THE STONY CREEK WATER WARS
Glenn County - Tehama County - Colusa County , California.
(c) 2010, Mike Barkley (03/08/2010)

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

SWRCB APPLICATION A027750 City of Santa Clara Case Index - Highline Canal Power Plant
[see also http://swrcb2.waterboards.ca.gov/ewrims/wrims-permits/p019086.pdf ]


[schedule of allowed Angle Decree usage at http://www.mjbarkl.com/limits2.htm shows that SWRCB did not have jurisdiction to consider this application, but even if it did it is not clear to me why installing a powerplant in a pre-1914 canal is within the SWRCB jurisdiction; Santa Clara FERC application says only riparian exempt from hydro ap requirements (p. 2)]

RELATED Stony Creek Power APPLICATIONS:
- East Park Reservoir, Colusa County
- - Application 26745, the City of Santa Clara
- - Application 26682, Orland Unit Water Users Association
- Stony Gorge Reservoir, Glenn County
- - Application 26378, the City of Santa Clara
- - Application 26659, Orland Unit Water Users Association
- Black Butte Reservoir, Tehama County
- - Application 26379, the City of Santa Clara
- - Application 26658, Orland Unit Water Users Association
- Highline Canal Ap 027750



[Maps?]

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

[Inside of file front cover]

Applicant: City of Santa Clara
Address: c/o Silicom [sic] Valley Power, Damon Beck, 850 Duane Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95054

To be issued before 08/26/1984; map code E-46; Quad Name Black Butte Dam 7.5'
Application 27750 permit 19086
Applicant: City of Santa Clara
Date filed 05/09/1983 county 52
Forms Sent 08/26/1983 - 8, 8a, 8b;

Protests:
  • 092083 Environmental Advocates dism/withdr 11/03/1983

    Remarks
  • 110883 Proof of Publ Rec'd
  • 122883 Permit 19086 issued
  • 020388 Rec'd Ext Petition
  • 041488 Monthly Notice of Petition Rec'd
  • 102588 Ext to 12/31/1990 to complete constr. & to 12/31/1994 to complete use;
  • 111898 Report of Inspection

    Record of Fees:
  • 050983 $10.00 Ap
  • 060883 $990.00
  • 020388 $50.00 Extension
  • 011800 $50.00
  • 011800 $850.00 DFG

    Record of Folders
    2nd FERC

    [Inside of file back cover]

    [nothing]


    LOOSE PAPERS IN BACK OF FILE;
  • 082283 map, City of Santa Clara, High Line Canal Hydroelectric Project, Ap. 27750 04/1983; superseded, amended map rec'd 06/17/1999; Profile through powerplant, shows 2 48" penstocks drop from 368.5' to 339.5 from High Line Canal to the main canal next to Graves Cemetery; POD, POU, Point of Return on
  • ????67 Black Butte Dam quad 15' topo map.
  • 061799 Request for License, permit 19086; permit, 198 cfs 04/01 - 10/31 each year;
  • ?????? Envelope marked Superseded
    - 082283 map, City of Santa Clara, High Line Canal Hydroelectric Project, handwritten notes, Superseded
  • 082283 map, City of Santa Clara, High Line Canal Hydroelectric Project, a different version; this time "Profile through powerplant much flatter, 3.6% slope 84" ID prefab RCP until diameter reductions and a drop into the turbine, & outlet 72" 10% upslope prefab RCP to existing canal
  • 032200 Route slip - petitions, exemption through license.


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

    1983

    042983 New Application slip, received $10, fee $1000, due $990.00, stream code 0-130-00-00-0 Map Code E46 Quad Black Butte Dam 7.5 Adjudicated Area "No" [uh,]; Calif. coordinates E 1,906,250 E 175,250
    042983 Application to Appropriate Unappropriated Water, City of Santa Clara; High Line Canal, tributary to Stony Creek, diverted at Black Butte Dam Outlet; crossed off, Stony Creek trib to Sacramento River; normal dry-up Nov - March; POD 500 ft South/1300 ft West, return 250 ft South/1125 ft West [of?], Tehama County; Reclamation owns land, access per FERC license; 250 cfs; "no storage"; diversion by 2 48" concrete penstock pipes 110' long 27' fall, 125 cfs each, use within NE 1/4 NE 1/4 S10 T22N R4W MDB & M; max theoretical HP 767, power distribution to and within a municiple [sic] system, reaction turbine, ditch back into the Orland South Canal; CDFG "believe that the project will not adversely affect fish and wildlife resources and therefore no mitigation is required"; downstream: OUWUA
  • 042983 Environmental Information; "Existing irrigation water supply canal, canal sides are lined with concrete. Diverse annual grasses and low shrubs occur along the canal. This vegetation is cleaned each year, either by burning or spraying." "Trenching and backfilling; paving of new road and parking area; construction of intake structure, penstocks, powerhouse, and tailrace. Water will not be rerouted. Construction will take place during the period when the canal is not being used." no wastewater; "clearance by the State Office of Historic Preservation." APN 027-02-0-012-9, federal land so no permits; initial CEQA study w/FERC license Ap. as Exhibit E; CDFG, no impacts;
  • ?????? photo, 1) "Proposed point of Diversion - adjacent to existing high line canal chute intake." & photo, 2) "proposed place of use and point of return - adjacent to existing chute dissipator."
    050983 letter Walsh/Div WRights to City of Santa Clara; Ap assigned #27750 received $10, $990 now due else may cancel within 30 days.
    052083 return receipt card, City of Santa Clara
    060883 contact report Dave Cornelius/Div WRights & Roukema/Santa Clara; contact is Ron Nichols with RMI; asked him for copy of FERC App docs, said will have someone hand carry them; after review, will determine "if a IBUA [below] required and" notify him by mail next week; name discrepancy, others were under City Manager's name, should all be the same, he'll check
    UNDATED letter Roukema/Santa Clara to Fields/Div WRights; enclosed environmental forms
  • 050583 Environmental Information; [same as other one]
    062083 contact report William Miller/RMI to/by "I"; "need historical maximum 14-day average of the diversion into the High Line Canal from Black Butte Reservoir. The purpose is to compare the historical records with the amount requested in the application and determine if the application qualified as a true retrofit. He will send"
    062383 letter Andrews/Friends of the River to Johnson/Div WRights; pls add to mailing list for 27750,27751,27763
    060983 letter Miller/RMI to Cornelius/Div WRights; enclosed 2 copies of the license ap; "It is our understanding that the Instream Beneficial Use Assessment (IBUA) is required only 'when the proposed project creates a change in the stream flow'. Since the proposed project is located on a man-made canal and utilizes the normal seasonal canal flows as released from Black Butte Reservoir to the" OUWUA, "we believe that an IBUA is not required." like to discuss it.
    062483 letter Harvego/RMI to Yand/Div WRights Enviro; enclosed are USGS discharge records for water year 1966-7 (highest seasonal flow of record) & 1973-4 (highest annual flow); "You will note that during the period' 06/26/1967 - 07/10/1967 "the maximum average flow is 293 cfs, and that for the period "05/29/1974 - 06/11/1974 "the maximum average flow is 275 cfs." Flows released by USACE via the South Canal Division (diversion?); [shouldn't it be 250 cfs max?]
  • 042281 USGS Discharge to South Diversion Canal, daily within month, water year 1974 [water year = any 12 months, usually 10/01 - 09/30 ]
  • 042281 USGS Discharge to South Diversion Canal, daily within month, water year 1967
    062783 memo stapled to contact report to Cornelius from Yang; USGS log amounts exceed the 250 cfs applied for, "no change in flow regime if the project would be operated for incidental power generation using the water released for irrigation use by" OUWUA
    062883 letter Harvego/RMI to Yang/Div WRights Enviro; RMI incorporated Div WRights 04/1983 proposal comments into FERC License Ap. 7252, enclosed is FERC ap;
    062983 contact report Cornelius/Div WRights contacted Miller's secty; IBUA not required
    071483 letter Yang/Div WRights Enviro to Roukema/Santa Clara; no change to the flow regime, no IBUA Report; maybe Class 28 Categorical Exemption
    082683 form letter Walsh/Div WRights to ???; ap meets requirements of 65943 Gov't Code, enclosed 2 copies of public notice, once a week, 3 consecutive weeks beginning not later than 09/15/1983 in Willows Daily Journal & Corning Daily Observer;
    082683 courier & mailing list
    082983 return receipt card
    082683 Notice of Application to Appropriate Water
    082683 Notice to Postmaster; please post
    082683 form letter Walsh to various agencies; enclosed notice, any comments? 40 days to answer
    050983 various route sheets
    083083 memo Jensen/CDFG to Div WRights; no comments, neg dec OK
    091083 Protest Matthew Callan, Director, Environmental Advocates, 2nd & Cherry Sts, Chico, CA; "Stony Creek provides valuable habitat for numerous species of wildlife and riparian vegetation. Because of the delicate balance needed to sustain fisheries and riparian vegetation, it is very important to maintain adequate water quality and quantity standards at all times. The proposed project and its appropriations may seriously affect these resources unless adequate measures are taken concerning the terms and conditions of the permit....Environmental Advocates represent the citizens of this area, who are concerned with the future of this state and its resources. We wish to protect these resources to the best of our ability. This protest is based upon the provisions of Section 100, 1243 , & 1257 of Water Code, & Section 5937 of California Fish and Game Code."; disregarded or dismissed, "None at this time. Upon review of the environmental documents and studies, and adequate measures to protect and maintain the resources to be affected by the proposed action, the Environmental Advocates will submit specific dismissal terms and conditions."
    092283 Notice of Application Filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Minor License #7252-000 filed 04/29/1983 City of Santa Clara High Line Canal Hydroelectric, "adjacent to the bypass chute connecting the High Line Canal to the South Canal in the Stony Creek Basin, on U.S. Bureau of Reclamation land in Glenn County, California." Competing Ap. 6981 filed 01/03/1983 [who? where?]; 2 underground 48" 110' long penstocks; 10' wide 20' long powerhouse w/2 generators total rated 350 kW, average annual output 1.5 GWh; underground concrete lined tailrace to existing South Canal at el. 341 feet, 12kV 150' long transmission line connecting to PGandE, 130' long access road, total cost estimate $675,900; requirements for competing aps or comments;
  • Exhibit K, High Line Canal Hydroelectric Project, Project Boundary (diagram of project; lands to east Del Reimers, South Graves Cemetery, north Harper Estate
    092683 contact reports Winternitz spoke to Hooper/Santa Clara; initial through the State Clearinghouse; 3 courses: 1) NegDec & NOD & circulate through the SCH, 2) avoid (1) by exempting if it qualities, & send SWRCB a copy, or 3) let SWRCB exempt it, but they'd have to relinquish lead agency status;
  • 092983 called back, they will send a copy of an exemption by end of next week.
    092683 letter ???/Reclamation to Walsh/Div WRights; Santa Clara use of the High Line Canal will require a contract; SWRCB permit should include FERC license requirements & Standard Permit Term 22, Right of Access.
    102183 letter Callan/Environmental Advocates; withdraw protest, "I have researched this project and have found that it will not adversely affect the environment"
    110183 contact report pjh called Nichols/RMI; where is proof of publication? sent it 10 days ago, sending a duplicate
    110283 letter Nichols/RMI to Hoffman/Div WRights, enclosed is a copy of the proof of publication
    110383 letter Launitz/Assoc WRC Engineer to Callan/Environmental Advocates; protest accepted; you withdrew it so it's dismissed;
    093083 memo Cook/SCH to Snow/Ass't Secty for Resources; attached is a copy of an FERC doc, pls review, comment or no comment must be received by 4 working days prior to comment due date; distribution incl Div WRights, Yang X'd No Comment;
    111083 contact report Yang & Ron Nichols/RMI; told him project may be exempt from CEQA, requested City sends a statement detailing facts for exemption based on CEQA guideline 15328; could save processing time & costs of processing, we don't have all the info
  • 112983 follow up, City probably not sent info yet, will contact them now

    111583 letter Flynn/Santa Clara to Yang/Div WRights Enviro; 15328 of CEQA [Guidelines?] defines Class 28 Exemption: (a) capacity 5 megawatts or less, this one is 0.35 megawatts; (b) not change flow regime, inc'd (1) rate & volume, (2) temperature, (3) dissolved oxygen, (4) timing of release - will utilize existing rates, volumes, schedules - water will be in penstocks & turbines less than 30 seconds, not alter temperature or dissolved oxygen, man-made waterway which does not support a fishery resource - aquatic life minimal because canal dewatered annually; (c) new power line not over 1 mile & not adjacent to a wild & scenic river - 150' power line & no wild & scenic river; (d) not raise normal impoundment max elevation - no impoundment, existing structure; (e) no fish passage affected - no fish; (f) discharge not more than 300 feet from toe of diversion structure - 150 feet; (g) no violations of water quality standards - Central Valley Region found no impacts if procedures are followed; (h) no effect on sites in or eligible for National Register of Historic Places - Office of Historic Preservations determined none; (i) no construction near rare or endangered species [except eagles] - USFWS & CDFG say nope;
  • 042083 memo Mellon/State Historic Preservation Officer to Office of Historic Preservation; High Line Canal item does not involve National Register and/or eligible properties [except for the Graves Cemetery]
  • 042783 letter McDermott/California Reginal WQCB, Central Valley to Miller/RMI; no water quality impacts "provided good construction practices"
  • 042783 letter Jensen/CDFG to Harvego/RMI; no adverse impacts on fish & game
  • 042783 letter McKevitt/USFWS to Harvego/RMI; Office of Endangered Species advises "to the best of their knowledge, there are no federally listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered species occurring in the project area."
  • 100783 City of Santa Clara, Project Clearance Committee, Minutes; Item III.C. "seen to be categorically exempt under Section 15328 of the CEQA Guidelines"

    102183 memo Walsh/Div WRights to Secretary for Resources, transmittal notice of Exemption, 14 Aps incl 27750
    122783 memo Cornelius to files; deposits $1,000, "expenditures for processing this application as of" 10/31/1983 $342.66, refund $657.34 may be due per Water Code Section 1525.5; Finance requires 1) original tabulation of receipts vs expenditures 2) claim settlement agreement signed by applicant; takes a few weeks, recommend issuing permit now & unused deposit will be returned by Finance after agreement is signed; recommend permit transmittal letter (Form WR 14a) be revised to show all this, draft 14(b) [not "a"?] "when future permits are issued on AB 2440 [which are?] applications with a date of priority before" 06/30/1983; [is this how the Division drafts regulations?]
  • UNDATED - Small Hydroelectric Application form letter: refunds, etc.
    UNDATED - map, topo with Black Butte Dam, dikes #3, 4, & 5, intake structure, irrigation diversion, power plant site [in right abutment looking downstream]...
    042883 Application to Appropriate Unappropriated Water, work copy
  • Environmental Information
  • copy of 2 photos
  • 050583 Environmental Information (3rd copy)
    110883 Check for Permit
    110983 Issuance of Water Right Permit
    121583 Notice of Exemption Pursuant to Section 21108, Public Resources Code; p. 2 "Categorical Exemption Class 28" copied from Santa Clara submission? minus references to letters attached;`
    122983 Permit for Diversion and Use of Water, #19086; term 5 250 cfs limit
    092683 letter Kowta/California Archaeological Inventory Information Center [Northern California, Chico State Dept of Anthropology] to Domeny/Div WRights; record searches on 12 Aps; expect nothing on 27750
    122983 letter Cornelius/Small Hydro Coordinator to City of Santa Clara; permit enclosed, letter like the 12/27/1983 form draft

    1984


    062784 mini-memo Cornelius/Div WRights to Flynn/Santa Clara Electric Utility; need your sig on attached for the refund
    062784 letter Cornelius/Small Hydro to Merrill/Accounting Ofc; total charges to date $468.05, $531.95 refund due; At bottom: "Applicant's Certification: I concur that the City of Santa Clara has deposited $1,000 in fees for processing Water Right Application 27750 and accept a refund of $531.95 as settlement of its deposit on costs incurred by the State pursuant Water [sic, no "to"] Code Section 1525.5 and 23 CAC 652.5(f)." with sig block
    072384 letter Roukema/Santa Clara to Cornelius/Small Hydro; enclosed 2 signed copies of the refund memo;
    071784 FERC Order issuing License (minor) Project No. 7252-000; "No Federally listed threatened or endangered species are known to occur in the area." [except eagles, ospreys, etc.] "not a mjaor Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." [especially if you ignore the cumulative effects] "save the equivalent of approximately 2,500 barrels of oil or 700 tons of coal per year." "power at a cost of approximately 91 mills per kWh"
  • FERC Acceptance certificate
  • 10??75 FERC Terms and Conditions of License for Unconstructed Minor Project Affecting Lands of the United States (10 pp.)

    1985


    020785 Progress Report by Permittee for 1984; estimated completion date 07/1988
    123085 Progress Report by Permittee for 1985; estimated completion date 07/1987; work done, Engineering, Design, and Management $10,500

    1986


    042386 FERC Order Granting Extension of Time;
    123186 Progress Report by Permittee for 1986; estimated completion date 05/1988; done, Coordination with Bureau of Reclamation, Project planning and Management: $20,000; remaining to be done 100%, expect construction to begin in 1987

    1987


    092287 letter Yang/SWRCB Enviro to Snow/Assistant Secty for Resources; applicant filed Ap 27750, but no comment since not increase water use
  • 091087 memo Ruiz/SCH to list incl Div WRights; enclosed FERC doc for your comment, response by 4th working day before deadline;
    - 092287 Yang, No comment
    - 090387 letter Hall/RMI to SCH; plans & specs show one 530 kW vs. previous 2 175 kW units; change is due to cost-effective equipment availability, now "530 kW semi-Kaplan submersible turbine/generator...with higher efficiences over a broader range of available flows (between 50 and 260 cfs)." "more efficient use of available water rather than the use of more water."
    - 092283 FERC Notice of Application Filed with the Commission P-7252-000; original notice?
    - - Exhibit K - site plan; as above
    - 090887 letter Eberle/County of San Benito to SCH; submitting Notice of Preparation of an EIR for a major subdivision in San Benito County, with Initial Study [mis-attached]

    1988


    011588 contact report Chandler/Div WRights by Hall/RMI; 26378 is operating & want to get it licensed; told him to check the appropriate boxes on the pink progress report; 26379 & 27750 were to have been done by 12/1987, but are not - told him to file petitions for an extension of time on the forms he's sending him, & a check must accompany the petition forms.
    012788 Progress Report by Permittee for 1987; so far Engineering & Design, Site Grading, Power House Structure $231,000; remaining 75% Control House, Penstock, Tailrace, Turbine/Generator Installation, Intake Structure, by 05/1988; Condition #8 requires completion by 12/01/1987 but #9 does not require full use until 12/01/1988 which will easily be met; prepared an extension of time for construction
    012788 Petition for Extension of Time; one year, to 04/1989, water to be fully used in 1989; "Construction of the High Line Canal Hydroelectric project was delayed to allow scheduling of construction during the winter when the canal is out os [sic] service."
    032188 contact report, BHParkinson & Marcell Hall; progress in 1987? 09/1987 construct began; 80% complete as of now, most physical work is done; electrical wiring remains to be installed
    041488 Monthly Notice of Petitions Received During March 1988; 26379 Black Butte Dam power project; 27750 , "construction was started in" 09/1987, "and has been delayed due to circumstances beyond the control of the City." "80% complete with most of the physical works in place. However, final electrical linkages must be completed before the project will be operational."
  • mailing list
    041988 letter Henry/Save Our Streams Council to Parkinson/SWRCB; "Does this project have interconnection priority within PG & E's northern constrained area and/or a connection agreement with PG & E? If not, the Board's records should list this as another retrofit project which is being preempted by new diversion hydro, among others." [what does this mean?]
    042688 contact report Parkinson & Hall/RMI; "Santa Clara contractual agreement with PG & E; SC did not file for qualifying facility, Interconnection agreement with PG & E to wheel the power to City of Santa Clara; Mr. Martin Hopper 408/984-3044; Wheeling right predating whole interconnection priority connection [?]"
    042988 letter Parkinson/Petition Unit to Henry/SOS; re 27750 & 26379; ...Marcell Hall of RMI stated that the projects "are not 'qualifying facilities' under PURPA, and that the City of Santa Clara has an interconnection agreement with PG & E to wheel the power generated from these projects to the electrical service area of the City of Santa Clara", confirmed by Mr. Martin Hopper of the City; "In regard to your statement alluding to a list of '... retrofit project which is being pre-empted by new diversion hydro, among others'; the Board does not maintain, nor to my knowledge is the Board required to maintain, any such list." [piecemealing?]
    051188 letter Sparacino/Santa Clara City Manager to Parkinson/SWRCB; in response to Henry/SOS letter, "High Line Canal Hydroelectric Project transmission rights are secured under the terms of an Interconnection Agreement between the City of Santa Clara and" PG & E 09/30/1983
    102088 Staff Recommendation Regarding a Request for Extension of Time on a Water Right Permit and any Associated Petition for Changes; "The extension of time will not alter public trust considerations made at the time that the permit was issued. The current version of the Board's continuing authority term will replace Condition 12 of this permit. Additional conditions do not appear warranted at this time." Recommend approve
    102588 Order Approving a New Development Schedule and Amending the Permit"; completion by 12/31/1990, use by 12/31/1994; Condition 12 amended
    102588 letter Cornelius/Petition Unit to City of Santa Clara; petition for extension of time approved;

    1989


    011989 F Progress Report by Permittee for 1988; completed; used Aug-Oct; usage less than expected, depends on irrigation flow; power 710 net hp

    1990


    020190 Progress Report by Permittee for 1989; Mar 283; Apr 57; May 155; June 3702; July 20; Aug 80; Sept 1145; Oct 999; total annual 6441 a-f [which makes no sense]; permit condition #5 limits season 04/01 - 10/31, filing ap with Board to amend to 01/01 - 12/31

    1992


    011092 Progress Report by Permittee for 1991; Apr 1072; May 1382; June 3767; July 1325; Aug 6083; Sept 9190; Oct 3746; total 26,564 a-f [sic, adding error] ; use varies depending on OUWUA diversions

    1993


    011193 Progress Report by Permittee for 1992; Apr 4703.3; May 9836; June 7955.5; July 5687; Aug 1411; Sept 4871; Oct 3622; total 38,086 a-f;

    1994


    011494 Progress Report by Permittee for 1993; Apr 3946, May 5046, Jun 4892; Jul 10941; Aug 10770; Sept 8854; Oct 3288; Nov 347; total 48,084 a-f

    1995


    031795 letter Schwartz/Santa Clara Electric Utility to Beringer; Div WRights; enclosed Progress Reports on all 3 projects
  • 031595 Progress Report by Permittee for 1994, 27750; Mar 1167; Apr 9288; May 7851; June 10671; July 11438; Aug 10711; Sept 9379; Oct 2708; total 63,213
  • 031595 Progress Report by Permittee for 1994, 26378 [misfiled]; Jan 4584; Feb 11967; Mar 832; Apr 6717; May 11645; Jun 15432; Jul 17810; Aug 17431; Sept 6984; total 93402
  • 031595 Progress Report by Permittee for 1994, 26379 [misfiled]; zero used; power 8,298 net

    1996


    060696 Progress Report by Permittee for 1995; Apr 1350, May 4886; Jun 6786; Jul 10727; Aug 10877; Sept 8900; Oct 5518; Nov 349; total 49394 [sic, addition]

    1997


    052597 Progress Report by Permittee for 1996; Apr 1841, May 7511; Jun 7947; Jul 9664; Aug 11391; Sept 8616; Oct 3860; total 50830

    1998


    030498 Progress Report by Permittee for 1997; Mar 1509, Apr 8574, May 9958, Jun 10270, Jul 11658, Aug 10282, Sept 8788, Oct 2165; total 63204
    118988 Report of Inspection; Wayne C. Smith accompanied by John A. Schwartz (Electric Utility Engineer), Arnie Kjer (O & M Tech OUWUA), Wayne Hancock (Sr. O & M Tech OUWUA), Kevin Kibby (O & M Supervisor OUWUA); recommend license & extension; "project is complete and license is desired even though the amount is somewhat less than system capacity. Mr. Schwartz believes that maximum use (14-day average rate) has occurred because the canal flows cycle with irrigation demand rather than run at peak for long periods of tiem. Another limiting factor is that the turbine has to be shut down for brief periods to clean the intake screen of debris...." amount 198 cfs; 04/01 - 10/31; Calif. Coordinates Zone 1 N 176,050 E 1,906,100; coordinates need correcting [?]; permit shows tie from SW rather than SE corner S29 T23N R4W MDB & M; 244 cfs max rate found, 74 cfs minimum flow rate for operation; original was for 2 "125 cfs units but a single Flygt hydro-turbine Model EL 7620 R unit was installed." [p. 2] "single Kaplan turbine/generator unit rated at 530 kw." [is that the same as Flygt?] ; max output "around 420 kw per Mr. Kjer"; 3 years out of 10 show operation outside of the season, but no harm; "Consequently no supplemental filing should be required." max 198 cfs [what happened to 244 or 250?]; "NO STORAGE' [not true; forebay/afterbay]; "SWRCB has state filings A25513 and A25514 which envision enlargement of Black Butte Reservoir"; p. 3; "information...obtained? hard copies of the daily operating logs from 1989 when plant went on line to present were provided by Hancock. Unfortunately he said that his computer hard drive crashed and so this information is not available in electronic format. I took the time to input daily records for the 1996, 1997, and 1998 seasons so that the computer could calculate a running 14-day average flow rage to pick the maximum period for licensing purposes. Hancock believes that their maximum period would fall in this three-year period. The records for the other years were visually browsed looking for large diversion sequences, but none were found which appeared to surpass the 198 cfs from 1997. [para] It is noted that the given readins are for the 'period ending' when the readings are entered. If there are entries for both cfs-1 and cfs-2, there was a flow change in the middle of the period. Eq: cfs-1 = 218 cfs. hours-1 = 7; cfs-2 = 203 cfs, hours-2 = 17 means the unit ran at 218 cfs for 7 hours and 203 cfs for 17 hours that preceding day. [para] Flows are requested twice daily by" OUWUA "and released from Black Butte Dam by the" USACE. "Flow information is adjusted as necessary and provided twice daily by the ditchtender to the permittee's powerplant operators. Initial flow measurements are made by Parshall flume and then adjusted by the ditchtender to subtract any water being taken from the concrete-lined canal by any of three irrigation turnouts 'upstream' of Santa Clara's powerhouse.
  • Diversions through High Line Canal Powerhouse, 1998, Ap 27750
  • Diversions through High Line Canal Powerhouse, 1997, Ap 27750
  • Diversions through High Line Canal Powerhouse, 1996, Ap 27750
  • 111898 photos, 4 wide, panorama, dam through South Canal, showing Afterbay POD, "standing on Black Butte Dam, Head of South Diversion Canal (AKA Stony Creek irrigation Canal) or High Line Canal is at far right"
  • photos, 1) "Parshall flume at gaging station near head of South Diversion Canal (High Line Canal) operated by Corps of Engineers looking downstream"; 1) "End of High Line Canal, Powerhouse utilizes drop into Orland South Canal" showing debris gate on bypass to the left and entrance to PH on the right
  • photos, 1) brass plaque, "High Line Canal Powerhouse, City of Santa Clara, California, Electric Department, First Power Produced" 08/18/1988, Dedicated 06/29/1989 , "Developed in cooperation with the United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation and the" OUWUA, 2) Place of Use, High Line Canal Powerhouse, turbine is underground below A-frame hoist".; "Control Bldg", fenced area, flume & A-Frame

    1999


    061199 letter Schwartz/Silicon Valley Power to Smith/Div WRights; "We have hopefully entertained all of your requests for the Highline Canal Plan." sending orig & 1
    100199 Request for License ( & "petition for extension of time to include the year of maximum use" )
    102999 letter Smith/Div WRights to Schwartz/Santa Clara; re your Request for License, max use, largest 14-day average flow 06/06 - 06/19/1997. Permit expired 12/31/1994, extension of time to include year of maximum use is required, requiring a $50 fee for SWRCB & $850 fee for CDFG, "which must accompany all petitions (except for the first extension of time for a project)." [Where is that reg?] no forms, just fees
    011900 note theron, "Mark, please process this petition for extension of time (maximum year only) [?] and return to ??? for licensing...."
    022699 Progress Report by Permittee for 1998; May 1636, Jun 4337, Jul 8306, Aug 9077, Sep 9349, Oct 4063, total 36808

    2000


    011800 receipt, $850.00 ap fee
    020100 letter Mark Stretars/Div WRights to Schwartz/Santa Clara; received petition for extension, backlog of 400, can be complex; "As the first step in the process, the Division will evaluate your petition for completeness and California Water Code compliance. Following acceptance, staff will summarize information about the project and prepare a notice of your petition. Any party can submit a protest during the protest period. A protest may be based on impacts to existing water rights or impacts to the environment. Following completion of the noticing process, we will contact you to advise you of the actions that must be taken to resolve the protests and to continue processing of your petition. [para] The review and processing of your petition must also comply with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Before the Division can act on your petition, the 'lead agency' under CEQA must complete the appropriate environmental document (i.e., a draft Environmental Impact Report, or Negative Declaration)."
    030100 Progress Report by Permittee for 1999; Apr 3498, May 9978, Jun 10259, Jul 12370, Aug 10757, Sept 9278, Oct 6212, Nov 329, total 62681
  • 022900 Stony Creek System Water Used, Progress Report for 1999, each of the 3 sites
  • 030100 Silicon Valley Power, Letter of Transmittal, attached annual data update High Line
    031700 Notice of Petition Requesting Changes, Corrections or Extensions of Time in Water Right Permits; "Any person may file a protest against the changes proposed by the petition....instructions for filing a protest against the requested changes....information relating to the procedure for filing a protest, please call the contact person listed for the specific petition." p. 2 "PROCEDURES FOR FILING A PROTEST: Any Person may file a protest aginst the changes proposed in a petition. A protest must be filed with the SWRCB within 30 days of the date of this notice. Protests may be based on the factors listed below; however, the protest must demonstrate that the proposed change would:
  • Injure existing water rights;
  • Have adverse environmental impact;
  • Not be in the public interest;
  • Be contrary to law; or
  • Not be within the jurisdiction of the SWRCB."
    - "All protests must clearly describe the objections to approval of the petition and the factual basis for those objections. If the objection is based on injury to existing water rights, the protest must describe the specific injury to the existing water right that would result from approval of the changes proposed by the petition. In addition, the party claiming injury to prior water rights must provide specific information that describes the basis of the existing right, the date the use began, the quantity of water use, the purpose of use, and the place of use. Protests based on environmental impacts, public interest, legality, or jurisdictional issues must be accompanied by a statement of facts supporting the basis of the protest. If sufficient information is not submitted, the SWRCB may reject the protest or request that the protestant submit additional information.
    - "The Division will not accept protests that are directed against the underlying water right, rather than the change proposed by the petition. [did they back off from this?] A protest should be submitted on a standard protest form available from the Division, but can be submitted in letter form. Protests may be submitted by FAX (916-657-1485), but an original copy of the protest must also be submitted to the Division. A pamphlet is available that provides additional information relating to water rights and the procedure for filing protests. Please contact the person listed below if you would like a copy of the pamphlet or protest forms.
    - "The SWRCB may grant an extension of time to file a protest, for good cause. A request for an extension of time must be submitted in a timely manner, must specify the additional time required, and must state why additional time is needed to file the protest.
    - "RESOLUTION OF PROTESTS: A copy of the protest must be sent to the petitioner. The protest shall include a description of any measures that could be taken to resolve the protest, including conditions that could be included in the water right order. The protestant is encouraged to meet with the petitioner to discuss methods that could be used to resolve the protest. If the protest can not be resolved, SWRCB staff may conduct a field investigation with all interested parties or may hold a water right hearing."
    - DESCRIPTION OF PETITIONS
    - NOTICES WITHIN THE COUNTY OF TEHAMA [actually, Glenn]
    - - 27750 City of Santa Clara, etc.
    - mailing list

    032200 Declaration of Exemption, "not require a Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report. This project is declared exempt in accordance with Section 15062 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. No formal Notice of Exemption will be issued in accordance with the" 04/28/1987 "directive from the Chief of the Division of Water Rights."

    2001


    122401 Progress Report by Permittee for 2000; Mar 325, Apr 5219, May 8246, Jun 4645, Jul 11798, Aug 7997, Sep 8849, Oct 659, total 47738

    2003


    102003 F Assignment or Address Change; current or new

    2004


    040704 Progress Report by Permittee for 2003; May 5817. Jun 11962, Jul 12233, Aug 11053, Sep 8834, Oct 4598, total 54497

    2005


    042005 Progress Report by Permittee for 2004; Apr 7734, May 9894, Jun 1320, Jul 11270, Aug 10034, Sep 8921, Oct 1828, total 51001
    112105 Annual bill [High Line] $984.97
    120705 F Annual bill permit 19274 [Black Butte] $10,455.19
    UNDATED Application ID(s) for Related Filings Requiring Updates, add agent, Silicon Valley Power, etc.

    2006


    011006 Request to BOE for Action On Water Right Accounts, new name "Silicon Valley Power"
    022306 Request to BOE for Action On Water Right Accounts, address change
    042606 Progress Report by Permittee for 2005; Apr 1685, May 3945, Jun 10205, Jul 11654, Aug 10373, Sep 8151, Oct 4352, total 50365

    2008


    060308 Progress Report by Permittee for 2007; Apr 5621, May 8720, Jun 10116, Jul 10329, Aug 9528, Sep 6528, Oct 2015, total 52924 [foots to 52857]
    UNDATED Supplemental Mailing List Keep on Top until Project Licensed



    Cat 7 FERC Licenses & Reports VOL. 1 OF 1 RECORD OF FOLDER [" F " - date filed if date originated not evident]

    folder 2 Item 1:
  • 042883 Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Application for License for Minor Project, the High Line Canal Hydroelectric Project, a Competing Application Submitted by the City of Santa Clara; (2 copies)
    - Application: NE 1/4 NE 1/4 S10 T22N R4W MDB & M, annual 1.5 kW;
    - Article 11 9 of California Constitution (which allows municipal power)
    - Article IV Section 400 of Santa Clara City Charter (which ditto)
    - 012081 Resolution No 4334, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Clara, California, allows Director to file applications to appropriate water, access rights for power consideration, aps for power permits & licenses, aps for DOE loans, & represent the City before regulatory bodies
    - 081586 Verification, Barry R. Flynn, Director of Electric Utility
    - Statement in Conformance with Section 4.33(d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure Regarding Competing Applications ; "detailed and complete statement identifying why the Applicant's application is superior to that of Project 6981";
    - - A. Municipal Preference
    - - B. Shortened & Buried Penstocks - , 8-1/2% shorter, cheaper, buried reduces visual intrusion & allows "full site restoration following construction";
    - - C. Covered and Bridged Tail Race - that will preserve access on the South Canal access and maintance roadway. The application for Project 6981 proposes location of turbines and generators in the middle of the South Canal access road, thereby causing interference, inconvenience, and added cost to the" OUWUA "for canal maintenance.";
    - - D. Turbine/Generators and Energy Production - 25% more energy;
    - - E. Water Rights Applications - "...Water rights must be secured from the SWRCB for all hydroelectric projects in California unless the applicant has riparian rights. The application for Project 6981 failed to even recognize this requirement and incorrectly identified the" CDFG "Stream Bed Alteration permit as the regulatory and statutory requirement for appropriation, diversion, and use of canal water. According to the California Department of Fish and Game Code, Sections 1601-1606, a Stream Bed Alteration permit is only required for a project that will divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed of any river, stream, or lake. The High Line Canal is not a river, stream, or lake and there is no fishery resource present, therefore a Stream Bed Alteration Permit is not required." [para] as of 04/21/1983 no SWRCB ap in "name of Ray E. Toney, the applicant for Project 6981. [p. -3-] It is the Applicant's belief that the application for Project 6981 is patently deficient due to failure to identify as a requirement and include indication of application for water rights with the SWRCB."
    - - F. Have aps pending on 2 other proximate projects & that will "allow construction coordination, joint utilization of operation and maintenance personnel, and integration of the required power transmission."
    - - G. Established Working Relationship and Familiarity with U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Personnel and Procedures - building a working relationship with Reclamation.
    - Exhibit A, Project Description
    - - A. General
    - - B. Intake Structure and Penstock, "...The concrete walled intake structure will divert water from the existing 7-foot by 4-foot High Line Canal into two 48-inch concrete penstocks approximately 110 feet long...Water level will be maintained by existing stop logs installed in the existing bypass chute on High Line Canal, located immediately north and parallel to the new penstocks. Trash racks and a catwalk will be installed across the intake structure. Motor operated slide gates will be installed on each of the two intake openings. The entire length of the penstocks will be buried. [not so by actual installation]
    - - - Certificate of Service, upon Ray E. Toney, P.O. Box 1342, Redding, Ca 96099
    - - - Figure A-1, Location map, High Line Canal Hydroelectric Project, USACE map SC-26-26 with additions
    - - - Figure A-2, Site Plan, High Line Canal, Existing Chute, Proposed Intake Structure, Proposed 48" Penstocks, Proposed Power House, Existing Access Road, Proposed New Access Road & Parking, Existing 12.5 kV Power Line, Proposed New Power Line, Existing Fence, Existing South Side Canal, Existing [canal-side] Roadway
    - - - Table A-1 Project Summary, High Line Canal; minimum 68 cfs, max each penstock 125 cfs, design flow 114 cfs, head 27 feet;
    - - C. Powerhouse Building, 10 x 20', masonry walls, metal roof, "turbine generators, building control equipment, associated switching equipment, a secured storage area, and an enclosed maintenance facility."
    - - D. Turbines, "Slide gates at the intake will be used as necessary to control flow to the turbines." Min 68 cfs, max 125 cfs each
    - - E Generators, output 480 v raised to 12-kV by pole-mounted transformer & connected to the transmission system; "Suitable switch gear for generator operation will be provided primarily in the powerhouse."
    - - F. Transmission; to existing PGandE 12 kV 3-phase 50' west of intake structure; step-up transformer on new pole next to plant bldg.
    - - G. Tailrace and Tailwater Pool, "A covered concrete lined tailrace will be constructed below the powerhouse to convey water into the existing South Canal. The tailrace will function as a bridge for the maintenance road which parallels the South Canal...."
    - - H. Access, "...via the existing access to the bypass chute from County Road 200. Approximately 130 feet of new road will be constructed to provide access to the power plant. A small parking area will be constructed adjacent to the powerhouse. The new access road and parking lot will be graded and graveled...."
    - - I. United States Lands
    - - J. Method of Operation, "run of the canal"...using "all irrigation releases within the hydraulic operating range of the turbines."
    - - Figure A-3, High Line Canal Flow Duration Curve, cfs against percent exceedence
    - - Figure A-4, Annual Irrigation Flow Released from Black Butte Reservoir to the Orland Unit Water Users' Association through the High Line Canal (1964-1980), bar chart by year

    [most of this is in the Environmental Reports in 26378.htm ]
    - Exhibit E, Environmental Report
    - - I. Description of Environmental Setting
    - - - A. Description of Locale
    - - - - 1. Topography and Geology, "soft Tertiary and Quaternary continental deposits. The hills are generally smooth and have moderate to steep slopes with the exception of a prominent protruding butte extending from the Black Butte dam site upstream (West) one mile and southward about five miles. The butte is formed by a resistant caprock of basalt which protects the softer underlying formations. [para] East of the project site the area consists of Quaternary fan deposits in the valley formed by Stony Creek. This valley is relatively flat with two to ten percent slopes and broadens eastward into the larger Sacramento Valley...."
    - - - - 2. Soils
    - - - - 3. Meteorology and Climate, "to summer highs of 120F."
    - - - - 4. Hydrology and Water Quality
    - - - - - a. Regional Hydrology; watershed 780 sq. miles, 741 above Black Butte
    - - - - - Table E-1, Mean Monthly Runoff at Black Butte Dam Site (for what years?)
    - - - - - Table E-2, Natural Flows at Black Butte Dam Site
    - - - - - b. Site Hydrology
    - - - - - Table E-3, Mean Monthly Irrigation Demand [for the South Side Canal] and Outflow, Black Butte Resrvoir (in acre-feet); 1964 - 1979
    - - - - - c. Water Quality
    - - - - 5. Vegetation
    - - - - 6. Wildlife and Fisheries
    - - - - - a. Mammals
    - - - - - b. Birds, "...The endangered bald eagle is regularly present in winter at both Black Butte and Stony Gorge Reservoirs. Both mature and immature bald eagles have been observed. They utilize rough fish as a food source and roost in nearby riparian woodland. Transient individuals of the endangered American peregrine falcon have been seen in the region occasionally...."
    - - - - - c. Amphibians and Reptiles
    - - - - - d. Fisheries, "Occasional fish are found within the canal due to release of waters from Black Butte Reservoir."
    - - - - 7. Archaeology and History
    - - - - 8. Demography
    - - - - Table E-4, Population 1950 - 1980. 3-counties, Tehama-Colusa, Glenn, Orland, Orland as % of county
    - - - - Table E-5, Employment Glenn County (1976 Annual Average), by type
    - - - - 9. Land Use, Development, and Zoning
    - - - - - a. Regional
    - - - - - b. Project Area Land Use, "...Graves Cemetery operated by the Orland Cemetery District."
    - - - - 10. Recreation
    - - - - 11. Scenic and Aesthetic Resources
    - - II. Identification of Environmental Effects [checklist]
    - - III. Mitigation of Significant Environmental Effects [none]
    - - IV. Project Compatibility with Existing zoning [sic, caps] and Plans
    - - V. Names of Persons Participating in the Initial Study
    - - VI. References
    - - VII. List of Agencies/Individuals Contacted
    - - VIII. Letters of correspondence; letter to James R. Graham is an example
    - - Exhibit K, City of Santa Clara, High Line Canal Hydroelectric Project, Project Boundary, Lands of U.S.B.R. 0.74 acres, plus wedge to the north & right-of-way, Del Reimers both sides of the canal to the east, Graves Cemetery District to the South, Harper Estate to Northwest.
    - - Exhibit L-1, City of Santa Clara, High Line Canal Hydroelectric Project, Intake Structure, Plan and Section, top view & side view
    - - Exhibit L-2, City of Santa Clara, High Line Canal Hydroelectric Project, Powerhouse Plan and Section, top view & side view; powerhouse with generator is above the penstock & turbine
    - - Exhibit L-3, City of Santa Clara, High Line Canal Hydroelectric Project, Project Profile, side view intake to tailrace


    Return to Stony Creek Water Wars.

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