. The water sought under this application is only the water, if any, produced by the County Wells which may be diverted from underflow of Stony Creek or flow within a defined groundwater channel. In making this filing the County does not waive its legal position that all water diverted from these wells is percolating groundwater obtained from a groundwater basin." "3...70 connections providing water service to a population of 250 and two commercial establishments. Under full development, the total number of connections is estimated to be 80." "...0.8 cfs is the maximum...average...less than 0.2 quantity of 40 acre-feet per year is for municipal purposes....quantity required for fire protection will be an intermittent demand...cannot be estimated and is not included in the quantity requested." "County proposes to enter into a contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for an amount of water to the extent needed during the period May 1 through October 31 when the State Water Resources Control Board has determined unappropriated water is not available from Stony Creek." "9. The County asserts that all or a substantial portion of the water diverted by these wells is from a groundwater basin and it has a right to divert water from the groundwater basin."
  • Environmental information; "4....Domestic waste is disposed of in -- septic tanks" "8...Wells installed during an emergency -- exempt from EIR." "III. Fish and Game Concerns. "Since this application involves groundwater, no contact was made."
    062382 letter Kienlen to SWRCB enclosed is application & $10
    070882 letter SWRCB to Kienlen , ap accepted, $4 fee, $10 minimum, $10 received
    072782 Water Conservation Review from Application section, "not a new project"
    080382 letter Atherton/SWRCB to Kienlen ; ap contingent on applicant accepting & incorporating at least 2 water conservation measures acceptable to the board; County is lead agency/SWRCB the responsible agency for environmental document; after soliciting & receiving comments, County must file NOD with Secretary for Resources; if exempt, County should notify SWRCB of that decision;
  • 081682 letter McDonough/atty to SWRCB, wants copy of Ap 27382
    090882 letter McDonough/atty to SWRCB, add him to Ap 27382 mailing list
    101982 letter Atherton/SWRCB to Kienlen, please respond to 080382 letter on conservation measures, further processing contingent
    123082 letter Kienlen to Atherton/SWRCB, 1) will contract with County School offices for 2) DWR water awareness program & 5) "encourage adoption of local water conservation policies and ordinances."; 1) County enacted a NOD 07/12/1977, 2) Res. 77-95 ratified filing application with FHA on behalf of the Service Area, 3) letter 05/26/1978 from State Clearinghouse verifying compliance.


    020283 letter Atherton/SWRCB to Kienlen, will incorporate the conservation measures into the permit
    020283 note Atherton/SWRCB to Art/WRC please include conservation measures in the public notice
    020883 Instructions to Applicant; enclosed 4 copies of the public notice, post 2 in a conspicuous place, furnish proof of posting by 03/21/1983
    020883 mailing list
    06/82 list of addresses for rights mailings (continuation)
    020883 Notice of Application to Appropriate Water; Project, application content, environmental, protests...., contact
    020883 Contact memo to other agencies, copy of notice, any comments? any approval from you needed and if so will you act as CEQA lead agency? no response in 40 days assume no interest
    020883 Notice to Postmaster, please post
    070682 Route sheet - Application unit
  • UNDATED Completion Checklist
    020983 and thereabouts, 4 certified return receipts, unclear from whom: Beldrum, Westcamp, Cox, Bell ?
    021183 memo Jensen/CDFG to SWRCB ; concerns: 2. riparian or streamside vegetation, 3. Wildlife habitat, 5. Fish spawning habitat, 9. Water quality and/or quantity

    052678 letter Greene/State Clearinghouse to Clark/Colusa County, SCH #77053192 construct new domestic water system; review complete
  • 060182 Board of Supervisors resolution 82-38, same as above
  • 043081 Colusa County Superior Court, Announcement of Intended Opinion, -- #14932; Neg dec seemed to cover formation of the service area only, not the drilling of the wells, else, seems to be a notice problem; drought was over before the "resolution for necessity of condemnation" adopted, but purpose valid when started and not rendered invalid with the drought ending before project was finished, hence no injunction; Westcamp argues all water is underflow, court referred to SWRCB which agreed and with which the court agrees and adopts the SWRCB position; from new alluvium clearly underflow, from old is not so clear?; reasonable probability of condemnable use dependent on approval of rights application, but county argues it can amend to condemn the water, but if so probably all the water rights of this defendant would need to be condemned, not just the rights for this 1/10 acre; County has avoided an SWRCB ap? question remains as to the legality of the county supply; county argues it is merely trading the water in the old wells for water from the new, but the old were from old alluvium where the new is split, so argument fails; limiting the wells to old alluvium would reduce flow to 5 gpm, inadequate; court finds no itent to use, conditional dismissal: unless county within 18 months "procures water in sufficient quantities that it can legally use at the well sites...the action will be dismissed" with costs & attorney fees to defendant; if not dismissed, costs and attorney fees on the issue of the right to take; if county procures the right, may move "for further trial on the issue of right to take and to reopen the case in this regard." 18 months extendable if proof of reasonable probability;
  • 082081 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Colusa Superior Court, -- #14932; water furnished to Stonyford from these wells since early 1979, 27.41 a-f used as of 01/30/1981; Westcamp has protested the taking of water from wells on her property from before the resolution of necessity and the filing of this action; parties stipulated to referral of underflow issue to SWRCB; 07/15/1980 SWRCB referee report filed in this action; Court does not believe County can obtain surface rights to support these wells outside of the rainy season; etc.
  • 081981 Conditional Judgment of Dismissal, 18 months to procure a -- sufficient water right, else fees & costs to Westcamp, jurisdiction reserved to allow County to make its efforts, prepared by McDonough
  • 061277 Notice of Determination, Board of Supervisors to County Clerk; EIR #77-7 Formation of County Service Area - Stonyford Water; NegDec
  • 062277 Negative Declaration Form, FONSI
  • 062277 Negative EIR, Initial Study, County of Colusa EIR #77-7; "informed sealed ballot election was conducted by County Supervisor T.K. Marshall", 34 yes, 6 no, 203 acre district; "resultant of of a determined need by the County Health Department, the Board of Supervisors and the residents in the interest of the health, safety and welfare of the potential consumers. The system will prevent contamination from septic tanks in the area...." parepared by County Staff, Landon Engineering, and Attorney-at-Law Harold Wilsey, Jr.
  • 062277 Environmental Checklist Form; maybe ground movement and disturbing power & gas;
  • 091675 Colusa County Ordinance #311, rezone lands on road from Stonyford to East Park? [why part of this packet?]
  • 090677 Coulusa County Board of Supervisors, Resolution 77-95, Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Colusa County Ratifying Filing of Application with FHA on Behalf of Colusa County Service Area No. 2 - Stonyford; loan & grant to improve the water system of the Service Area
    021883 Statement of Posting Notice, County Sheriff, on the Stonyford Town Bill Board, and on the bill board in the Stonyford Post Office
  • 020883 Notice of Application to Appropriate Water, as above

    030783 Protest James E. Mars and Mary I. Mars, 1565 E. Ave. Q-12, Palmdale, CA 93550; 805/947-3964 "injury to us as follows: In dry years like 1976 and 1977, lost five big pine trees, many bushes and vines, also a nest of wild trukey [sic] and one of mud hen left my area and went else where because vegetation was not enough to support them"; claims "Angle Decree of 1930", Payne diversion, NE 1/4 of NW 1/4 Section 6, crossed out changed to 16, T18N R6W; downstream from wells; protested accepted Dismissal terms: none 04/28/1983 NDK
    030883 Protest Elaine G. Kerns, Star Rte. Elk Creek, CA 95939, 916/963-3028 "...injury to me...diverting extra water during irrigation months of April through September would mean deprivation of enough water to irrigate permanent pasture. Even in average years the water supply is very low in summer. The further strain of use by municipality wells could mean no water for the land. at the most critical time."; claims under Angle Decree 1877 & 1902, 221 a-f, "Irrigation, stockwater and domestic by Wakefield, Whally, and others. Present owner began use in 1951, has used all of water allowance from April to October of each year." NW 1/4 of SE 1/4 S10 T18N R6W downstream from wells; Dismissal terms: none accept 04/28/1983
    030783 Protest J.W. & G.F. Somerville, 4J Ranch Star Route, Elk Creek, CA 95939 916/968-5100 " us...possible loss of irrigation and livestock water during dry spells similar to mid seventies. Possible polution [sic] of water resulting from use in Stonyford." "Riparian Claim dates to 1881 and provides 140 acre feet during irrigation season each year. Contract with Bureau and Water District date from 1974. Water is used to irrigate pastures." downstream, SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 of S26 T19N R6W Dismissal terms: none accept 04/28/1983
    030983 Protest Gary G. Gregory 23144 Twin Canyon Drive, Grand Terrace, CA 714/825-7128 "injury to me....In a drought year, the water drains downstream through the alluvial fan providing the ranch with pasture and stock water. Any water taken out of the creek above my ranch can obviously not reach my ranch, and in a year such as 1977 water cannot be supplied from East Park Reservoir as an alternate source because it is dry"; claim Angle Decree; rights dated 1878-1908 for 670 Acre feet of Water; (former Triplett diversion), "continuously since 1878 - 670 acre feet, to produce permanent pasture for stock", NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 1 (changed to 11) T18N R6W Dismissal terms: none accept 04/28/1983
    030983 Protest A.T. Smith, Star Rte Elk Creek 95939 913/963-3039 "to me...In drought, the water taken from the underflow that would normally percolate or flow downstream as a part or all of my Angle right, can't be replaced from East park if the dam is dry as it was in 1977." claim Angle Decree use date 1905 and 1912 for 39 Acre-feet; "From 1905 and 1912 39 acre feet used for stock water year-round and for irrigated pasture, yard, orchard from April through October." NW 1/4 of SE 1/4 S10 T18N R6W downstream, Dismissal terms: none accept 04/28/1983 NDK
    031583 Protest JeAnne Elaine Soeth Brock, et al., Star Rt. Elk Creek CA 95939 no phone; "to us...In dry years we get a large proportion of our water from the gravel basin where this diversion is located, even when the stream up there is dry. Any amounts withdrawn will not come down & in a drought can't be replaced from East Park if it is too low." claim Angle Decree 1892 & 1908 appropriative right; "Since 1892 - approximately 134 Acre feet (subject to watermaster confirmation because of land division) - year round for stockwater, Apr thru Oct for permanent pasture"; NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 S11 T18N R6W; downstream, Dismissal terms: none accept 04/28/1983 NDK
    031783 letter Schild/Reclamation to Walsh/Div WRights , "diversion -- requested could, in most years, impair the water supply of the Orland Project and other holders of prior rights in the Stony Creek watershed." "serve as our notice of protest", dismissal terms: 1. "demonstrated to our satisfaction and the [SWRCB] satisfaction that the Applicant has obtained an agreement or agreements for a supplemental water supply which are in effect and cover the full amount of water diverted during the period March 15 to October 31." "2. Permittee shall submit to and pay its proportionate share of the cost of the water master service provided for under the Angle Decree....and shall abide by and conform to all orders of that water master in the exercise of its rights uner this permit unless otherwise directed by the [SWRCB]." Dismissal terms: none accept 04/28/1983 NDK
    031883 Protest Charles W. Westcamp & Leslie L. Westcamp, Star Route Elk Creek, CA 95939 916/963-3085, "to us...During dry years the water taken by Colusa County won't come down to us, nor can it be replaced when East Park is dry. We feel this is a foot-in-the-door to keep taking more in the future." claim Angle Decree...1890 right in the Appropriative schedule for 3.8 Acre Feet. use "Since 1890 - stockwater year-round and garden spot in summer." NW 1/4 NW 1/4 S11 T18N R6W downstream, Dismissal terms: none accept 04/28/1983 NDK
    031883 Protest Richard Knight, Star Rte, Elk Creek CA 95939 916/968-5167 "to ??, In drought years we get very little of our entitlement - any water removed above us will not come down and this can't be replaced from East Park when it is too low." claim Angle Decree, use "since 1883 stockwater year around, irrigated pasture and other crops from April through October." downstream, Dismissal terms: none accept 04/28/1983 NDK

    032383 letter McDonough/attorney to Chandler/Div WRights, Westcamp objects because "applicant does not have access to those points of diversion, as determined by" conditional judgment. [can't get access without the permit, can't get permit without the access....]; "In the past you have held that the issue of access should not be raised by protest, but should be handled separately. I will file a protest on the above ground if you will receive it."
  • 081981 Conditional Judgment of Dismissal, another copy
    040583 Contact Report, Jessie Westcamp called Chandler/Div WRights, errors in Gregory & Mars protests; Mars section 16, not 6, former Payne per Jim Hansen; Gregory Section 11 not 1, former Triplett; helped them fill out their protests; made corrections
    040583 letter Gregory to SWRCB , error on diversion point location s/b Section 11; also James Harmon diversion on right side of stream, Abe Triplett on left side
    040983 letter Gregory to SWRCB , error on diversion point location
    040983 letter Mars to SWRCB , should be S16
    041283 Protest Elk Creek Community Service District Board of Directors; P.O. Box 117 Elk Creek, CA 95939, 916/968-5193, now 530/968-5249 Environmental: "The proposed development that water is to be diverted for, around East Park Reservoir, could eventually result in the contamination of our water supply from Stony Creek. Without the proper sewage treatment, contaminates that may reach our water treatment plant could not be removed by our present form of water treatment. This would make our water treatment plant virtually useless. [para] The Colusa County Board of Supervisors has declared that the ground water supply of Stonyford has been polluted by septic tanks. This polution drains through the highly porous gravels of Big Stony Creek directly into Glenn County, hence to Stony Gorge Reservoir; this places a strain oun our water treatment plant. [para] This was brought to our attention on 04/09/1983." "/s/ Arva Jean Waldron P.O. Box 117, Elk Creek, CA 95939; 916/968-5193 or 968-5242", or now 530/968-5249 "Accept NDK" crossed off
    041983 contact report Kienlen called D.W. Salston [?], wants to go in-lieu on hearing ASAP; "Al Yang indicates that this one may be exempt from CEQA since it is quite small, is already built, and has no obvious effect on in-stream values. County prepared Negative Declaration several years ago on creation of the service area. [para] Proceeding in lieu of hearing may be the proper way to proceed (Filante [?] proceedings).
    042283 letter Basye to SWRCB, request that board rejects the Elk Creek CSD Board protest dated 04/12/1983, 1. not filed within the time prescribed; 2. no way in which diversion of 40 a-f to the town's water supply could result in pollution of Elk Creek water supply [depends on who you ask];
    042283 letter Basye to SWRCB, answers on behalf of Colusa County for Protests by
  • Knight
  • Kerns
  • Mars
  • Gregory
  • Westcamp
  • Smith
  • Brock,
  • Somerville, all similar, "not believe that Protestant will be adversely affected by the County's use of water. [para] The County...will enter into a contract with...Reclamation for exchange water from East Park Reservoir. The Protestant can divert water released which will enter Stony Creek above the Protestant's point of diversion. The County also has acquired Angle Decree rights which it believes to be at least equivalent to its use of water during the irrigation season. [para] Finally, it is the County's belief that the effect of the county's well water withdrawals, even in a dry year, would not reach the Protestant's point of diversion which is located [3 to 9] miles downstream from the County's wells"
    042283 letter Basye to SWRCB, answer
    042583 Answer to Protest of Reclamation enclosed
  • 042583 Answer to Protest of Reclamation "...Colusa has requested a -- contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation which will cover all of its annual anticipated use of water. The County proposes to purchase and pay for a full annual supply of domestic water equivalent to the County's full annual requirement, in view of the relatively small amount involved. This will extend beyond the term of the March 15 to October 1 period mentioned in the Bureau's Protest. [para] This contract with the United States will satisfy any claim by the United States that the County's appropriation will not adversely affect the rights of the United States or those served by water from the Bureau's project."
    050583 [note on front, This protest is filed late because of lack of notification we were only notified recently. L.P.] Protest Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, P.O. Box 98, Elk Creek, California 95939 916/968-5344, environmental, "Water for the Elk Creek service district drains from the East Park dam area to the Stonyford dam and then to the Elk Creek service district. Any drainage into East park dam water ends up in Elk Creek. Because of the high porosity of the soil around Elk Creek [crossed off, changed to East Park] dam, any septic tanks placed there will drain into the East Park dam water, thus polluting water flowing to the Elk Creek service district. That will place too much of a strain on the Elk Creek service district water treatment plant."
    060383 letter Bourez/SWRCB to Protestants; your protests have been received and accepted; applicant says he's answered, SWRCB proposes term "Rights under this permit are, and shall be, subject to existing rights determined by the Angle Decree, Equity No. 30, Northern Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, dated January 13, 1930 insofar as said decreed rights are maintained and such other rights as may presently exist."; if you don't respond otherwise within 15 days we will assume you agree and dismiss your protest, else, a field investigation.
    060383 letter Bourez/SWRCB to Reclamation, applicant response does not state that he agrees with your dismissal terms and we're asking him to address that
    060383 letter Bourez/SWRCB to Elk Creek CSD, protest not accepted: 1. Diversion serve Stonyford only, not development around East Park; 2. Contamination of the 2 reservoirs not related to this diversion, try elsewhere, 3. protest raises issues related to another project or cannot be considered as water rights issues; 15 days to file for reconsideration on environmental considerations if you file "a statement of facts identifying the specific resources affected by the proposede diversion (e.g. trout fishery, riparian habitat, campground, scenic vista, etc.) and the expected effects on those resources."
    060383 letter Bourez/SWRCB to Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, diversion does not affect development around East Park, protest not accepted; we'll let you know if you wish if a hearing or investigation is held;
    060383 letter Bourez/SWRCB to McDonough/atty: protest on the basis of access issue not accepted since the permit is required to gain access; your client, Westcamp, has filed on injury to vested right, accepted, so if any other issue is involve she will have the opportunity to bring it up for resolution [eh?]
    060783 contact report Reiter/Reclamation called Kontos/SWRCB "any objection should applicant agrees [sic] to the terms proposed in the Bureau's protest. I told him that we will not have any objection. Then he asked me wheter we would use their terms in addition to the term we proposed to the other protestants in our [06/03/1983] letter. I told him that their terms refer to different issues and, therefore, we will use them in addition to our proposal."

    060883 letter Smith to Bourez/SWRCB; don't want to dismiss, "there has never been enough water during the summer months for everyone that has a water right below Stonyford, especially during the year 1977. Our ranch depends solely on underground water for stock and domestic use along with our agriculture needs based upon our water right. We are strongly opposed to permits issued that may interfer [sic] with out Angle Decree rights." happy for a field investigation;
    061083 letter Mars to Bourez/SWRCB; NO NO WAY will we dismiss, "Big Stony Creek is our only source of water, ant that would be giving our life away."
    061283 letter Brock to Bourez/SWRCB; "Angle Decree term proposed does not by any means alleviate our concerns, nor do I have any intention of withdrawing our protest." etc.
    061283 letter Gregory to Bourez/SWRCB; "I do not desire to dismiss my protest at this time...a field investigation would be very much in order"
    061383 letter Somerville to Bourez/SWRCB; "I do not feel your proposal adequately protects my water rights. [para] Traditionally there is not enough water for those who already have rights and this applicant would be taking its water up stream from the older, established users. [para] I feel this is a 'foot in the door' type situation where applicant is attempting to mussel [sic] in on the Angle Decree and the established water users, with the probable result of creating future serious shortages and expensive law suits. [para] There is no reason nor justification for the applicant to acquire rights just because they want them and at the expense of those who have historically and legally come to expect Boards such as you to protect their rights to what water is available from this source."
    061383 letter Westcamp to Bourez/SWRCB; "we do not wish to withdraw our protest" "(1) In average/dry years there isn't enough water to serve the Riparian and Adjudicated rights already on the stream. (2) This requested diversion point allows water to be intercepted which would otherwise drain downstream through the gravel then down the solid rock channel running the four miles to our diversion point. [para] In 1977 when no water would run out of East Park Reservoir, we had enough water from this draining alluvial fan for the livestock and pasture on the four ranches at this lower diversion point. Only two marginal fields were lost."
    061683 letter Kerns to Bourez/SWRCB; "I will not withdraw my protest... [para] term...still leaves me to wonder how well it will or can be enforced. [para] Since water collection would be above my irrigation intake point, would be continuous, and probably heavier in summer, it could most certainly affect my Angle Decree water rights. Damage might occur before someone could correct it. [para] 2. Furthermore, in the Colusa County project being undertaken, although it appears tentatively that the present town of Stonyford will be the beneficiary of this system, I have seen no legally binding stipulation, or even a suggestion that the water would be limited to these subscribers. Rather, a municipal system could invite a 'bedroom' or resort community development that in no way contributes to the agricultural economy. Actually the domestic use of water would be antagonistic to irrigation use during a water shortage. [para] I am convinced that municipal systems that tap irrigation water supplies are fraught with danger for agriculture. Instances of this are a matter of record. [para] But in this instance if any official study had ever proven that the natural flow of Stonycreek in summer contains enough water for all, including future subscribers, one could feeel reassured. In fact, such proof does not exist because we all know Stonycreek [sic] is too low in summer for additional uses. [para] 3. Not enough consideration was given to obtaining water for the town by alternative methods. [para] In the winter we see tremendous quantities of water go by that, once down the creek are lost to local use. Colusa County could have been commended if it had developed its own winter water collection system instead of ignoring existing water rights and drawing Stonycreek underflow the year around. Their chosen method could become quite costly to other water-right holders, including myself."

    063083 letter Bourez/SWRCB to Protestants; field investigation will be taken, you will receive notice so you can be present to submit evidence, thence staff report if no resolution
    070183 letter Basye/atty to Bourez/SWRCB appreciate investigation after 08/01 for him & Kienlen
    083183 letter Basye/atty to Bourez/SWRCB request field investigation at earliest convenience
    090283 Notice of Field Investigation 09/29/83 10:00 a.m. by Nick Kontos & Paul Art; be there with records & written statements, analysis mailed after it to all interested if no resolution, 30 days thereafter to request a hearing
    092383 letter Kontos/SWRCB to mailing list, questionnaire & map enclosed, mark diversion on map, complete & return ASAP 09/29 field investigation; on questionnaire "if use is made under Angle Decree rights, please list the name of diversion, as it appears in the Decree, and also the page to be found."

    [why are these Angle docs in the SWRCB file?]
    UNDATED / unsigned Order, looks like copy of order Lodged 09/21/1983 to Moldenhauer to return the money & records
    092183 33 F [USDC F date and doc #] Defendant's consents to filing motion regarding fees paid; Committee members
  • Reginald Olney for OUWUA,
  • U.M. Buckley,
  • Robert Clark,
  • Jessie Westcamp
    092183 34 F [USDC F date and doc #] Defendant's declaration of P. Minasian; following 06/25/1982 Order, some participants of the Committee paid the $24,389.30 in question but since then documents of work performed by Moldenhauer have not been furnished and efforts ignored and assessments based theron cannot be made;
  • 102782 letter Minasian to Red Moldenhauer we need the documents you promised and you aren't answering phone calls;
  • 011283 letter Minasian to Moldenhauer we need those records
  • 051183 letter Minasian to Moldenhauer we need those records or we'll tell the judge
    092183 32 F [USDC F date and doc #] (Defendant's?) Notice of Motion and Motion for Order Regarding Receipt of Payment for Services by Former Water Master L.E. Moldenhauer and Moldenhauer, Bennett and Company and Order Regarding Contempt of Court for 12/5/83 at 10

    UNDATED Brock Questionnaire; rights: Stony Creek Water District, book 488, O.R. p. 264; Angle Decree, 1892 & 1908 appropriate [sic] right, 134 a-f, Apr-Oct pasture, year round for stock water; 3 parcels Johnson, Brock, Vernon, Triplett Ditch
  • UNDATED Brock Map, left side at S10/S11 to middle of N/E S3 between creek & road
  • UNDATED source not indicated, "rec'd in the field NDK"; Draft of USBR Proposed Permit Terms for Application 27382 File by the County of Colusa; "1. Diversion of water under this permit is allowed only so long as a water exchange contract with the United States Bureau of Reclamation is in effect which covers the full amount of water diverted during the period of March 15 to November 1 of each year. Such a water exchange contract will not provide a water supply in the reach of Stony creek adjacent to the town of Stonyford or in the reach of Stony Creek downstream from the town of Stonyford to the confluence of Little Stony Creek and Stony Creek within Section 10, Township 18 North, Range 6 West, M.D.B. & M. Such a contract will make water available only in East Park Reservoir or downstream from East Park Reservoir. A copy of the contract shall be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. 2. Standard Permit Term 92."

    092383 letter Basye/atty to Kontos/SWRCB enclosed copy of agreement with U.S. Forest Service for use of 18.8 a-f under Angle Decree entitlement of the Forest Service, annual term; & assignment of Phil Shimmel to Colusa County; Forest claiming under p. 121 Kesselring 07/21/1870; Mars is 04/15/1882 & is only protestant above confluence of Big & Little Stony; Shimmel is from Kesselring, either same as Forest, or 04/15/1890 or 04/15/1908 p. 122 & 131;
  • 050683 Assignment of Water Right, Arthur W. Schaefer, Phil B. Shimmel and Wanda M. Shimmel, husband and wife, to County of Colusa 33.375 a-f for use in NE 1/4 S32 & NW 1/4 S33 T18N R6W [same one in many places in Angle archives]
  • 051783 "Recitation, Offer and Award" Forest Service/County water service agreement contract #53-9JHA-3-108
    - Additional terms, trade of Forest Service 18.8 a-f Kesselring p. 121 08/21/1870 to County for water service at both Stonyford locations
    - Supplemental Provisions (boilerplate) GSA Form 1685
    - Supplemental Provisions , GSA Form 1685-A
    - Location Map, Stonyford Townsite, Forest Service Work Center Compound at corner of Fouts Springs Road, Ranger District Office Building at corner of Stites Ave & Lodoga Stonyford Road
    - Map Forest Service Main Office corner Stites & Lodoga Stonyford Road [now a county office?]
    - Map Forest Service Work Center


    011284 letter Basye/atty to Kontos/SWRCB enclosed tabulation from County' showing water through wells & portion delivered to U.S. Forest Service
    UNDATED Colusa county Service Area No. 2 Stonyford, monthly district totals & portions delivered to each of two Forest Service locations, 1979-83
    012084 note Wilson/Watermaster to Kontos/SWRCB enclosed tabulation of rights between Rainbow & Little Stony
    UNDATED handwritten list , name in Decree, Acres, Current names and - addresses
      Decree		Acres	Present Owner
      Paine		 25.2	Mars
      Brown		240.3	Garlin
      O'Leary		 27.7	Dooling (Deceased), Ferraiuolo (? next to acres)
      Lewis		200.0	Corkill
      Sutliff		220.0	Moore
      Robertson	 15.0	Browne
      Chastain	 42.4	Westcamp
      Foutch		  5.0	Westcamp
      Stites		 16.0	Danuser
      Fairlee		 12.4	Pendell
      Wood		  8.3	Swenson (does not exist 03/21/1985 NDK)
      McGahan		 20.0	Walkup
      Welton		 43.7	Walkup
      Pearson		 70.2	Moody
      Catholic Church	  1.6	Catholic Church
      Kesselring	247.5	Buckley
      			Schaefer & Shimmel
      			[United States Forest Service]
      			Indian Valley School District

    030784 letter Basye/atty to SWRCB, enclosed contract, Colusa & Reclamation, replaces full diversions under 27382, satisfies Reclamation protest, should satisfy anyone who diverts below confluence with Little Stony
  • 021484 4-07-20-W0348 Contract Between the United States of America and -- the County of Colusa Providing for M & I Water Service for Stonyford, California [not exactly]
    022484 Van Dyck/SWRCB to file, "under revised water conservation program this applicant would no longer be required to implement conservation actions, which they agreed to do in their letter of December 30, 1982." Since it's a water-short area, include the term anyway


    011885 letter Basye/atty to Walsh/SWRCB , field investigation 09/29/1983 but no report yet; Colusa County Court critical of the County for the slowness in acquiring the rights; Kienlen contacted staff to move it along, nothing yet; wrote Sabiston 06/04/1984, nothing
    060484 letter Basye/atty to Sabiston/SWRCB Colusa County anxious to move this along rapidly [original not in file?]
    012285 letter Wilsey/Colusa County Counsel to Walsh/SWRCB , had expected the report 3-6 months after 09/29/1983, Board of Supervisors is concerned, what's the problem?
    031585 letter Kontos/SWRCB to Wilsey/Colusa working on the report, should be within 2 month, regrets
    031585 letter Kontos/SWRCB to Basye/atty ditto, plus, can't find the 06/04/1984 letter; County is lead agency under CEQA and should prepare the environmental docs, let him know about what steps have been taken [?]
    032685 contact report Kienlen visited Kontos, talked with Wilsey, project exempt because of emergency nature, & Court said it was exempt and should be considered as such
    043085 letter Kontos/SWRCB to Basye/atty need a letter from the County stating reasons for "exempt"
    052885 memo Dunham/SWRCB to Kontos/SWRCB , you asked about County's -- position project is exempt; synopsis so far; although project was for the district formation and not for the extraction of water, time to object has passed, court concluded exempt; looks like the water will be coming from a different source so "it could be argued that procurement of unappropriated water under the present circumstances would not qualify as an emergency" but don't want the fight with either the County or the Court, so ask them to put it in writing, see attached letter; Westcamps don't like it, "they can pursue it." (2 copies)
  • UNDATED Statutes of 1977, Ch 86 pp. 502 et seq, exempt Sec. 3 on p. 504
  • 043085 letter Kontos/SWRCB to Basye/atty need a letter from the County stating reasons for "exempt"

    Correspondence VOL. 2 OF 2


    030889 Returned Envelope Gary Gregory copy of 030789 permit as issued
    030889 Returned Envelope JeAnne Brock copy of 030789 permit as issued
    06/1977 map County of Colusa, Stonyford Service Area

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

    060385 letter Kienlen to Kontos/Div WRights enclosed [another] Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law
    082081 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, as above
    UNDATED note Dunham to Nick, need to proceed as if exempt, "If your report will contain a section concerning the Board's responsibility pursuant to CEQA, it would be appropriate to state the County as Lead Agency has taken the position that the project is exempt from CEQA and the Board has no information which could lead it to find otherwise." Suggest sending a copy of Kienlen's letter to McDonough as a FYI
    060685 letter Kontos/SWRCB to McDonough/atty enclosed is correspondence recently received
    061085 letter McDonough/atty to Kontos/SWRCB; thanks for the copy; Stony Ford area ranchers he represents want him to comment on the "scope and relevance of those findings and conclusions" and he will do so this week

    061885 letter McDonough/atty to Kontos/SWRCB, 4 pp; a) "findings and -- conclusions...are not final", and b) they "do not answer the question of whether environmental review of the present application is required." Protestants concluded CEQA requires environmental review before the Board action on the Ap.; history of project; County appealed the Superior Court action? & then filed SWRCB petition? - "a project with a source of supply from Stony Creek underflow is a substantially different project from one that does not involve Stony Creek underflow." The underflow use adversely affects his ranchers. Section 3 relied upon by the County "was repealed by its terms on" 03/01/1978. "protestants have valuable old rights in the flow of Stony Creek, an overdrawn system, and the effects of imposing a new town water system on the area, with its growth potential, needs to be considered in the manner that CEQA contemplates." County has no valid reason not to, harm to protestants if they don't; don't believe "Judge Dawson reached, or intended to reach, the issue now before this Board."
  • Exhibit 1, Chapter 18 Section 1 - 3 with history A.B. 394 02/24/1978
  • Assembly Bill No. 395, Chapter 86 by Governor 06/01/1977, Secs 1-4
  • 042781 Announcement of Intended Opinion Colusa Superior #14932
  • 071078 letter Wilsey/Colusa County Counsel to Spencer/SWRCB not the Board's present intention to file an application, position that SWRCB "does not have jurisdiction over the water to be produced from the subject wells."
  • 060578 letter Spencer/SWRCB to McDonough/atty; you enclosed copy of "Order for Possession Prior to Judgement" and the "Complaint for Condemnation of Real Property" and you ask for advice & investigation, as did Thomas E. Landon by 04/19/1978 letter; Board's Geotechnical Section undertook, James M. Parson completed his report, copy enclosed
  • 060578 letter Spencer/SWRCB to Landon/engineer, Parson conclusion is -- "that unless the wells are drilled to a substantially greater depth, he believes they will be pumping supporting underflow from Stony Creek. He recommends we accept an application to appropriate water from the wells."; another copy
    - 052678 memo Parsons to Spencer, inspected Stonyford area 05/15/1978, -- Findings: "2. Stony Creek flows out of a bedrock gorge about two miles to the west of the well sites, crosses the alluviated Indian Valley and enters another bedrock gorge about two miles to the northeast. Indian Valley has been filled with an unknown thickness of gravel and other sediments by the main stem of Stony Creek as well as two of its tributaries, Salt Creek [actually, 2 Salt Creeks] and Dry Creek. Through the west half of the valley Stoney [sic] Creek's inner valley is bounded by terraces. These terraces are 40 feet high two miles west of the site, less than 10 feet high in the vicinity of the proposed wells, and become imperceptible to the northeast. The terraces are about 3,000 feet apart in the vicinity of the proposed wells. [para] 3. Most wells in Indian Valley appear to be used for domestic water supply only. It is reported that last summer all flow down Stony Creek ceased [first time ever?] by early summer and that many of these wells went dry. [para] Conclusions: 1. The Stonyford area is little more than a wide portion of the Stony Creek valley. The Stonyford area probably has a small storage capacity, filling up during the winter and spring months. During summer and fall, groundwater pumpage and groundwater outflow to the lower Stony Creek canyon drains most of the stored water. [para] 2. The area between the terraces contains an unknown thickness of sediments that have been reworked by flood flows down the present and earlier channels of Stony Creek. These reworked gravels would include the gravels shown to a depth of 38 feet in the test well log and perhaps the deeper gravels also. [para] 3. Unless the Stonyford community water supply wells are drilled to a substantially greater depth, they will be pumping supporting underflow from Stony Creek. [para] I recommend that you accept the water rights application for the proposed Stonyford community water supply wells and institute appropriate permitting procedures. [para] Attachment [not found]"
  • 052478 letter McDonough/atty to SWRCB represents Stony Creek Water -- District, complaint with you re: Colusa County effort to construct 3 wells; landowner rights in Angle Decree & Reclamation contract; copy of condemnation pleadings enclosed; locals report "County is actively moving towards construction." "Diversion of underflow from wells constructed by the County would be an illegal diversion of water, the District believes, unless the County has some water right of which we are unaware; various people have asserted that the County has no right, and the County has made no answer." appreciate an investigation; if the County has no right, "it can avoid a waste of public funds by finding out the problem as soon as possible."
  • 041778 letter McDonough/atty to Colusa County Clerk; re notice of hearing 03/29/1978 to his client Jessie G. Westcamp; wants to appear and be heard, with husband & adjacent landowners; I can't be there; asked County Counsel Wilsey to postpone and he said no; accept the following as part of the presentation: "We believe that the public interest and necessity does not require, or allow, the project, or the proposed acquisition for the following reasons: [para] Although the parcels to be acquired are described as well sites, we do not believe that they could be used as such for the purposes apparently intended, for lack of any right in the County or the Service Area to use the water which might be extracted by means of such wells. The water underlying the well sites is beliefed to be a part of the underflow of Stony Creek, which was adjudicated by the decree [etc.] If any unappropriated water exists after the requirements of that decree are met, state law would require a permit from the [SWRCB] to divert it, and the Board has determined that it will not allow a permit for the months of July and August anywhere in the Sacramento River basin. The well sites are on riparian land but water cannot be extracted from riparian land for use on non-riparian land. [para] We do not know whether the County has considered this problem. It did not do so in the Inital Study on the basis. of which a [NegDec] was adopted, filed [07/12/1977], for the formation of the Service Area; indeed that study did not deal with the method of sypplying water to the Service Area at all. We say that the County needs to know the legal and environmental consequences of attempting to take water from the proposed well sites to supply the Service Area. [para] Besides the existence of unappropriated water, or the cost of acquiring a water supply presently devoted to use, the study should consider the effecgt of taking the water supply from these well sites upon water users downstream. And it should include a study of the history of flooding over the land to be occupied, from the Creek, and the consequences which such flooding would have on the proposed well operation, and the reliability of the supply, and the effect upon the public health and safety. We believe that this would be a serious problem for the water supply. The possible growth-inducing effects of such a supply should be weighed. The results of such a study should be offered for review and comment by the interested public. [para] It seems to us that the law contemplates that ushc a study be made prior to the time that land is acquired and prior to the time that the people of the Service Area are to be obligated for the repayment of money which may not be usefully expended. Haste made without first finding the relevant facts may be wasteful to the public interest...."
  • UNDATED Water Code Section 359, shortage emergencies [parts underlined in red];

    072585 letter Basye/atty to Walsh/Div WRights, re McDonough's letter, court concluded environmental requirements were satisfied; also, Federal Court settlementin the matter should end the controversy, stip soon
    080285 letter fuller/Div WRights to all, enclosed is staff analysis from the 09/29/1983 field investigation; recommend approval for 0.2 cfs 01/01 - 12/31 for municipal & fire protection; unless written request for hearing within 30 days, board will act on what it has; hearing request must specify the issues remaining unresolved;

    080285 Report, Staff Analysis, in re the Matter of Application 27382, -- 25 pp; 27 people at the inspection; - Kienlen referenced the Board's "Report of Referee" Stony Creek in Colusa County, June 1980; p. 6. Westcamp: "3. The assignment of a decreed right must be approved by the court to be considered valid. The county, therefore, should act accordingly and acquire court approval before it considers the action final." [not according to the Decree]; 6, Smith, East Park water full of algae & moss & clogs his pipeline and increases his pumping cost when he pumps from Stony; Garlin had not protested; p. 8 Gregory, alternatives not considered; p. 14, Figure A shows "approximately 3,607 acre-feet of unused channel storage within the underflow of Stonyford Valley." [not inconsistent with Kienlen's 10,000 a-f], just calculating the porous ground below the lip of the lower end of the valley; multiple sources exist for granting this ap; no substantiation on pollution allegation; further subdivision would require further Board action; moss & algae at Smith's pump not necessarily from East Park; 40 a-f is insignificant in comparison to East Park capacity so moss & algae irrelevant; Kienlen's urging of considering underflow movement not needed because of capacity calculation;
  • Table 1.0 Use of Water in Million Gallons, 1979-83, by month, total & Forest Service;
  • Table 2.0 Water Users on Stony Creek Upstream from the Confluence of Stony Creek and Little Stony Creek Using Water Under Angle Decree Rights
  • Map, Application 27382, Rainbow to confluence to Indian Creek;
  • Figure A, Schematic of Effective Storage Basin
  • Map, Application 27382, another copy?
    080285 letter Fuller/Div WRights to all, another copy
    081285 32 certified return receipts
    080285 letter Fuller/Div WRights to all, 3rd copy
    083085 letter McDonough/atty to Div WRights, enclosed notice of Request for Hearing, copies sent to list
  • 083085 Request for Hearing, McDonough for Westcamp, Kerns, Gregory, - Buckley; issues: "(1) Whether the requirements of [CEQA] have been complied with by the applicant: without limiting the generality of the foregoing, whether a statute that had no further force or effect after March 1, 1978 can and did excuse the applicant from environmental review of the instant application which was made in 1982 and is not yet permitted. [para] (2) Whether there is unappropriated water in the source specifie4d by the applicant between May and November of normal and dry years; and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, whether channel storage is available to applicant during dry years without injury to prior rights. [para] Whether it is in the public interest to permit the initiation of new municipal uses in a water short area with the provision for meeting municipal growth in the future: without limiting the generality of the foregoing, whether there is a reliable source of supply for downstream users in East Park Reservoir in dry years. [para] (4) Whether the use of water proposed under the application will degrade the quality of water utilized by protestants and others."
    090385 letter McDonough/atty to Div WRights, add Smith & Somerville
    102485 letter Fuller/Hearing Unit to Basye/atty, before Board action, ":environmental documentation will be necessary. The Board may not act on this project under an exemption from CEQA. Since yor client is the Lead Agency, it should prepare the environmental document." Board's legal staff researched, & considered McDonough's arguments, & the court's ruling not being final, can't approve until environmental documents are completed. After study & determination of document type, notify us & provide a copy of "initial study" for review.
    110985 letter Fuller/Hearing Unit to McDonough/atty, received request for Hearing: CEQA, unappropriated issues accepted; growth & pollution issues not accepted;
    111285 letter McDonough/atty to Fuller/Hearing Unit; at start of - hearing, protestants will move the board to consider the other 2 issues pursuant to Water Code Section 1347: "In dealing with the second issue presented by the protestants, the Division's leter states that 'We note that you presently offer no new information or evidence.' and a similar statement is made with respect to issue (3). It is difficult to determine the relevance of this observation. Neither the statute nor the existing rules nor the proposed rules, so far as U can determine, provide for the submission of new information or evidence with the request for hearing. [para] In dealing with issue (4), the Division states that 'no attempt has been made to support the issue of pollution....' and the issue is not accepted on that account. No citation is offered, and none is known to me, of authority that this is a ground for denying a hearing under Water Code section 1347."
    111285 letter Paul Minasian/atty to Fuller/Hearing Unit; OUWUA has been - left off the mailing list, had previously requested a hearing be held in this matter; reiterate request and join with McDonough's clients; "We would call to your attention, that the Stony Creek Watershed is subject to an adjudication by the Federal District Court in [Angle. OUWUA] is the holder of one of the substantial rights determined by that adjudication [not exactly]. [para] [OUWUA] have repeatedly asked the [SWRCB] under what authority Permits may be granted during the periods of April through November in light of the jurisdiction of the Court under the adjudication. [para] In general the State Board, has recognized the adjudication as determining the availability and allocation of all unappropriated waters. The State Board has recently undertaken to include within its permits for storing during the period outside of the irrigation season a requirement that the suer [user?] be subject to the Water Master jurisdiction under the Federal Court proceeding. [para] I would appreciate it if you or the staff counsel, could explain how, with an existing adjudication, a new right can be granted without at least petitioning the Court to recognize that right. [para] In other words, is it the position of the [SWRCB] that the Angle Decree did not adjudicate what you term to be channel storage, and if so, we would like to have made available the answer to the question of how the [SWRCB] now intends to take jurisdiction to determine use of a portion of the flow of Stony creek without leave or permission of the Federal District Court."
    112285 letter Minasian/atty to Fuller/SWRCB , [MISSING?]


    010786 letter Basye/atty to SWRCB , enclosed stip between County of Colusa & Mars, et al., will file shortly and amendment to ap to limit season of diversion to 09/15 - 04/15 per the stip;
    122385 Stipulation; to limit season of diversion to 09/15 - 04/15 ; Basye & McDonough
    012386 letter Bieg/Hearing Unit to McDonough/atty, per stip ap changed to 09/15 - 04/15 , protests dismissed
    012386 letter Bieg/Hearing Unit to Basye/atty, enclose 4 copies of stip, original in ap 27382

    012786 letter Barbara J. Leidigh/Staff Counsel II to Paul Minasian/atty;-- your client not a party to proceedings so no notice required, a rep of your client is on the mailing list, but will add your name as well; your client not a protestant & protestants have dismissed, no hearing will be held; "The Board is the entity charged with allocating the use of water in this state. The existence of adjudicated water rights is taken into account in the Board's determination under Water Code Section 1200 et seq. whether water is available for appropriation. If water is available in excess of that which has already been allocated -- whether by the courts, operation of law, or permit -- then the Board may approve a requested appropriation. [para] Because the proposed appropriation is within the adjudicated area, the county may, in addition to acquiring a permit from the State Board, have to obtain authorization from the Court to exercise a new permitted right. However the recognition of the county's right within the Angle Decree is a matter between the county, the court, and other hodlers of adjudicated rights under the decree. it is not a matter for the State Board to pursue. Further, since the court does not allocate new rights but merely recognizes existing ones, the question of court recognition is a matter which, in the proper course of events should follow, not precede, the Board's action on the water right application." 2 copies
    021086 letter Hancock/Reclamation to Bieg/Div WRights enclosed contract-- 4-07-20-W0348 w/Colusa County, another copy, dismiss protest; reviewed staff analysis, disagree with "'Effective Storage Basin' described in the analysis and would protest the issuance of a permit to any future applicants base upon the concept that water is available for appropriation in the 'Effective Storage Basin'".
    030386 Categorical Exemption Checklist; "8. Adobe lily (Fritillaria plurifloria - last obs. 1983, Stonyford cemetery lane approx. 1.5 miles west of Stonyford & So. of Fouts Springs Rd., elev. 1,200' T18N, R6W, S31 adjoins project sect. 29 & 32. Plant is federal candidate 2." Recommend initial study; other: CDFG commentsd concerns form of 02/11/1983
    030686 letter Bieg/Div WRights to Hancock/Reclamation; protest dismissed


    030487 contact report STaylor/Div WRights called? Will Murphy/Colusa County Counsel, in a meeting; 03/13 not available; 03/19 only in office a year, understood project was exempt, told him of 10/24/1985 letter to Basye & Wilsey, study required; Wescamp settlement didn't affect it; Will said Stan Walker of Planning Dept "very familiar with Stonyford & if County needs to prepare an IS they will." asked copy of 10/24 be sent to him
    030487 contact report STaylor/Div WRights called? Basye/atty out of town; 03/12/1987 Mark Van Camp, Basye associate, under impression project exempt, not exempt see 10/24/1985 Board decision, asked Mark to find out what County is doing, need timetable for completion;
    031887 contact report STaylor/Div WRights called VanCamp/atty, has to talk to Basye; County officials new & don't know yet
    032087 contact report STaylor/Div WRights talked to Jerry Mensch/CDFG Environmental Services; CDFG concerns in 02/11/1983 letter but CDFG did not protest; told him County has to do IS & address their concerns
    032587 contact report STaylor[?]/Div WRights talked to Mark; "County & Wm Murphy do not know the project", Bashye will "have to smooth things out."
    032587 contact report STaylor[?]/Div WRights called by Mark Van Camp, to discuss final stip of 12/23/1985, protestants not challenging NegDec; told him to adopt NegDec County first must do IS; after Board reviews IS probably accept County; IS should address CDFG concerns; Mark, stip covered all protestants; told him CDFG did not protest; Mark said then CDFG not a pary; told him Environmental Unit wants concerns addressed in IS for approval; told him "I had talked to Wm. Murphy, Co, Counsel, & was sending him a copy of letter dated" 10/24/1985; Mark questioned why since George Basye is the designated agent & has all the files; Mark's office will prepare IS not county; Mark suggesting "that I did something improper in calling the County. I replied that county should know an IS is needed. I said we are not trying to circumvent Mark or George Basye. However in my conversation with Murphy he requested a copy of letter because he thought project was exempt & therefore I am sending that info. & CCing letter to Basye." & copy to Mark
    032587 contact report STaylor[?]/Div WRights called by Stan Walker/Colusa County Planning; to get info about IS, time limit? ASAP, and SWRCB needs a schedule of when; told him "I was under impression Geo. Basye was going to do it."; responded didn't know who would;
    032087 letter Swenerton/SWRCB to Murphy/Colusa County Counsel; enclosed copies of 10/24/1985 IS letter and 02/11/1983 CDFG letter; prepare IS, circulate it through State Clearinghouse & send to SWRCB "before a decision is made whether to proceed with" NegDec or EIR; should address CDFG concerns; 2 copies
    050487 contact report STaylor/Div WRights called by Mark Van Camp/atty, Basye talked with Colusa County Counsel & got OK to do IS, no time line yet
    051587 contact report STaylor/Div WRights called Mark Van Camp/atty,; asked for time line, no; 03/26/1987 letter requested reply within 30 days & now SWRCB could write a 30 day cancellation letter; etc.; action, "wait wk before sending 30 day cancellation"
    051587 letter Marc Van Camp/Murray, Burns and Kienlen Consulting Civil Engineers to Sharon Taylor/Div WRights, 04/29/1987 we received authorization to proceed with IS, anticipate submitting to you & SC by 06/30/1987
    070387 contact report VanCamp/engineers to STaylor/Div WRights left msg that initial study being finalized; 07/13 IS completed & signed & mailed today
    071487 letter VanCamp/engineers to STaylor/Div WRights; enclosed is IS & proposed NegDec, please respond with comments by 07/27/1987
  • 071387 Initial Study - Application 27382; 09/15 - 04/15; installed 2 wells during 1977 drought emergency, 07/12/1977 NegDec; following determination of Stony Creek underflow, obtained Angle rights, approved by Angle Court 12/12/1985; contracted with Reclamation for 40 a-f in replacement flow; thus project is 10 a-f;, max rate 0.8 cfs, average 0.2 cfs; Stony Creek traverses entire length of Indian Valley [does it?]; effect of 0.2 cfs on Stony cannot be measured and thus "no impact on fish, wildlife, riparian vegetation or water quality." FONSI, recommend NegDec, /s/ D.E. Kienlen
  • 071387 Negative Declaratin
    - Photo Location Map, June 1977
    - Photos A through H; A fenced off pumps, panoramic; E tank & treatment?;
    080387 contact report Mark Van Camp "consultant"/engineer to STaylor/Div WRights sent copy of IS/proposed NegDec before sending to SCH, told him looks OK, send final aftger circulating
    083187 Request for Cultural Resources Evaluation
    092987 contact report Van Camp/engineer asked by STaylor/Div WRights, ND circulated? said it was sent to Board of Supervisors for approval & no word yet, will call to find out; called back, on the agenda
    112487 Notice of Determination, to OPR from Board of Supervisors


    011288 contact report VanCamp/agent said to Frank ???/EAU thought everything was taken care of but will get back to him on status
    012588 letter Walker/Colusa Planning to Roddy/Div WRights enclosed endorsed file copy of NOD, being sent to SCH now, was confirmed by the Board of Supes 11/24/1987 just now obtained signed original from County Counsel Murphy
  • 112487 Supervisors minutes, approve NegDec
    - 071387 Negative Declaration
    - 122387 Deputy Clerk Certification
  • 081187 letter VanCamp/engineers to Murphy/Colusa County Counsel, -- inclosed original IS & NegDec, have Supes take appropriate action & send to SCH
    - Initial Study --
    - Negative Declaration
    112487 Notice of Determination, another copy
    020888 contact report Roddy/EAU told Mike Mainz/DFG about IS/ND & NOD by Colusa, he wants it circulated so DFG can review & comment; action: "will write letter to county requiring circulation of document"
    011288 contact report Roddy/EAU returned call from VanCamp/agent; he wanted to check status of Ap; told him "I sent a copy of the IS/ND and NOD to DFG for Mike Meinz to review"; called Mike, no concerns
    110888 letter Dupuis/AppUnit#1 to Colusa County, ap approved, send $100


    010489 letter Hushka/AppUnit#1 to Colusa County, 11/08/1988 letter informed you ap approved $100 due, 30 days we will cancel
    UNDATED Certified Receipt card
    010989 contact report VanCamp/agent called Hushka/Div WRights; never received gthe initial fee letter, subsequent request is erroneous; asked him if they will be able to pay within the 30 days, Mark said they should be able to
    021689 letter Kienlen/Engineer to Dupuis/AppUnit#1 here is our $100; permit says time "to complete beneficial use is given as 1990", would have been a good date in 1982, but now ask 1995;
  • 022489 Dupuis note thereon, term approved 08/02/1985, extension "appears in order or a petition to extend time would have to be filed next year"
    030789 State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Rights
  • 031588 State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Rights Review Summary and Certification of Review of Initial Study and Negative Declaration for Application 27382 of Colusa County to Appropriate Water from Stony Creek Underflow Tributary to Sacramento River in Colusa County;
  • DATE MISSING Initial Study
  • 071387 Negative Declaration
  • 112487 Notice of Determination, 3rd copy, endorsed by OPR 01/27/1988

    070882 Application to Appropriate Water
  • UNDATED Supplement to Application
  • 062382 Environmental Information
  • UNDATED topo map showing benchmarks?
  • 030987 topo map showing well location, Rainbow to Rock City to Stonyford

    042886 Check for Permit; Adjudicated area Angle Decree
    110388 Issuance of Water Right Permit
    030789 Permit for Diversion and Use of Water Ap. 27382 Permit 20308 -- Colusa County from Stony Creek Underflow, wells S29 18N 6W, max 10 a-f, 0.2 cubic feet per second 09/15 - 04/15 each winter.; terms 14, 16, 17, and 18 show how confused it is with regard to the Angle Decree
    030789 letter Lininger/Div WRights to Colusa County, permit enclosed


    072798 letter Hickmann/Murray, Burns & Kienlen consulting engineers to Anton/Div WRights; remove MBK as agent, send directly to County Counsel, we have forwarded all stuff to him
    092598 Progress Report by Permittee for 1997; 21.73 a-f, adding meters?
    092598 Progress Report by Permittee for 1996; 23.82 a-f
    092598 Progress Report by Permittee for 1995; 27.7 a-f
    092598 Progress Report by Permittee for 1994; 27.49 a-f est; usage estimated 1989-94, measuring equipment on the well not accurate? shows high usage? asking Reclamation to check it? amounts include fire suppression
    092598 Progress Report by Permittee for 1993
    092598 Progress Report by Permittee for 1992
    092598 Progress Report by Permittee for 1991
    092598 Progress Report by Permittee for 1990
    092598 Progress Report by Permittee for 1989


    092598 Progress Report by Permittee for 1998, 22.75 a-f


    083000 Report of Inspection; [p. 1] "The project is complete but -- license cannot be recommended until the problem of excess diversions is resolved... serving 4 parcels outside their service area, so a change in POU appears necessary. When this project is ready for licensing, recommend corrections in the ties to the PODs and deletion of the use of fire protection. It is recognized that no right is necessary for this use; no water is allocated to this use from either the Angle Decree rights (covering the 'irrigation season') or this permit. [para] As the attached correspondence indicates, the U.S. Department of Justice is working with the County to eliminate the excess (illegal) diversions. I asked the Federal Water Master, George Wilson, if he thought that the SWRCB should consider enforcement action to limit the County's diversion under this permit to the authorized amount of 10 ac-ft. He replied that he thought our best course of action for the present would be to notify the County that the SWRCB does not condone the excess diversions and withhold licensing pending the resolution of the matter being sought between them and the Dept of Justice." on 4 parcels outside, County parcel tax coding problem, LAFCO problem, Reclamation problem; [p. 2] "APN 10-050-71...County has apparently acquired the wellsites by condemnation but separate parcel)s) with fee title have not been formed. The above mentioned ROS shows the prospective 'parcels' and easements'. There is no known controversy over POD access;" [p. 3] "...Water has apparently been occasionally used for filling fire trucks by USFS and local fire dept. Such use is clearly not to count against the County's Angle Decree allotment [cite?], and should probably be subtracted from use under both this permit as well, but no measurements/estimates/records of water used for fire protection are kept by the County of fire fighters. Water Master George Wilson generously estimates that past fire fighting use would amount to no more than 1 ac-ft/ann. the permittee's excess use far exceeds this amount. ... "Maximum annual diversion: 28.73 ac-ft (limited by permit to 10.0 ac-ft) Year of maximum use: 1995" [para] "Address compliance with each Permit term (by term number): term 13: see comments on page 1 regarding ownership of land at POD: Term 14: Water Master George G. Wilson has access to facilities, including the in-line flow meter; Mr. Wilson was present at this inspection but his input was limited on the advice of attorneys involved in the dispute over excess diversions by the permittee. We probably should remove reference to storage when licensed; Term 15: based on phone conversations with Mr. Kelley and Carolyn Tucker of DWR Office of Water Education (916-653-9892), it appears that in the past, the County had paid the California Water Awareness Month Campaign for kits to distribute to their schools. This practice was discontiued in 1998? because of the cost ($1000). After my inquiry to DWR, Tucker contacted Mr. Kelley to start the process to participate in the DWR program which is free. Tucker will be sending a water conservation package to Kelley to forward to the local Oak Creek Elementary Schoo. As far aas water conservation policies and ordinances, Kelley was not aware of any countywide actions as they are in the drinking-water purveyor business on a very small basis. Since the U.S. District Court has been after them to reduce their excess diversions [actually, Wilson], Kelley has mailed a letter to Stonyford customers with suggested water conservation measures. Further don Bultema said that the Service Area has met the requirements of this term, if a little tardy; Term 18: copy of contract 4-07-20-W0348 withy USBR is in file; according to Don Bultema the contract has not been renegotaited down from 40 ac-ft year round to 10 ac-ft during the period of this permit because ith would involve updating rates (contract already specifies this?) and terms and conditions; Term 19: this term should be deleted if fire protection is deleted as a use" [para] "Other Rights...Permittee has acquired Angle Decree rights to cover use during the irrigation season by agreement with the USFS and by transfer from Arthur W. Schaefer, Phil B. Shimmel, and Wanda M. Shimmel (in exchange for connections to the permittee's water system. Attached is a copy of the court order approving changes in these decreed rights in favor of the County. Note that there are various numbers floating around the file regarding the amount of water covered, but it is clear that this order sets the amount at a maxiumum of 30 ac-ft to be pumped during the irrigation season, which may start earlier than April 15, and/or extend past September 15, according to Water Master George Wilson."
  • Table: Calculations; Calculation of Diversion during the Maximum Season, Colusa County Service Area No. 2 - Stonyford, metered diversions in Ac-ft; month by month to 04/15, 09/16 on, by year 1995 - 2000 (2 copies)
  • Map Ap 27382, Permit 20308; County of Colusa, source Stony Creek Underflow, including 4 uses outside of service area
  • Map Water Distribution System, County of Colusa, Stonyford Service Area, June 1977, annotated, showing service outside of Area; "Rec'd from David Kelley of Colusa county, [12-28-2000] WCS"
  • Table, County Service Area #2, Accounts Receivable Activity, sheet by lot number, names APNs,
  • Photos, 1) POD #1, Northerly, Peerless Pump, 15 HP US Electric Motor (1750 RPM), Pressure tank, concrete block building, backup generator, chlorine injector, electrical panel; #2) POD #2, 7.5 HP Peerless Pump, backup to #1, 3) 4" in-line micrometer meter before pressure tank; 4) Downtown Stonyford looking north; 4) Forest Service Work Center, 5) Shimmel residence, sprawling white house on corner with white picket fence
  • Resolution 84-3, Board of Supervisors, County of Colusa; proceed with SWRCB Ap & Angle Decree order;
  • 021784 Declaration of Donald E. Kienlen, Colusa County Superior #14932 -- [only pp 1,3,5 & 8]
  • 010886 [assume same as Angle Doc #94 ] Order confirming changes in -- certain decreed rights; /s/ Judge Wilkins
  • 031000 letter Wilson/Water Master to Bultema/Reclamation, 1999 year, total diverted for year 50.24 a-f; 04/15-09/15 32.71 a-f
    - Table Stonyford Domestic Diversions 1998 by month, a-f
  • 071999 memo Hughes/Reclamation to Wilson/Water Master et al, flow measure "on a 4" pipline [sic]" using 2 different meters, 300 & 305 gpm
  • 031000 fax t/l Wolder/Reclamation to Wilson/Water Master, results of meter test
  • 092800 letter Wilson/Water Master to Smith/SWRCB, enlcosed, diversion records & other data for Stonyford system
    - Table Stonyford Domestic Diversions annually 1979-2000 (against 30 a-f max)
    - 092000 Table Stonyford Town Well Records , certain days during 2000
    - Table Stonyford Domestic Diversions 1999 by month, a-f (another copy) 50.24 a-f
    - Table Stonyford Water Use Calendar Year 1999 by month, meter readings extended to a-f, handwritten 50.24 a-f
    - Table Stonyford Domestic Diversions Calendar Year 1998 by month, meter readings extended to a-f, 59.69
    - Table Stonyford Domestic Diversions Calendar Year 1997 - 1998 by month, meter readings extended to a-f, total 53.26 a-f
    - Table Stonyford Town Well 1996 Diversions by month, meter readings extended to a-f 01/1996 - 01/1997 72.68 a-f
    - Table Stonyford Well Usage Calendar Year 1995 by month, meter readings extended to a-f 01/1996 - 01/1997 72.10 a-f
    - Table Stonyford Wells 1993-4-5 some by month, meter readings
    - Table Colusa County Service Area No. 2, Stonyford, Water Usage in Gallons by month, by year, 1979 - 1983, Total, & with both forest service facilities broken out by month (another copy)
  • 051400 letter Bultema/Reclamation to Supervisors/Colusa, excess -- diversions
    - Table Stonyford Domestic Diversions from Stony Creek, from April 15 to September 15, by year, 1979-1999
  • 061200 letter Iizuka/Reclamation to Stanton/Colusa County Counsel, -- cut usage down to stip limits of 30 a-f or we litigate
  • 062900 letter Iizuka/Reclamation to Stanton/Colusa County Counsel, -- re phone call, appreciate promises
  • 081600 letter Wilson/Water Master to Iizuka/Reclamation, no progress -- by Colusa County, this season will exceed all historic diversions
    - Table Stonyford Town Well Records, selected days, 04/15/2000 - 08/11/2000
  • 081700 letter Iizuka/Reclamation to Stanton/Colusa County Counsel, -- your usage has gotten worse, not better, have to go to court if no improvement


  • 041201 letter Iizuka/Reclamation to Stanton/Colusa County Counsel, -- (date stamp County Counsel), "unacceptable to make assurances and then simply disregard the requirements of law. Given the County's utter failure to cooperate,..." litigate
    060601 letter Beringer/Div WRights to Kelly/Colusa County Planning, -- can't issue license until 2 issues resolved: 1) excess diversions must be eliminated or covered with new diversion right, else enforcement for this trespass against state water rights; 2) supplying 4 parcels out of "place of use", discontinue or file a petition to add, which is like a new petition


    061607 Progress Report by Permittee for 2006, 9.783 a-f


    060908 Progress Report by Permittee for 2007, photocopy of p. 1, p. 2 MISSING


    031909 Progress Report by Permittee for 2008, unsigned, 5.153 a-f

    Some notes:

    Order WR 79-6, 'Draft Report of Referee', dated April,,1979" -
    WR 80-11 mentioned at fn 177 Order WR 80-11, Order Adopting Report of Referee, in County of Colusa v. Westcamp (Superior Court, County of Colusa, No. 14932) (State Water Resources Control Board, June 19, 1980). Actual 80-11, Order Adopting Report of Referee"

    The Report is in the Adjudication file for Stony Creek :

    Adjudication Files: WR 79-6, WR 80-11

    These are not exactly for filing 27382, which grew out of these Opinions & the underlying Report

    263.01 Regular Functional Activities - Supervision of Water Rights: Correspondence

    [Note this complete system of correspondence files parallel to those in the Records Unit File Room]

    041378 letter Butler/Ames to Stretars/SWRCB , "Enclosed is the project - plan for Stony Creek Watershed Reservoir Inventory" "progress in reservoir mapping on IDIMS" [WHAT PLAN? MISSING?]
    041978 letter Landon/Landon to Spencer/Div WRights public hearing - 040878 [McDonough, MISSING?] contended wells would divert from Stonycreek [sic] flow; enclosed a map & well logs, please review and advise as to whether or not a permit is needed
  • excerpt, Public Facilities Element, Colusa county General Plan, - showing driller's log of the test well, concludes a well there will provide a water supply for Stonyford
  • 06XX77 County of Colusa Stonyford Service Area, bounds of district -
    042578 letter Rosenberger/Div WRights to Butler/NASA-Ames, "Enclosed - is the original of the project plan for Stony Creek Reservoir Inventory" staff finds proposal acceptable
    UNDATED letter Spencer to Landon/Landon, re 041978 referred to Franks - 2 weeks
    052478 letter McDonough/atty to SWRCB reps Stony Creek Water District, complaint against County of Colusa, another copy
    052678 memo Parsons to Spencer , 3rd copy --
  • map, terraces, bedrock, alluvium outlined on topo -
    060578 letter Spencer to McDonough/atty, another copy
    060578 letter Spencer to Landon/Landon, another copy
    061378 letter McDonough/atty to Spencer/Div Wrights, thanks on behalf - of Stonycreek Water District, a trespass under Water Code 1052, asks that the board issue an order to show cause
    062378 letter Spencer/Div Wrights to Wilsey/County Counsel, note - letter from McDonough, please advise your intentions
    062778 letter Wilsey/County Counsel to Spencer/Div Wrights, will take - it up with the Board of Supervisors and get back to you ASAP
    071078 note, Jessie Westcamp, to Spencer, "Couldn't resist sending you - this--hot off the press--thought it would make your whole day, at least a chuckle! [para] We are getting the same treatment from these people--everything gets turned completely backward. never have I seen such an arrogant group. [para] they also still, after repeated warnings, apparently refuse to acknowledge the existence of the Angle Decree, too! [para] We are fighting to get them off of my little ranch which they are condemning & splitting right across the middle, for 'their' wells!"
  • 070678 Colusa Sun Herald, Supes say no to SWRCB permit requirement, - "Wilsey gave the opinion that if the county actually filed for the water permit, it would be turned down because there is never any new water appropriated during the dry summer months."
    071078 letter Wilsey/Colusa Counsel to Spencer/SWRCB, Supervisors - feel SWRCB has no jurisdiction so no permit, another copy?
    071978 memo Spencer to Files, Basye visit, based on Paulsen felt - new and existing from groundwater, existing would be mostly given up yielding a new use of maybe 15 - 20 a-f, Rosenberger said with a test well it would be easy to calculate effect on surface stream, Basye said he'd send a letter with rights of landowners spelled out
    072578 letter McDonough/atty to Spencer/SWRCB, received copy of letter - to you from County Counsel denying SWRCB has jurisdiction; & forwarding a copy of Reclamation letter, clients renew their complaint
  • 071478 letter Martin/Reclamation to McDonough/atty, no storage - source available to supply Stonyford, unaware that anything other than groundwater was to be the source but will look into it after we figure it out; "As far back as 1970 we have been aware that the Stonyford Domestic Water Users Association was attempting to acquire a more suitable water supply. At that time, upon the request of their representative, we made a determination, based on historical hydrology records and water rights, that there is not adequate flow in Stony Creek to provide surplus water for the town."
    080278 letter Spencer/SWRCB to McDonough/atty , proceeding on your - complaint
    080378 letter Wilsey/County Counsel to Spencer/SWRCB history, no - trespass, ask for help resolving, retained Basye
    081078 memo Markle/Staff Counsel to Attwater/Chief Cousnel, Recognition of Instream Needs in Statutory Adjudications [2 Pit River streams, misfiled?]
    081578 letter Basye/Atty to McDonough/atty enclosed a stip to refer - the issue of source of wellwater to SWRCB
    081578 letter McDonough/atty to Basye/Atty returning stip, prepared - an order for it, attached, expressed the issue for the order a bit more broadly, please advise if OK
    081778 letter McDonough/atty to Franks/SWRCB took case off calendar, - issue on which wanted your testimony instead referred to SWRCB
    081778 letter McDonough/atty to Glick/SWRCB enclosing complaint & - answer 14974 & Paulsen deposition 14932 & stip for reference to the Board plus correspondence
    081778 letter Rosenberger/Div WRights to Wilsey/County Counsel, thanks - for your side, McDonough filed a complaint, board will be taking it up
    082278 letter McDonough/atty to Rosenberger/Div WRights, please pursue - complaint ASAP, ask SWRCB to arrange with the County not to deliver water until issue is settled
    082278 letter McDonough/atty to Rosenberger/Div WRights, please pursue 2nd copy
    082378 letter Wilsey/County Counsel to Glick/SWRCB Landon says County - has extension of time from Drought Emergency Task Force and Farmers Home Administration to 09/30/1978 "for completion of the project." Work continuing on the distribution system & wells, project 75% complete, meters being installed at property lines, water won't be available "to subscribers prior to the end of the irrigation season on September 15, 1978."
    083178 letter Rosenberger/Div WRights to McDonough/atty, "prosecution - of an enforcement action at this time is not advised" 1) you furnished a stip to refer the issue to SWRCB already; 2) doesn't appear anyone will be immediately harmed by operation of the County's wells. Angle Season ends 09/15, Wilsey assures no delivery before then, 3) project near completion, delay will increase costs, but may have to file for a permit anyway so the issue will get handled. Won't pursue the complaint further at this time, let him know if wrong.
    090178 memo Phillips/Geologist to Files, "Stony Creek Underflow" "Alluvial depth may be greater than indicated. It is reported that drilling for pier emplacement of the Stony Creek bridge went to 300 feet, 'all in gravel'. [para] To the south of Stony Creek, in the vicinity of Stonyford, alluvial thicknesses range from 22 to 133 feet." p. 3 "According to Charles Butler, who moved to Stonyford in 1921, if there is water in Stony Creek, well yields in town are good. His well is 20 feet deep and was drilled in 1940. It was good throughout the drought period even though Stony Creek was sometimes dry. He measures the water level periodically and can notice a difference depending on the stage of Stony Creek. The oldest well in town is at the store. It is 30 feet deep and was drilled in 1890. It was good throughout the drought period. The wells to the north of Stony creek are good even when the creek is dry. Some wells to the south 'go dry' when the creek is dry. Stony Creek floods to the north. The last big flood was in 1955-56 when the levee and bridge washed out. The latest well in town is at the church and went 105 feet, all in gravel. [para] According to this same man, there was a previous case involving water rights along Stony Creek. At that time, which he couldn't remember exactly, the Federal Water master, Eldon A. Garland, measured the flow at three points along Stony Creek. The flow was measured at the diversion dam, the bridge, and where the creek leaves the basin. The flow at the dam and the outlet were the same while the flow at the bridge was one-half that at the dam. This case supposedly went to litigation for determination of underflow. Supposedly, several wells on the north side of Stony Creek were stopped because of this case." p. 5 "Also, Planning Division should determine if there has been past litigation involving underflow on Stony Creek. Mr. Garland's records should be on file in the Federal Court."
  • Map Explanation
  • Map of basin, showing rock types, terraces, alluvium, faults, well locations
    090778 letter McDonough/atty to Rosenberger/Div WRights, public "best - served by immediate action by the Board on our complaint. It is our belief that there is no firm unappropriated water in Stony Creek, or its underflow, and that an application by the County would be of little value." [touchy!]
    091378 contact report Glick called McDonough/atty , we won't pursue the enforcement action but the court referral will solve it
    091378 letter Horton/Reclamation to Rosenberger/Div WRights, attached - memo from Geology Branch (Phillips memo above)
    090178 memo Phillips/Geologist to Files, "Stony Creek Underflow" another - copy
  • Map Explanation / Map of basin, showing rock types, terraces, alluvium, - faults, well , one sheet with both
    091578 letter Horton/Reclamation to Rosenberger/Div WRights received - your letter to McDonough, why not prosecuting? Project season goes to approximately 10/15
    101378 letter McDonough/atty to Pannell/Farmers Home Administration, - no rights to the water. "Reclamation has found for many years that there is no firm supply of unappropriated water in Stony Creek." "urge you not to make the additional loan" for another well without first talking to Wilson, SWRCB, Reclamation,...
    102378 note Rich Glick/SWRCB atty to ???, certified copy of order to follow;
  • 101978 letter McDonough/atty to Glick/SWRCB enclosing copy of order - of reference from court
    102478 letter McDonough/atty to County Clerk/Colusa, $2.00 enclosed for - certified copy of "Order of Reference" for Mr. Glick
    UNDATED memo SMacaulay/lhollingsworth to Rogers/Div Planning & Research, - Campos/Div WRights, fyi attached Order of Reference, Franks working on it
    103078 letter Glick/atty to McDonough/atty thanks for the certified - copy

    032679 Draft Letter, Freeman/OUWUA enclosed a "Notice of Solicitation - of Bids for the establishment and administration of a watermaster program on Stony Creek...." for anybody you think might be interested
  • Notice of Invitations to Bid for Establishment as a Watermaster Program - and Implementation of that Program for a Period of 5 Years, Freeman or George Wilson of Reclamation in Sacramento are the contacts
    032279 SWRCB Water Rights Preworkship Session 040479 , for Proposed - Order Adopting the Report of Referee, Stony Creek Court Reference, workshop to review the Draft Report ? Sheet with nothing behind it,
  • "Proposed Order Adopting Report of Referee To Be Attached at a Later Date"
    041979 SWRCB Item 6 Proposed Order Adopting the Draft Report of - Referee, Stony Creek Court Reference, agenda item description?
  • Order WR 79- Approval and Adoption by State Water Resources Control - Board, approves & adopts this "Draft of Report of Referee", dated April, 1979
  • "Limited Distribution on Report (Executive and Legal Offices Only) If - a copy is required, call Division of Water Rights (916) 920-6471
    041979 Excerpts from Minutes of Regular Board Meeting, April 19, 1979 - Item 6, "Mr. Campos explained the item recommending addoption of the order. [para] Mr. George Bassey [sic], Attorney for Colusa County, asked that the draft report not be accepted until a further hearing is held. [para] Motion: It was moved by Mr. Maughan and unanimously carried that Water Right Order 79-6, adopting the draft report of Referee, Stony Creek Court Reference, be adopted."
    053179 contact report, Don Carroll, "A copy of the Draft Report of - Referee was mailed to the Superior Court Colusa County."
    061579 letter Basye/atty to Attwater & Markle/SWRCB counsel, enclosed - 1 & 3 copies "County of Colusa's Objections to Draft of Report of Referee and Request for Hearing."
    070979 letter McDonough/atty to SWRCB re Draft Report, County - objections, no opposition to a hearing, hiring a geologist to help
    080879 letter Johnson/SWRCB Adjudication to Basye/atty , in process of - scheduling a hearing, will let you know
    110878 letter Landon/engineer to Zipp/SWRCB regarding difference - between Paulsen's report and well driller's report
  • Table Pump Test Results November ?? 1978, Well 1A, Stonyford Water - District, 8 hours of testing, wells 1,2,3,4
  • 103178 & 110178 Graph Well No. 4 Step Pumping Level Test, Applied - Geological Eng. Inc., x = yield gpm, y = [cut off], straight line ascending, y is depth to water?
  • 110178 table Stonyford Well #4, Pump Test, 250 gpm, static level - 12'7.5", 3 pp. out of order, 10:31 to 4:33;
  • 092578 , 092678 , 092978 Table Development Testing of Well No. 3, - 10:45 - 5:00, 08:30 - 4:06, 3:05 - 4:45
    082879 letter McDonough/atty to Carroll/SWRCB ; you advised 10/30 & 31 - are soonest dates, urge sooner: 1) residents being urged to abandone their existing wells and hook up, a problem if no right, 2) uncertainty to the farmers for the next irrigation season, 3) "the County's example will encourage others to make unauthorized diversions; a number of them exist already."
    102279 letter 3 pp, Schneider/Downey to Campos/Div WRights, expert - witnesses & exhibits list; Resumes as Exh. 1 [in file 263.3]; may also call Mr. Philip Schimmel, Manager, Stonyford County Service Area; want to cross examine Zipp; much other stuff
    102279 letter Schneider/Downey to Barber/Div WRights, "will submit - today copies of its exhibits and a schedule of its expert witnesses to Mr. Campos and to Mr. McDonough,"; prepared only 6 copies of each exhibit, hope OK.; inadequate data to prepare groundwater contour map until receive data from Westcamp 5 wells, ask to prepare the exhibit after receipt of that data; "should not prejudice Mrs. Westcamp's position since she could have an exhibit prepared from the same information and since a second hearing day undoubtedly will be required, allowing Mrs. Westcamp to prepare rebuttal testimony." [Or she could just give them the data early, right?]
    102379 letter McDonough/atty to Campos/Div WRights enclosed 7 copies; - exhibits, see file 263.3 -
    102379 memo Carroll/Adjudication to Files, Notice of hearing date - of 11/02/19479 & 11/06/1979 mailed 10/02/79
    102379 letter Barber/SWRCB to all, attached is a missing page left - out of the Notice of Hearing, "indicates what documents the Board staff would introduce into the hearing by reference." Board will conduct some examination of Zipp to explain the Draft, enclosed is his resume
  • Documents to be Offered into Evidence; Reference files, top maps -
  • Resume, Richard J. Zipp -
    102479 letter McDonough/atty to Campos/Div WRights; object to Landon - & Schimmel testimony on Stonyford water system as irrelevant

    102579 unsigned letter McDonough/atty to Zipp/Div Planning & Research, - enclosed copy of 09/1966 Paulsen Report, Exhibit 3 to Landon Deposition
  • 09XX66 Report on Ground Water Development for Municipal Water Supply - at Stonyford, California by Wessley W. Paulsen, Consulting Geologist, for Walter T. Grimes & Associates, Consulting Engineers, Chico, California "Present ground water development for individual homes, businesses and public places consists of dug and drilled wells with minimum yield and fair to poor quality of water." Dug 10 - 20 ft, drilled 40 - 400 feet with 100 common; "Well yields are generally very low with yields only in the order of a few gpm." Exceptional over 100 gpm, greatest yield in upper portion of wells; subject to pollution in town; poor quality, high iron, manganese, hydrogen sulfide & odor; alluvium possibly 50 feet deep at deepest north of the Creek (contrast 300 feet or more in Phillips); well into Knoxville formation near Hyphus Creek 120 gpm; well yields possibly high in dissolved salts west & north of town but not south of the cross faults 3 miles north of Stonyford [this in Salt Spring Valley?, which is downhill from Stonyford?]; one more cost effective solution is an infiltration well in Stony alluvium: a trench 100 to 300 feet long in the alluvium, add perforated pipe drain, back fill with clean pea gravel and then "river-run gravel and sand", sump at one end and pumping plant, used successfully elsewhere, including one "for irrigation and drainage in the Orland Project." [WHERE?], but subject to stream pollution
  • Geologic Map - Stonyford Area, showing faults, alluvium, salt springs, - cross-faults

    103179 letter [Bruce] McDonough/atty to Campos/Div WRights enclosed 7 - copies "updated and corrected copies of observation well hydrographs and groundwater surface profiles."
    UNDATED Water Right Hearing Notice, 11/02/1979 10:00 a.m., Objections to Draft of Report of Referee in County of Colusa v. Westcamp, et al., Colusa County Superior Court No. 14932, same as in file 263.1

    UNDATED Stony Creek Reference, "analysis attempts to place in - perspective the significance of evidence taken at a hearing on November 2 and November 6 on Objections to the Draft Report...." 1) well pump tests; 2) alluvial fans; 1) including drawdown curve, steepness, permeability or transmissability, step-test, draw-down distance curve,; 2) fan formation; tests made vs. accepted procedures [occasional linquistic typos]
    UNDATED [starts at p. 14] Hydrology; aquifer characteristics; p. 17 - "After approximately 90 minutes of pumping, the water level in Well 4 (1A) stabilized. This was inconsistent with the projection of the drawdown curve, indicating a nearby source of recharge for the pumping well...If a recharge boundary is encountered a condition is reached during the pump test when water moves into the cone at a faster rate than predicted. This change in rage of inflow can usually be attributed to a nearby lake, river, or stream. In the case of the Stonyford Wells the recharge source can only be Stony Creek."
  • Stiff Diagrams [I numbered, in the order in the file] - 1) Stony Creek Entering Indian Valley; 2) Stony Creek Existing Indian Valley; 3) Well #3 Deep (Static), 4) Well #1 (Pumping)
  • Stiff Diagrams 5) Stonyford Ranger Station Well, 6) Well #4 Shallow - (Static)
  • Stiff Diagrams 7) Well #4 Shallow (Static), 8) Well #4 Deep (static), - 9) Well #1 (pumping) 30 feet from Well #4, 10) Stony Creek Exiting Valley,
  • Stiff Diagrams 11) Well #2 (Static), 12) Well #2 (pumping), - 13) Stony Creek Exiting Valley
  • Stiff Diagrams 13) Stony Creek Upstream, 14) Stonyford Ranger Station, - 15) Stonyford Well #2 (pumping - air development), 16) Stonyford Community Church, 17) Stonyford Well #2 (pumping - Well Development Corp.), 18) Stonyford Well #1 pumping water 17 hr 1972
  • Stiff Diagrams 19) Stony Creek Downstream; 20) Stonyford Well #4 Deep, - 21) Stonyford Well #4 Shallow, 22) Stonyford Well #2 composite (static), 23) Stonyford Well #3 shallow, 24) Stonyford Well #3 Deep x .5;
  • 062072 Cross Section Ground surface & water surface, Stonyford Well #1 -
  • 092578 Cross Section Ground surface & water surface, unidentified well -
  • 110278 Cross Section Ground surface & water surface, unidentified well -
  • 120478 Cross Section Ground surface & water surface, unidentified well - measurements taken several days after flow in creek resumed
  • 121378 Cross Section Ground surface & water surface, unidentified well -
  • Well 1 & 1A, x logarithmic ?, y is ? -
  • Well 1 & 1A, x logarithmic ?, y is ? -
  • 062072 Cross Section Ground surface & water surface, Stonyford Well #1 -
  • 092578 Cross Section Ground surface & water surface, unidentified well -
  • 110278 Cross Section Ground surface & water surface, unidentified well -
  • 120478 Cross Section Ground surface & water surface, unidentified well -
  • 122378 Cross Section Ground surface & water surface, unidentified well -
  • 032679 Draft, pump test data discussion -

    112179 letter Barber/atty to all, Filing of Briefs in the Stony Creek - Court Reference, filing schedule
    120479 letter Schneider/atty to Barber/SWRCB enclosed County's opening - brief
    121079 letter McDonough/atty to Barber/SWRCB closing due 12/14/1979, - all agreed
    121079 letter Schneider/atty to Barber/SWRCB closing due 12/14/1979, - agreed
    121379 letter Schneider/atty to Barber/SWRCB closing enclosed -
    121779 letter Basye/atty to Miller/SWRCB , object to 3-1/2 page - attachment to McDonough brief, testimony not argument; 1) reopen for cross examination & rebuttal, 2) strike, 3) allow County to file rebuttal from its own expert; #3 is only practical since the Board & staff have already read the Taber material
    121979 letter McDonough/atty to Miller/SWRCB , agree to submission - & response by Paulsen within 10 days
    121979 letter Schneider/atty to Miller/SWRCB , agree the 10 days to - 01/04/1980 (holidays)
    121979 letter Martin/Reclamation to Minasian/atty , re petition for - water master service, 1) only U.S. Attorney may sign such a petition for Reclamation. "2. We question the authority of the State Water Resources Control Board (Board) to do what they are alleged to have said they would do in paragraph V. of the petition. In a telephone conversation between Mr. Owens and Mr. Walt Pettit of the Board staff, Mr. Pettit did not fully accede to your understanding of the Board's authority to require permittees and licensees to pay for watermaster service. Only recent permits issued by the Board contain the appropriate conditions that would grant such authority to the Board. Most of the permits and licenses issued since the Angle Decree do not have such conditions. Therefore, as we understand it, it is the Board's position that only the State Department of Water Resources (DWR), under Water Code Sections 4025, et al., would be able to fully institute watermaster service to those permittees and licensees who do not have the appropriate Board conditions. Or, in thje alternative, the court would have to open the Angle Decree to include water rights initiated after the decision. [para] 3. As to the Order, it appears, at least to some extent, to place some control of the watermaster in the hands of a committee. We question this since a watermaster appointed by the court is supposed to answer only to the court and is to act independently and without control of any party other than the court. [para] 4. If, in fact, a 'committee' is proper, it should not name specific persons, since they seem to 'fade away' in time. It would be better to say 'a representative appointed by _______________.' [para] ...6. The Orland Unit Water Users Association does not hold any water rights covered by the Angle Decree or any other water rights whatsoever, nor are they a party to this action. Thus, the Association has no authority to initiate a petition to be filed with the United States District Court to obtain watermaster service on Stony Creek. However, if the petition is executed by the United States, such execution would be on behalf of the Orland Unit Water Users Association."

    [correspondence ends, thence to 27382 correspondence file?]

    263.01 Regular Functional Activities - Supervision of Water Rights: Correspondence

    010582 letter Moldenhauer to Judge Wilkins/USDC ED, attached is annual report of Stony Creek Watermaster
  • Stony Creek Watermaster, 1981 Annual Report
    - 1982 Proposed Work Plan

    010782 letter Moldenhauer to Judge Wilkins/USDC ED, $22,740 past due
    021084 press release Reclamation, will offer a "water exchange contract - to the County of Colusa this month designed to settle a water rights dispute on Stony Creek." etc.

    263.1 Regular Functional Activities - Supervision of Water Rights: Pleadings

  • Item 1 Complaint for Injunctions against Unlawful Diversion of Water 06/26/1978, County of Colusa, Superior Court Action No. 14974
  • Item 2 Complaint for Condemnation of Real Property, 04/21/1978, County of Colusa, Superior Court Action No. 14932
  • Item 3 Order for Possession Prior to Judgment, 04/24/1978, #14932
  • Item 4 Deposition of Thomas E. Landon, 07/13/1978 #14932
  • Item 5 Deposition of Wesley W. Paulsen, 07/17/1978 #14932
  • Item 6 Answer to Complaint, 08/08/1978 #14974
  • Item 7 Stipulation 08/18/1978 #14932
  • Item 8 Notice of Draft of Report of Referee #14932
  • Item 9 Objections to Draft of Report of Referee & Request for Hearing 06/15/1979 #14932
  • Item 10 Notice of Hearing on Objections to Draft of Report of Referee, #14932
  • Item 11 Notice of Entry of Judgment 08/28/1981
  • Item 12 Objections to Statement & Apportionment of Expense, 12/16/1981
  • Item 13 Notice of Hearing 12/23/1981
  • Item 14 Declaration of D.E. Carroll in Support of Statement & Apportionment of Expense 02/09/1982
  • Item 15 Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Statement & Apportionment of Expense 02/17/1982
  • Item 16 Order Resetting Hearing Date
  • Item 17 Declaration of Motion for Order for Referee's Costs 12/21/1982
  • Item 18 Notice of Motion for Order for Referee's Costs 12/21/1982
  • Item 19 Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Motion for Order for Referee's Costs 12/21/1982
  • Item 20 Certificate of Service for items 18 and 19
  • Item 21 Points & Authorities in Opposition to Motion for Order Allowing Plaintiff to Reopen Case & for Entry of Judgment 03/03/1984
  • Item 22 Declaration of Martin McDonough in Opposition to Motion for Order Allowing Plaintiff to Reopen Case & for Entry of Judgment, 03/03/1984

    Item 1 062678 Complaint for Injunction against Unlawful Diversion of - Water County of Colusa, Superior Court Action No. 14974; Stonycreek Water District et al., diverting from underflow in violation of Angle Decree
    Item 2 042178 Complaint for Condemnation of Real Property County of Colusa, Superior Court Action No. 14932, Colusa v. Westcamp and all persons claiming an interest; well sites, protective easement, road and public utilite easement, appraised at $1,000, offered her $3,000, rejected
    Item 3 042478 Order for Possession Prior to Judgment #14932, deposited the money in the County Treasury for it

    Item 4 071378 Deposition of Thomas E. Landon 07/13/1978 #14932; project, - $250,000; Farmers' Home Administration, 50% grant and 50% loan, 40-year payback, 5% interest; already advanced $125,000; location for well selected by Landon in consultation with Wessley Paulson, consulting geologist; 1966 Stonyford Homeowners Association for a water system, grants and loan offers made & refused; 1970-72 County General Plan outlined a system for Stonyford; p. 13 "Did Mr. Paulsen make an investigation of the affects [sic] of the well extractions on the flow downstream? A. I don't believe so. The quantity of the water extractions would be so small in comparison to the overall flow in the area that it wouldn't be considered there would be any substantial effect." p. 26 "well sites on the Westcamp property are subject to periodic flooding by the overflow of Stony Creek? A. I know that the area did flood in 1964 to very low depths. Q. Is it your opinion that flooding may contaminate the water that is extracted from the wells, if it occurs again? A. No. Of course, any flood, that would depend on the depth of the flooding, of course. We have taken measures in the designing of the wells to protect them from any contamination. Q. What are those measures? A. The well sites are elevated, the casings are raised above the pad grade of the well sites, and chlorination facilities are part of the project." p. 27 "...plans were approvied by the State Department of Health." "Was the department of Health aware of the flooding problem, to your knowledge? A. I couldn't say for sure." p. 28 "...sanitary seals were considered for the wells...."
  • Exhibits to be attached:
    - 1. Copy of Application
    - 2. Copy of Contract
    - 3. Geologic Structure Report
    - 4. Letter from Mr. Spencer to Mr. Landon, dated June 5, 1978 --
    - 5. Letter from Mr. Spencer to Mr. Wilsey, dated June 23, 1978

    Item 5 071778 Deposition of Wesley W. Paulsen #14932; p. 4 "report - that you made as a result of your investigation is a document furnished to me by counsel as the Report of Groundwater Development for a Municipal Water Supply for Stonyford, California? A. Yes. Q. Would you summarize the conclusions of that report? A. Yes, we considered the possibility of drilling wells in the alluvium. We feld -- it's not an area of very high production wells in any case; so, it was -- although the requirements are quite small, obtaining a well site was technically difficult to obtain, you might say. A well site that was of economic quality, waterwise, and so on, sufficient for the needs of the community -- we were not sure we could get it. [para] However, we drilled wells in the older rocks some three miles to the south and obtained some very good production; however, there were wells drilled within Stonyford fairly deep into the older rock beds, as such, and they were not very productive and quality was very poor. [para] So, our conclusion was simply, that the groundwater basin of the Stonyford area was -- the alluvium was the most logical place to drill wells for water supply. Q. What was the difficulty with the area south of Stonyford, did you say. A. There was very little alluvium. It requires that you go into bedrock, prospecting, which is a difficult type of material. We found hydrogen sulfide -- bad odors, basically -- the quality was potable. It was undesirable and would have required treatment, this sort of thing. [para] Going further to the north along the Stony Creek Fault, saltwater comes up along the fault; so, there's always the possibility of getting saline water from the deeper formations. Q. Did you find that the quantity of water was satisfactory at either of those locations or could be satisfactory? A. Why, possibly, yes; but, there are great risks. The percentage -- for instance, where we got 100 gallons a minute, well, to the south, several more wells were drilled and the yield was very, very low. We were just fortunate in getting that initial well on the fault zones, you can have a great variation in product, plus, of course, the poor quality." [Paulsen has a problem keeping track of his files] p. 11 "contractor had started building [drilling?] -- found out he couldn't drill the way he was doing it and has not returned yet to complete drilling." p. 12 "It's my opinion that the gravels in which the wells are are not part of the underflow of the stream. My opinion, and I've been in, you know, quite a few of these groundwater investigations, is that the technical intepretation of the underflow is the immediate channel of the stream and the gravels underlying it which are moved and disturbed by the stream. [Note in margin, "Wrong"] [para] And obviously, if you place a well within a gravel bar on a stream, then it's certainly part of the underflow. These are not...A. To enlarge on that, I see no difference between drilling of these wells in the alluvium span of Stony Creek and in the Stonyford Basin. As to the drilling of wells in Bear Valley in the alluvium, which is supportive flow of Cache Creek or the fan of Stony Creek above Orland, where there are a great many irrigation wells, very high production, or even in the Sacramento Valley alluvium, which is supportive, let's say, of the flow of the Sacramento River, but in a very remote supportive sense." [thus wells among defendants in the Stony Creek Fan above & below Orland are from underflow, see 90 pages of Angle Tx pp. 2906 et seq., retranscribed at ] Sources of water at the well: 1) precip, 2) unlined ditches above and below it, 3) irrigation all around it, 4) [underground movement from Auk Auk Ridge south of Dry Creek]; p. 14 2 levees between well sites & Stony Creek. [evasive?] p. 20 "...some 76 feet of nonbedrock alluvium at the well site where it was drilled....south of Stony Creek, it's only 30 or 40 feet." p. 21 "I would say that it's probably, oh, 10 to 10,000 acre-feet of groundwater in storage in the alluvium in Stony Creek Valley;" "...lots of gravel and there's a specific yield, 15 to 25 percent which is quite a good storage factor." "...partly structural because of the Stony Creek fault on the east side, as you drop down, the land is dropped down, so it doesn't have to be eroded out; it's actually a structured basin. It's faulted down and filled with sediments." p. 22 " conclusion says: 'During summer and fall, groundwater pumpage and groundwater ouflow to the lower Stony Creek canyon drains most of the stored water.' A. Well, I just don't believe it. And there's good evidence to show our wells -- there has been difficulty with the wells south of Stonyford going dry in the late summer, but the deeper drilled wells north of Stony Creek have done very well. And so, I don't think there's any way that that basin can be made [dry?] in a summer season." p. 26 "Certainly, there's not going to be any recharge from precipitation during a dry period like we had in the, theoretically, you could lower that for ten years before you'd get down to the base of this upper gravel. [para] But that wouldn't occur because you also have artesian pressure on the deeper gravel and the water coming from there is contributing; so, there's an artesian flow from the basin's periphery, you might say, thorughout [sic] the basin toward the well."p. 27 "Q. Well, if all flows did cease down Stony Creek, did cease by early summer last year...." [across the valley, or at both ends of the valley?] "Q....formerly employed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation? A. Yes." p. 33 "Q. BY MR. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Paulsen, do you know whether the Bureau of Reclamation takes the position that there's no abrogated [unallocated?] water in Stony Creek? A. Well, I think that's common knowledge, whether the Bureau takes that position or not..." p. 35 "I was in charge of writing Tehama area report which -- well, it didn't include that -- this was the Tehama-Colusa area report which was a very detailed study of the Sacramento Valley portions of that area. [para] I did the initial studies on the Black Butte area construction -- let's see, did a study on Orland drainage, but that's about it."
  • 091766 James H. McDonald, typewritten notes numbered 1 - 36, tie in - with a map somewhere?
  • undated, handwritten, barely legible notes of well records -
  • 052678 memo Parsons to Spencer underflow conclusions, another copy
  • Barely legible topo map of Stonyford Valley, with terraces, bedrock, - margins, alluvium & well sites added

    Item 6 080878 Answer by Colusa county to Complaint #14974, admit little, - deny most
    Item 7 081878 Stipulation #14932, Court may refer to SWRCB for - investigation and report on source of wells
    Item 8 Notice of Draft of Report of Referee #14932 -
    Item 9 061579 Objections to Draft of Report of Referee & Request for - Hearing #14932; denies pumping will be from underflow; denies Stony a losing stream in vicinity of town of Stonyford, etc.; "objects to and denies the statement in Conclusion 7 that the older alluvium constitutes 'the bed and banks of the channel'. This could be true only if the channel of Stony creek is assumed to be approximately 30 feet deep and the width of the entire valley. This interpretation of the 'bed and banks' of Stony Crek would require the conclusion that below the City of Orland the 'bed and banks' of Stony Creek are 10 to 20 miles wide."; ignores other sources of recharge; requests hearing before adoption of the report

    Item 10 Notice of Hearing on Objections to Draft of Report of Referee, #14932 [not exactly]
  • 012982 note Anderson/McDonough to Leidigh/SWRCB, enclosed Defendant's P & As in support of Allocating Referee Expense to Plaintiff of 01/08/1982 [sic]
  • 010582 Defendant's Points and Authorities in Support of Allocating Referee Expense to Plaintiff ; expense should be entirely to plaintiff and defendant supports position of State Board
  • 012782 Order Vacating and Resetting Hearing Date, hearing on "Statement and Apportionment of Expense under Water Code Section 2043"
  • 011982 Conditional Judgment of Dismissal, a 3rd copy
  • 110279 Water Right Hearing Notice, Objections to Draft of Report of Referee in County of Colusa v. Westcamp, et al., Colusa County Superior Court No. 14932, "does the plaintiff pump from Wells 1 and 2 water from the underflow of Stony Creek?"
    - Scope of Hearing (14 point list of issues within the larger issue
    - Information Concerning Appearance at Water Right Hearings

    Item 11 082881 Notice of Entry of Judgment , Colusa Superior, #14932 "Conditional Judgment of Dismissal"
    Item 12 121681 Objections to 'Statement & Apportionment of Expense under Water Code [Section] 2043' and Application for Hearing"; applies to the Court for a hearing pursuant to Section 2045, apportionment should not be made until Final Judgment, not Conditional Judgment; 2043 requires an equitable apportion - plaintiff believes it is pumping groundwater, report does not benefit plaintiff [an inverse argument from the concept of "costs"?], after Final Judgment is when all costs should be reviewed
    Item 13 122381 Notice of Hearing , Superior court in 14932, on Statement and Apportionment...., set 01/08/1982 3:30 p.m.
    Item 14 020982 Declaration of Don E. Carroll in Support of Statement & Apportionment of Expense , Engineer in charge of Adjudication Unit, Adjudication Section, Division of water Rights; task number set up for this, "only expenses related to the Stony Creek Reference were charged to this accounting task number"
    Item 15 021782 Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Statement & Apportionment of Expense ; "administratively simpler to apportion them to the plaintiff initially rather than to burden the defendant with first paying half of the Board's expenses and then seeking reimbursement from the plaintiff." Conditional or Final Judgment irrelevant.
    Item 16 Order Resetting Hearing Date, Colusa County Superior 14932, to 02/26/1982 3:30 p.m. on Motion of SWRCB, phone from Counsel Leidigh
    Item 17 122182 Declaration of Victor Bianchini and Referee's Bill of Particulars; Motion for Order for Referee's Costs ; chief, Accounting and Accounting Systems Office, Division of Administrative services, SWRCB, 10/1978 - 10/1979 timesheets discarded; task 605-19
    Item 18 122182 Notice of Motion for Order for Referee's Costs , from SWRCB Counsel, moves to "fix the reasonable amount of the referee's expenses and requiring the prompt payment...."
    Item 19 122182 Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Motion for Order for Referee's Costs , from SWRCB Counsel
    Item 20 Certificate of Service for items 18 and 19, from Darcy L. Heryford of SWRCB
  • 122782 letter Nannen/Colusa Clerk to Heryford/SWRCB Counsel , returning docs submited, Certificate of Service does not conform to Calif. Rules of Court 201(c) re format of first page for filing.
    - 122382 Certificate of Service

    Item 21 030384 Points & Authorities in Opposition to Motion for Order Allowing Plaintiff to Reopen Case & for Entry of Judgment , Superior #14932 McDonough,; time has passed, judgment should be final; minor point: p. 8 "In its Points and Authorities in opposition to defendant's motion for judgment, just received, dated March 2, 1984, [where?] plaintiff urges that the Angle Decree water users are ENTITLED (plaintiff's emphasis) to change points of diversion and place and purpose of use, and that the changes have already been made by unilateral action, and that the purpose of the notices of motions in the federal court is merely to advise other users. As we have seen by the quotation from the Angle Decree the right to change is subject to the lack of injury to other Angle Decree rights, and the federal court has established a procedure to be sure that no such injury occurs." [not exactly]; " to the changes of point of diversion and place and purpose of use of Angle Decree rights, plaintiff [sic] has just now, six years after the beginning of diversion, been noticed for hearing by plaintiff. Plaintiff was not enough interested in those rights to discover the notice requirement under the Angle Decree until last month.** fn** The case files were 'not in good order.' (Points and Authorities, March 2, 1984, p. 2, line 20.)" [Now THAT's an understatement]

    Item 22 030384 Declaration of Martin McDonough in Opposition to Motion for Order Allowing Plaintiff to Reopen Case & for Entry of Judgment, Superior #14932; "I have not, and I believe that protestants have not, taken any action which had the effect of delaying the proceeding between the Board on the application...." [uh, what is the purpose of the entirety of his clients' actions if not to delay, thwart, stymie, burden, harass, encumber,.... ?]

    263.2 Regular Functional Activities - Supervision of Water Rights: Orders of the Court

  • Item 1 Order of Reference, 10/01/1978
  • Item 2 Announcement of Intended Opinion, 04/27/1981
  • Item 3 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of law, 08/20/1981, Conditional Judgment of Dismissal, 08/19/1981
  • Item 4 Order Vacating & Resetting Hearing Date, 01/12/1982
  • Item 5 Opinion on Department of Water Resources' Claim for Expense Reimbussment [sic] as Referee, 04/21/1983
  • Item 6 Judgment Determining Expense of Reference & Its Apportionment

    Item 1 Order of Reference, 10/01/1978, to SWRCB to determine whether from source of surface water or "in a subterranean stream flowing through a known and definite channel as those terms are utilized in Section 1200 of the Water Code" Colusa County Superior #14932
    Item 2 043081 letter McDonough/atty to Markle/stty SWRCB enclosed court's opinion
  • 042781 Announcement of Intended Opinion #14932
    Item 3 081981 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of law #14932
  • 081981 Conditional Judgment of Dismissal #14932
    Item 4 011282 Order Vacating & Resetting Hearing Date to 02/26/1982 #14932
    Item 5 042183 Opinion on Department of Water Resources' Claim for - Expense Reimbussment [sic] as Referee; Board wants reimbursement for 235 hours of attorneys' work or $7,675 out of total of $26,000; court believes time spent "unnecessary", cuts it by $3,070, all other charges allowed.
    Item 6 062783 Judgment Determining Expense of Reference & Its - Apportionment, $22,541.17 recover from Colusa, reserve jurisdiction to reapportion

    263.3 Regular Functional Activities - Supervision of Water Rights: Transcripts & Exhibits Folder A

    Index, Transcripts & Exhibits "(These exhibits were not given to the File Room by Bruce Wormald after the hearing, These were located during 1984, therefore, some are missing.)"
    Item 1 Transcript, dated 11/2 & 6/1979
  • Exh. 1 Files of Stony Creek Court Reference (by reference)
  • Exh. 2 USGS Topographic Maps (by reference)
  • Exh. 3 Book entitled "Groundwater & Wells" (missing)
    Item 3 WESTCAMP
  • Exh. 1 Professional Qualifications of Harmon Ray Taber
  • Exh. 2 Location drawing, Westcamp property (missing)
  • Exh. 3 Hydrograph - observation wells
  • Exh. 4 Groundwater surface profile of borings 1,2, & 3
  • Exh. 5 Groundwater surface profile of borings 1,4 & 5
  • Exh. 6 recorder Chart (missing)
  • Exh. 7 Map (missing)
  • Exh. 8 Map (missing)
  • Exh. 1 Professional Qualifications of Wessley Paulsen, Thomas E. Landon & William Kent Jackson
  • Exh. 2 Quadrangle map
  • Exh. 3 Aerial photograph
  • Exh. 4 Profile
  • Exh. 5 Profile
  • Exh. 6 Water Distribution System Data
  • Exh. 7 Well System Use Data
  • Exh. 8 Runoff & Precipitation
  • Exh. 9 Well System Water Level Data
  • Exh. 10 Well Area Groundwater Contours
  • Exh. 11 Well Logs
  • Exh. 12 Water System Interference Effect Pumping Well 1-A (4)
  • Exh. 13 Water Level Curves
  • Exh. 14 Graph
  • Exh. 15 Graph
  • Exh. 16 Geologic Map of California (by reference)
  • Exh. 17 "The Ukiah Sheet" (missing)
  • Exh. 18 DWR Bulletin 118-3, pages 45 & 46
  • Exh. 19 Diagram C (missing)
  • Exh. 20 Page 14, Draft of Report, August 1979
  • Exh. 21 Letter dated 10/20/79
  • Exh. 22 Letter dated 10/29/79
  • Exh. 23 Letter dated 10/29/79

    Westcamp Exhibits 1,3,4,5
  • Exhibit 1, Professional Qualifications, Harmon Ray Taber
  • Exhibit 3, Hydrographs of Observation Wells, October 1979; 5 borings, x = dates 09/25 - 10/30/1979; when flow diverted to East Park, elevation of groundwater dropped. came back up starting 1 day after restored, peaked 2-1/2 days after;
  • Exhibit 4, Groundwater Surface Profile, 10/09; x = distance in feet from Bore #1, y = elevation in feet, both groundwater and surface, 10/06/1979; water 5 - 8 feet down in 1 & 2, 10 - 13 at #3, against level of Stony Creek? for varying dates in October 1979 [needs further explanation]
  • Exhibit 5, Groundwater Surface Profile, 10/09; x = distance in feet from Bore #1, y = elevation in feet, both groundwater and surface, 10/06/1979; water 6 - 9 feet down in 1, 10 - 5.5-9.5 at #4 % 5, against level of Stony Creek? for varying dates in October 1979 [needs further explanation]

    Colusa Exhibits 1,3,6,7,8,9,14,15,18,20,21,22 & 31
    Exhibit 1, Professional Qualifications of Wessley W. Paulsen, Thomas E. Landon, William Kent Jackson
    Exhibit 3, Aerial photo with wells & lines in red
    Exhibit 6, Colusa County Service Area, Stonyford, Water Distribution System Data as of October 1, 1979
    Exhibit 7, Colusa County Service Area, Stonyford, Well System Use Data
    Exhibit 8, Map handdrawn with figures thereon Colusa County Service Area, Stonyford, Watershed area 7110 acres contrasted to Effective Storage Area 2226 acres [made up?]
    Exhibit 9, Table, Colusa County Service Area, Stonyford, Water System Water Level Data, Pond, Wells 2,3,4; B-1 - B-5
    Exhibit 14, Graph, Stonyford Water System, Maximum 1 Year Cone of Depression, Well #1, x = radial distance from well 1A in feet exponentially; y = pumping water level depth in feet, graph a straight line
    Exhibit 15, Graph, Well No 2, effects of various pumping tests?
    Exhibit 18, map, Sheet 1, Superadjacent Stream Channel Deposits, American, Sacramento, Feather, Cache Cr. confluence
  • Sheet 2, Sacramento, Cosumnes, Putah Cr. confluence
    Exhibit 20, Resources Agency, DWR, August 1979 Draft, Ground Water Basins in California, title, p. 14 with younger & older alluvium in Sacramento Valley
    Exhibit 21, 102079 letter Paulsen to Landon/Landon Engineering, using - your measurements, calculate usable groundwater storage at 15,047 a-f
    Exhibit 22, 102979 letter Paulsen to Landon/Landon Engineering, using - your measurements, etc. "it appears from all data that the primary flow to the Stonyford Community wells is from the west down the alluvial fan and not northward from Stony Creek."
    Exhibit 23, 102979 letter Paulsen to Landon/Landon Engineering, using - your figures, at least 3200 afy recharge to that aquifer from sources other than Stony underflow;

    263.3 Regular Functional Activities - Supervision of Water Rights: Transcripts and Exhibits Folder B

    handwritten prededessor to alluvial fan map
    topo East Park to Wolf Glade to Black Diamond Glade Salt Spring Valley to Montgomery Creek
    topo Stonyford 7-1/2 Quad, old channels, terraces, divides pencilled in; Dry Creek "some flow in Dry creek surface" at road, no flow a bit further down;
    topo Gilmore Peak 7-1/2 Quad, s/w edge of basin terrace pencilled in
    Exhibit 2 Colusa County Service Area No 2, Basin Area [not exactly], Landon Engineering Oct. 1979
    Exhibit 4 Profile through Wells 4, 1, 2, & 3 Measurements 06/27-28/1978, Landon Engineering
    Exhibit 5 Profile along North Line of the South Half of Sectipn 29 T18N R6W looking North
    Exhibit 10 Colusa County Service Area, Stonyford, Well Area Groundwater Contours, measured 10/17/1979, County Exhibit 14
    Exhibit 11 Stonyford Community Wells, Lithology and Construction, - October 1979, County Exhibit 6
    Exhibit 12 Stonyford Water System, Well No. 4, Time/Pumping Water Level Curves, x = minutes/days, y=pumping level, depth ft, at 260, 300, & 340 gpm,
    Exhibit 13 Stonyford Water System, Well No. 1A (4), Interference Effect; contrasting wells 1, 2, 3, & 4, Applied Geological, Eng., Inc., Auburn, CA,

    263.311 Regular Functional Activities - Supervision of Water Rights: Report of Referee

    041979 Order WR 79-6 approving and adopting 'Draft Report of Referee', dated April,,1979" --
    UNDATED, Stony Creek Stream System showing Alluvial Fan, Rainbow to pinch Dry Creek confluence
    06XX80 Cut & Paste Draft, Report of Referee

    06XX80 Report of Referee , 45 pp, iv, Appendix pp A-1 - A11; procedural issues: County asked that report "not be presented to the Court in such a manner as to affect the burden of proof on defendant Westcamp", Board disclaims that intent; Westcamp asked to strike Mr. Landon's testimony on the water system and concludes the amount of water pumped by the County is relevant; p. 5 basin "bounded on the east by the Stony Creek Fault and the Coast Range thrust," "basin appears to be tectonic in origin with the most recent features attributed to erosion and deposition by Stony Creek and other tributary creeks." p. 6 "recent alluvium is highly permeable; it transmits water freely and consists of clean (without much clay) sands and gravels. The older alluvium has a greater amount of clay and silt present, has been compacted and in part cemented, and is much less permeable....almost all of the groundwater movement in Indian Valley is through the permeable recent alluvium." p. 10 "classical shape such as formed by Stony Creek where it emerges from the Coast Range to the Sacramento Valley in the vicinity of Orland." p. 11 elev. at west end of fan is 1240; drainage above that apex is 90 square miles, "10 times the drainage area of Dry Creek or other tributaries to Indian Valley" [and from much higher elevation, so more rainfall]; p. 21, Paulsen's assertion that 15,047 a-f of usable storage is available in the 'Effective Storage Area' "is not supported by any evidence." p. 22, Dry Creek cannot feed these wells. p. 23, precipitation northwest of the wells "would not contribute any subtantial quantity of water to the County's wells" water quality data indicates water extracted by County is not stored or percolating; p. 30 "water quality data analyzed by the Board indicates that the water pumped by the County originates from Stony Creek; second, water level data in the Stony Creek fan shows that Stony creek is a losing stream in Indian valley [not throughout its length]; third, changes in the flow of water in Stony Creek in Indian Valley have a direct impact upon subsurface water levels in the area of the County well field." p. 31, 3 distinct water types in Indian Valley; p. 32 1) Stony Creek, a calcium bicarbonate type, as is the County's well; 2) sodium chloride water in the older alluvium, "may be connates coming out of the Franciscan or Knoxville formation." "Water quality difference were noted when pumping and static samples were compared. In both Wells 2 and 4 there is a greater concentration of Na and Cl in the static sample than in the pumping sample." "Poorer quality water is present in the lower zone, but the lower zone does not contribute a detectable amount of water when the well is pumped. The pumped water is coming out of the shallow gravels."; p. 33 3) "magnesium-sodium chloride water in the valley south of Stonyford", "moving northward to where it blends with the surface water near Stonyford." "may be a mixture of a magnesium bicarbonate with the type two sodium chloride water." "surface water quality is only slightly affected by groundwater surfacing in the valley. This indicates that very little groundwater is surfacing to degrade Stony Creek." p. 36 "The measured water table of the wells is below the surface level of the stream and slopes away from the channel...." p. 42 "water level data presented in Figures 5 - 9 shows that Stony Creek is a losing stream. It does not show that the water turns and flows out of Stony Creak perpendicular to the existing channel." "Defendant Westcamp installed five observation of these profiles supports the Board's conclusions stated in finding 81. [para] 84. Westcamp Exhibit 3 also indicates significant changes in the subsurface water level profile when water is diverted from Stony Creek into the diversion canal leading to East Park dam. Stonyford residents have indicated that well yields tend to be high in wells near Stony Creek when water is flowing in the Creek. However, when all flow in Stony is diverted into irrigation canals, wells along Stony Creek tend to dry up. Therefore, the irrigation ditch noted in finding 70, located between County Well 3 and Stony Creek, serves as a source of recharge when water is flowing in it. [para] 85. All of the above data support the conclusion that Stony Creek is flowing through and recharging the shallow alluvial gravels in the reach of Stony Creek near the County's wells. This water, if not intercepted, would surface and exit where Stony creek flows out of Indian Valley." p. 44 "County's position is that there exists a 'semiperched water level'. No evidence supports such speculation. The well logs shown on County of Colusa Exhibit 11 indicate that there is no continuous layer of impermeable material. Because of the process of formation of alluvial fans, such a deposit would not be expected." p. 85 4. The water extracted by the County is in direct hydraulic continuity with the surface flow of Stony Creek."
  • Table of Contents
    - Findings of Fact
    - - Nature of Controversy, p. 2
    - - Investigation by Referee, p. 3
    - - Procedural Issues Raised at the Hearing, p. 3
    - - Geological Description of Indian Valley, p. 5
    - - Well Hydraulics, p. 12
    - - Summary of Findings and Conclusions of Draft of Report of Referee p. 18
    - - Brief Description of Objections and Position of County of Colusa and of the Issues Raised by Those Objections , p. 19
    - - Analysis of Evidence Concerning the Alleged Extraction of Percolating Water by the County, p. 20
    - - Analysis of Evidence Regarding Whether the County Extracts Water from the Flow of Stony Creek of [sic] from a Subterranean Stream Flowing through Known and Definite Chanels [sic] 23
    - - Analysis of Water Quality Data, p. 31
    - - Analysis of Water Level Data, p. 36
    - - Analysis of Flow Data for Stony Creek, p. 43
    - Conclusions of Law
    - - Applicable Legal Principles, p. 44
    - - Application of Legal Principles, p. 45
    - Tables
    - - Table 1: Pump Test Results November 2, 1978, Well 4, Stonyford Water District, p. 16 [250 gpm over 6 hours, drawdown zero for Wells 2 & 3, 4.08 feet for Well #4 stabilizing in 90 minutes, .47 feet for Well 1, see Figure 2]
    - Figures
    - - Figure 1: Stony Creek Stream System Showing Alluvial Fan, p. 7
    - - Figure 2: Time-Drawdown Curve, p. 17
    - - Figure 3: Stiff Diagrams of Water Quality - Stony Creek and Stonyford Wells 2 and 4, p. 34
    - - Figure 4: Stiff Diagrams of Water Quality - Stonyford Wells 1,2 and 3, Stonyford Ranger Station and Stonyford Community Church, p. 35
    - - Figure 5: Water Level Data Showing Hydraulig Gradient, June 20, 1972, p. 37 [sloping away from the stream]
    - - Figure 6: Water Level Data Showing Hydraulig Gradient, September 25, 1978 p. 38
    - - Figure 7: Water Level Data Showing Hydraulig Gradient, November 2, 1978 p. 39
    - - Figure 8: Water Level Data Showing Hydraulig Gradient, December 4, 1978 p. 40
    - - Figure 9: Water Level Data Showing Hydraulig Gradient, December 13, 1978 p. 41
  • Appendix - Water Analyses
    - 120678 Stony Creek Downstream from Stonyford, p. A-1
    - 120478 Stonyford Well 4, Deep p. A-2
    - 120478 Stonyford Well 4, Shallow p. A-3
    - 120478 Stonyford Well 2, Composite p. A-4
    - 120478 Stonyford Well 3, Shallow p. A-5
    - 120478 Stonyford Well 3, Deep p. A-6
    - 120478 Stony Creek Upstream from Stonyford at Diversion Dam, p. A-7
    - 120708 Stonyford Ranger's Office, Groundwater , p. A-8, faucet at back of building
    - 120708 Stonyford Well 2, Pumping p. A-9
    - 120708 Stonyford Community Church, Groundwater , p. A-10
    - Stonyford 013179 Well 1 after 17 Hours Pumping p. A-11, Cook Research Laboratories, Inc. for Landon

    061980 WR 80-11 adopting Report of Referee
    062580 letter Johnson/Div WRights to parties, notice, filed Report with the Superior Court
    071180 letter Pettit/Div WRights to Superior Court, enclosed
  • 1) transcript of Board hearing on objections to the draft report of Referee; not enclosed are:
  • 2) exhibits introduced in evidence at that hearing
  • 3) other material
    072280 Westcamp #14932, Notice, report filed with Clerk of the Court
    072680 2 return receipts, Basye & McDonough

    263.3110 Regular Functional Activities - Supervision of Water Rights:

    082180 letter Basye/atty to Nannen/Colusa County Clerk, enclosed, Objections to Report of Referee
    082180 Objections to Report of Referee -

    263.45 Supervision of Water Rights, Supervision of Water Rights, Judgment & Decree

    081981 Conditional Judgment of Dismissal, another copy
    082081 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, as above
    Return to Stony Creek Water Wars.

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