THE STONY CREEK WATER WARS
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 - many typos in the court's docket listing have been left intact]

THE STONY CREEK WATER WARS - Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District v. U.S.A. et al., CVS-91-1128-LKK-GGH Case Index
United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division

This list is in 2 sections:
- Expando file
- Sequential files

Four files, total a foot thick
U.S. District Court
Eastern District of California - Live System (Sacramento)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:91-cv-01128-DFL-JFM

Glenn-Colusa v. USA, et al
Assigned to: Judge David F. Levi
Referred to: Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds
Demand: $0
Cause: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)
Date Filed: 08/21/1991
Date Terminated: 10/08/1992
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff
Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District represented by Paul Ryan Minasian
Minasian Spruance Meith Soares and Sexton
PO Box 1679
1681 Bird Street
Oroville , CA 95965-1679
530-533-2885
Email: pminasian@minasianlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

Defendant
USA represented by Maria A. Iizuka
U.S. Department of Justice
501 I Street, Suite 9-700
Sacramento , CA 95814
(916) 930-2202
Fax: (916) 930-2210
Email: maria.iizuka@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Dept of Interior represented by Maria A. Iizuka
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Bureau of Reclamation represented by Maria A. Iizuka
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Manuel Lujan
Secretary of the Department of Interior represented by Maria A. Iizuka
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Roger Patterson
Regional Director of the Bureau of Reclamation represented by Maria A. Iizuka
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Three volumes plus expanding file.

[in both cases, this & 91-1074, the 855A contract on file seems to be a draft]

[ EXPANDING FILE: ]

06/12/1992 Doc. 59 F Plaintiff's Summary J P & A memorandum - see main Doc sequence below

07/02/1992 Doc. 66 F Deposition of George G. Wilson [Angle Decree Water Master] 05/18/1992, 85 pp., not signed; re-transcribed at . . . with Reclamation 1943 - 1979, water rights 1962 - 1979, power line 1943 surveying at Redding; USAF 3 years; Orland Project ditch rider 7 - 8 years; Antioch on Contra Costa Canal 4 years; Sacramento ground water geology branch 4 years, then water rights section, "to protect the water rights of the United States" [is that the problem?]; "Q. So from '62 to '79 you worked in the office of the bureau that was responsible for regulating and observing the bureau's activities so they relate to California water law? A. That's true. Now, as part of those activities, did you gain experience in the way that the bureau approached water rights and the way that the bureau negotiated its contracts for water deliveries?" for the Sacramento Water Contracts, determined "water requirements and water uses and the lands to which they were to be applied, and the water rights that were available for those lands" 1962-1979; questions about negotiating the GCID contract & the wording therein and the understandings behind it, constantly interrupted by Iizuka; A. "...the Angle Decree speaks for itself." minor role '64 - '79 in "decision-making relating to how Black Butte and the Orland project would be operated"; participated in SWRCB proceedings; 20,315 a-f at 500 cfs needs more coming downstream to get to that because "It would be very rare that it was a gaining stream rather than a losing stream in that area. " p. 58-: change in place of use or diversion may not mean "storage"; Q. Is there anybody downstream of Black Butte who holds a surface water right? A. None that are current." [current? current what?]; "...Stony Creek Water District upstream of Stony Gorge who rely on Black Butte water by exchange under their contract. Q. But that's not an Angle Decree right that they hold, is it? A. Yes, they have Angle Decree water rights, and the Black Butte water makes their Angle Decree water rights whole when there's physically -- when they're physically limited." p. 76 "A...running some of it down the Orland project canals into Tehama-Colusa canal. Q. That's been done recently; has it not? A. Yes, within the last few years." --
  • Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 - 14-06-200-855A Contract Between the United States and Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, Diverter of Water from Sacramento River Sources Providing for Project Water Service and Agreement on Diversion of Water, p. 1, 16-20
    - Exhibit A Schedule of Monthly Diversions of Water
    - [ Exhibit B MISSING? a map? "Intersection of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District main canal and Stony Creek"
  • Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 - Angle Decree, p. 1 & pp. 168-173
  • Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 - SWRB Ap. 18115
    - Supplement to SWRB Application No. 18115
    - SWRB Permit No. 13776
    - paragraphs 13-21 of SWRB 18115
    - last page? of SWRB 13776
    - pp. 16-17, paragraphs1-12 of SWRB 13776 [?]
  • Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 - SWRB 18115 & 19451, 07/11/1961 Answer of USA to Protest of GCID

    05/27/1992 L 06/22/1992 Deposition of Donald Kienlen, 27 pp.; Civil Engineer, self-employed, semi-retired since 1st of year, work through his former firm of Murray Burns & Kienlen; 40 years, water, water rights, private practice 1965, principal 1967, SWRB before 1965 8 years; U New Mex 1952, New Mexico State Engineer's Office 5 years in water rights, 9 mos DWR, then to state board; as SWRB engineer assisted during hearing process, 1) in lieu [of hearing], engineer goes out & meets with parties, 2) formal hearings, staff engineer during hearings & analyze info received, worked with board & legal staff to draft a decision; familiar with D1100, 18115, 19451; worked on D1100; under contract now w/GCID through Paul; scope: asked him to review 1964 contract, D1100, parts of SWRB hearing documents, parts of Angle Decree, to render an opinion as to GDCID Stony Creek water rights; not to work on 91-1074; p. 11 familiar with Angle, looked at it several times over the years; familiar with form of contract, the "Sacramento River contracts or water right settlement contracts"; asked to interpret Wilson's interpretation?; 500 cfs per day typo; p. 14 Angle Decree GCID limited to flow; suggests that GCID gave up Stony Flow so USA could store in Black Butte after 04/30; some back & forth among Kienlen, Minasian & Iizuka regarding interplay of D1100, subsequent correspondents & map filings trying to free up diversion under D1100, Angle, etc.; GCID member of Sacramento River Contractors, some contact with Bob Clark through that;

    05/27/1992 Deposition of Robert D. Clark, pp.; Robert Dempsey Clark, Manager & Secretary, GCID, since 04/01/1970, 22 years, superintendent for GCID 3 years before that; had attached some records of files of notes to responses to USA request for documents; GCID entered 1964 contract "to resolve the dispute that had been pending for 18 years on the Sacramento River and for diversion of water and to settle that question with the Bureau of Reclamation and avoid a lengthy adjudication proceeding.", parties to dispute "all the river diverters" & Reclamation; bound to it: "maximize the government's yield from Black Butte", on the way the contract worked & interps "of people who negotiated that contract that I was acquainted with at that time", [nothing in writing?]; any dispute? only this one, may have been disputes over measurement methods that were "resolved to both parties' satisfaction." Believe 1964 contract recognizes GCID Angle rights; p. 7 understood 1964 contract exchanged Stony for Sacramento? gave up spring flows in exchange for emergency clause, no docs that support interp. except what's been supplied; Contract, base 720,000, plus 75,000 plus 30,000; only Black Butte storage right he's familiar with is GCID's; Government permits 1-776? [USA mischief, 265 cfs is "up to", so if there's flow at GCID it's theirs]; [Mr. Kelly's declaration re: 07/20/1972 is nonsense? pp. 27-33, Iizuka arguing, could have taken an adding machine tape of the increment to calculate the extra 5,000, if USA was already releasing to other uses and allowed GCID to divert then it's covered, yadda yadda, it's like arguing addition with someone who can't add? were the amounts already being released still going to that destination after releases were increased or not? Nobody asking this? arguing without resolution as to whether Kelly numbers were cfs or a-f, which does make a difference; Iizuka just asking questions to stoke her memorandum rather than to get answers?]; p. 39, 5-day limit renewable, per Warren Carlson, Chief of Ops on T-C Canal; other orally agreed-upon deliveries; 1980 emergency work at pumping plant, washout, part of the foundation collapsed; p. 50 1883 rights, 1904 Decree rights, 1905 pumping, [sloppy transcript, or Iizuka not speaking clearly]
  • Defendant's Exhibit 1 - undated letter Ploss/Reclamation to Clark/GCID
  • Defendant's Exhibit 2 - F 08/21/1991 Declaration of Robert Clark
  • Defendant's Exhibit 3 - 08/26/1991 Declaration of Water Master George G. Wilson
  • Defendant's Exhibit 3-A - 09/13/1960 letter Dugan/Reclamation to SWC --
  • Defendant's Exhibit 3-B - 02/14/1992 Plaintiff's Partial Response to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents
  • Defendant's Exhibit 5 - F 08/21/1991 Complaint 91-1128
  • Defendant's Exhibit 4 - 08/26/1991 Declaration of Norman T. (Tom) Kelly [4 & 5 out of sequence]
    - Exhibit 1 06/26/1964 Reclamation/OUWUA contract 14-06-200-1020A Contract Between the United States and the Orland Unit Water Users' Association Providing for the Exchange of Water; to allow retention in East Park & Stony Gorge of water that would be in Black Butte
    - Exhibit 2 tables, 1972, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, Sacramento District, Daily Operation of Black Butte Reservoir, Stony Creek, California, July 1972 - December 1972; not showing sufficient outflow to yield 5,000 a-f [no? sudden jump 7/20, realeases already sufficient plus jump to make up 5,000 a-f?]
    - Exhibit 3 1973; Daily, April 1973 - December 1973 releases for operational considerations, not emergency deliveries to GCID, April & May 1973 approaching flood conditions causing releases
    - Exhibit 4 1982 Daily, April 1982 - December 1982 releases documents, April-05/05 for flood control
  • Defendant's Exhibit 6 - 08/14/1991 letter Clark/GCID to Patterson/Reclamation
  • Defendant's Exhibit 7 - 04/06/1964 [DRAFT] contract 14-06-200-855A USA & GCID, Sacramento River Diversion Contract
    - Exhibit A - Schedule of Monthly Diversions of Water
    - Exhibit C - Unit Duty [B MISSING]
  • Defendant's Exhibit 8 - 09/26/1962 SWRB Decision D 1100 on Appl 18115 & 19451, unsigned


    [ Volume 1, Filings 1 - 20]


    Date Filed / Doc. # / Docket Text

    Civil Cover Sheet 08/19/1991, related case 91-1074
    Receipt for filing fees 08/21/1991
    Deputy Clerk's Checklist for New Civil Actions CVS-91-1128-KJJ-GGH

    08/21/1991 1 COMPLAINT for Specific performance, injunction, violation of administrative procedure act and declaratory relief; Summons issued; fee status paid; Receipt # 135075; Notice re atty id; Consent forms; exhibits A-C (kh) (Entered: 08/22/1991) ; related action 91-1074 f. 08/12/1991 by USA sought to compel District to limit diversions from Sacramento to 1100 cfs to protect winter run salmon; 08/16/1991 TRO issued; because of TRO, invoking right to its 5 days of diversions from Stony Creek per the contract; "rate of diversion set in the Angle Decree Adjudication was intended to define the method of determining the amount of water which the DISTRICT could divert under its entitlement and is not a limitation upon the diversion at the Main Canal of the DISTRICT under the DISTRICT/BUREAU contract." [meaning?]; needs 500 to 700 cfs to get to the 1800 cfs demand on its Main Canal; requested USA to release its entitlement from Black Butte; 2) final agency action under APA, not in accordance with Reclamation law & regs & terms of the contract; 3) USA asserts limit to contemporaneous inflows into Stony Creek; district asserts wheeling contract with TCCA, but USA asserts GCID may be required to pay TCCA for delivery costs & USA has right to refuse to approve such wheeling even when unused T-C Canal capacity and GCID provides water for wheeling under its Sacramento River entitlement; need declaration of court to clear up duty of Reclamation to deliver water in Stony Creek, "the losses and methods of calculations of losses [conveyance losses?] and the capacity that DISTRICT may request." 1) judgment ordering release into Stony Creek sufficient water to yield GCID 20,315 Angle entitlement in up to 5 day increments so long as 1074 is impairing; 2) TRO for the same; 3) restraining order barring USA from refusing to wheel at TCC outlet to Stony Creek per agreement; 3.1 declaration that losses in the creek bed shall be borne by USA; 3.2 declaration that wheeling contract permits GCID to request and USA shall not refuse delivery at TCC outlet when GCID has Sacramento water available for wheeling; 4) declaration as to same as 1); 5) etc. --
  • Exhibit A - 14-06-200-855A [R.O. Draft 11/22-1963 , Same draft in both actions? final?] Contract Between the United States and Glenn Colusa Irrigation District, Diverter of Water from Sacramento River Sources Providing for Project Water Service and Agreement on Diversion of Water, 08/06/1964 [04/06/1964 ?], following construction of Black Butte Dam, called "Sacramento River Contract" or "Diversion Contract" agreed to a limit in diversion from Sacramento River and that diversion from Stony Creek would apply to that limit, and to pay for certain amounts of water, expressly to rely on Stony Creek wherever possible; interprets Angle Decree rights; 1) "Base Supply" GCID water from its supply April - October without payment to USA, "Project Water" in excess of Base Supply but excluding other sources arranged by GCID, "Total Supply" Base Supply plus Project Water; "Critical Year" Shasta inflow below 3,200,000 before 02/15, or, accumulated actual deficiencies below 4,000,000 a-f in immediately prior water year [10/01-09-30] or series together with forecasted deficiency for current exceed 800,000 a-f; "eligible land", nonexcess land plus excess land for which valid recordable contracts executed; 2) to 03/31/2004, renewable in up to 40-year increments, provided [tricky], upon notice to Secretary up to 1 year prior to expiration, can probably repay water supply works construction costs ("within the term of a contract under subsection (d), Section 9 of the 1939 Reclamation Project Act (53 Stat. 1187") "as established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to (3) of Section 2 of Public Law 643 (70 Stat. 483)"; GCID reserves rights & benefits under PL 643. 3) a) GCID may divert at Exhibit A-point for use within B-area - any diversions to any lands in B-area are charged against the A supply even if not GCID; b) by 04/30 each year, 1st 10 years, c) GCID to order monthly A-supply; order in 11th year fixed for remainder of contract, but may be reduced by agreement; d) option to add 30,000 a-f Project Water, by ordering by 04/01 designating months of diversion; e) GCID may vary monthly diversions, notice before 1st day of each month as long as less than total scheduled, and total for July & August not exceed that total; f) GCID to submit 72 hours before each week estimate of daily & weekly delivery for that week & any changes by 72 hour notice; g) can't sell or dispose of any water or right outside B without prior permission; h) no limit on November-March diversions; i) no USA liability for anything; 4) USA claims return, waste, & seepage that escapes B, else GCID claims; 5) critical year, USA may cut all diversions April-October by 25%, overpayments to be credited or refunded, adjustment of overpayment sole remedy against USA; 6) if needed & USA has, GCID may purchase more additional water upon notice, refund if delivery is less, but no refund if GCID doesn't take it all, no right to excess in subsequent years; 7) for agricultural, incidental domestic, and recharge unless USA agrees; 8) Project water at $2/a-f, but if non-ag use, at the going rate for that use, payable half before 04/01 & 07/01 unless later by USA notice; but if used quicker than paid for, pay the additional before further deliveries; b) pay for option water in same fashion; pay to Sacramento, late charge 1/2% per month of delinquency, not relieved by not taking the water, or by some user not paying GCID for any reason; 9) full agreement, no claims against USA in conflict; b) no limit of rights of either against anyone else, not jeopardize rights of either if Sacramento River adjudication, offer amendment for such adjudication, 60 days to accept or terminate; c) if terminates, rights revert, GCID to always use its base water first, contracted Project water does not create right beyond the contract; 10) diversions to be at point A, but USA may require GCID to divert from either Sacramento or Stony or both if quantity available in Stony; GCID may still divert from Sacramento for requirements north of Stony Creek; if USA requires GCID take from Sacramento water it would otherwise take from Stony, USA gets to do anything with that Stony water it wishes and the same goes for any GCID rights prior to 04/01 but in such case GCID may divert an equivalent quantity from Sacramento; "Notwithstanding the other provisions of this subdivision, the Contractor reserves the right to divert water from Stony Creek to the extent of its entitlements under the Angle Decree, for periods not to exceed five (5) consecutive days, whenever its Sacramento River Pumps are temporarily unable to meet its diversion requirements because said pumps are partially or wholly inoperable due to an emergency or an unforseeable cause." b) measured at point of diversion; c) physical access granted; d) GCID to do nothing without advance notice to interfere with measuring equipment; 11) payment a prerequisite to delivery, GCID to do everything lawful to make sure funds are available; 12) waivers not permenent waivers; 13) no B changes without permission, annexed or excluded may change diversion quantities; 14) GCID accurate books & records, annual crop reports to USA by 12/31 each year, deliveries to non-B land on prescribed forms to USA by 03/01; b) GCID access to Project books & records; 15) to excess lands requires executed valid recordable contracts in prescribed form, USA to approve before any sale of water to such lands, GCID to refuse to deliver upon notice of USA as to fraud; b) underground incedental flow to excess land OK; 16) valuing excess irrigable lands by agreed-upon appraisal, no increment for possiblity of project irrigation, improvements separately stated, USA pays for first 2 appraisals & requestor thereafter; subsequent improvements similarly appraised; no right to receive Project water goes with excess land sold; GCID to keep an eye on sales of irrigable lands of large landowners in GCID service area & inform USA of recordable contracts & appraisals to GCID & USA; 18) Excess land over 160 acres or 320 if husband & wife; nonexcess land all B-land that is not excess; to receive the water, excess landowner have a recordable contract to dispose of such excess within 10 years at price not over appraised; forms & notices; 18) excess lands provisions subject to act of Congress or Supreme Court; 19) mingling of water for excess lands OK provided GCID keeps track of quantities & deliveries to make sure Project water not delivered to excess lands, etc.; 20) if contingent on Congressional appropriation, then performance conditioned; 21) Congressman or Resident Commissioner not to be admitted to anything under the contract, unless through a corporation, same for any GCID board member except as a landowner like other landowners; 22) Notices to Sacramento; 23) GCID merger OK if prior approval; 24) Contract not reducing USA remedies; b) no endorsement of arbitrary or capriciousness, etc. ; c) if other diverter gets better treatment by USA, agrees to renegiate to provide comparable treatment to GCID; 25) GCID to file & prosecute as far as California Supreme Court for special proceeding for GCID organization and validity of this contract; --
    - Exhibit A, diversion location; total supply; GCID address
    - Exhibit B, application area [MISSING]
    - Exhibit C, Unit Duty by crop

    [labels fell off B-1 & B-2 dividers]
  • Exhibit B-1 letter Clark/GCID to Patterson/Reclamation, please release entitlement from Black Butte 08/14/1991; USA Ploss furnished NMFS a declaration saying GCID could be supplied from T-C Canal, but upper 2/3 cannot be thus supplied; --
    - Exhibit A, diversion location; total supply; GCID address
  • Exhibit B-2 unsigned letter Board/GCID to Patterson/Reclamation 08/18/1991; following up on Declaration of James Moore in [91-1074, Doc 22] saying GCID cannot request water from Stony, please review the following & attachments; [GCID got suckered, USA gets to store & use GCID water, but asserts it has no duty to deliver it despite the understanding of GCID to the contrary; in essence, GCID sold it's entitlement, and thus point of diversion, to USA in violation of the Angle Decree] --
    - Attachment, Angle Decree, pp. 168-172 [final version]
    - Attachment, 06/22/1962 letter Dugan/Reclamation to Dwinell/GCID; in process of negotiating 855A - riparian lands? working out base supply & project water; [GET p. 1, part of p. 1 masked off] --
  • Exhibit C 14-06-200-8181A Agreement Between the United States and Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Providing for the Conveyance of Water [Wheeling Contract under Diversion Contract for water through Tehama Colusa Canal] 07/31/1974; supplements 855A; T-C Canal includes in its initial reach a "major facility for the production of Chinook salmon"; fishery depends on optimal 1800 cfs for spawning & 1200 cfs for gravel cleaner, but discharge of those cleaner flows undesirable into Coyote, Thomes & Stony with turbidity & silt, but GCID wants to flood rice lands more quickly than is now possible; USA willing to build Wasteway Cross Channel from T-C Canal to GCID Main; GCID conveying easement to GCID Main for construction; Wasteway: waste T-C flows for cleaning gravel in spawning beds, supply water to Sacramento, Delevan & Colusa refuges, increase GCID rice field flooding ability & for emergency service, serve possible enlargments of GCID service area; 1) c) Wasteway, 1/2 mile south of Glenn-Colusa Line; d) Williams Outlet, structure southwest of Williams w/canal to connect to GCID; 2) to 03/31/2004 but renewable upon agreement in up to 40 year increments; GCID to pay Reclamation whatever wheeling charge refuges pay it, but $1.50/a-f if no agreement to 02/28/1995 & adjusted thereafter for O & M; 5) GCID may request 855A water through Wasteway or Williams, in the fashion of 855A & USA will attempt; b) "Subject to contractual or physical limitations of the" T-C Canal per USA & GCID asks, "deliveries up to the capacity of the Wasteway Cross Channel and the Williams Outlet will be made in the event of the sudden and unexpected loss of part or all of the Contractor's system." 6) a) June-Aug, GCID agrees to accept max flows from T-C Canal to the extent it may make beneficial use of them; Reclamation right to [wheel] from GCID pumping plant refuge water up to 105,000 a-f/year, with stated monthly limits; Wasteway water may be contracted by USA & GCID to others if not interfere with B-lands; d) mutual hold-harmless; 7) measured at point of delivery, but GCID to pay for Williams metering device; 8) GCID O & M of Wasteway below Engineering Station 80+12.5, & Williams Outlet below the turnout; right of access; 9) 855A continues except as modified; 10) USA not to cause violation of excess limits with its T-C Deliveries; USA to make rules & regs to administer contract; 12) not permitting arbitrary or capricious; 13) GCID to pay for water in advance, no pay, no water; 14) late charge 1% per month after 30 days, retro; 15) no warranty of water quality but GCID may reject water "that excees 100 Jackson Turbidity Units on an instantaneous basis or 40 Jackson Turbidity Units on a daily average", sampling methods & procedures to be agreed upon; 16) comply with environmental laws; 17 & 18) equal opportunity & civil rights; 19) books & records, reports furnished USA as USA requires, each may inspect the other's, 20) notices to Sacramento & Willows; 21) bind successors & assigns, but must be approved by USA; 22) no officials to benefit; 23) if dependent on appropriation, contingent on appropriation; 23) GCID to get court approval of the contract --

    08/21/1991 2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by plaintiff Glenn-Colusa for temporary restraining order; motion hearing tba , AND for order to show cause re preliminary injunction motion hrg tba (kh) (Entered: 08/22/1991) ; restraining them from "withholding or failing to release, water from Stony Creek necessary for diversion and use by" GCID under 855A; & appear & show cause why prelim should not issue;
    08/21/1991 3 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by plaintiff Glenn-Colusa in SUPPORT of motion for temporary restraining order; motion hearing tba [2-1], of motion for order to show cause re preliminary injunction motion hrg tba [2-2] (kh) (Entered: 08/22/1991) ; 855A put Angle rights "under the control and for use of the BUREAU OF RECLAMATION except under the circumstance in which there was inadequate capacity at the DISTRICT's Sacramento River pumping station. A condition of inadequate capacity has now arisen and demand has been made upon the BUREAU to release water under the terms of the Diversion Contract. The BUREAU OF RECLAMATION has responded that it will not release water under the terms of the Diversion Contract. The BUREAU OF RECLAMATION has responded that it will not release water under the terms of the Diversion Contract but requires that water be released to the Tehama-Colusa Canal intersection with Stony Creek, but only under an Amendment of the Wheeling contract. The Wheeling contract is subject to the requirement that water is delivered only when and if there is unutilized capacity in the Tehama-Colusa Canal. The BUREAU has further responded that water will not be delivered from Black Butte Reservoir and that there is no water available under the entitlement established by the Adjudicated rights of the DISTRICT." "...pattern and course of action of the BUREAU OF RECLAMATION in interpreting the Diversion Contract at all times in the past has been that the DISTRICT has available to it the full amount of its Adjudicated entitlements upon Stony Creek, provided that the flows in Stony Creek during the water year would have been sufficient to accumulate and provide for such entitlement, regardless of the state of the natural flow levels of Stony Creek upon the date of demand by the DISTRICT. The Declaration further makes clear that the amounts of water in Black Butte Reservoir represent in part the full yield of the Angle Decree entitlements of the DISTRICT and that such amounts of water will necessarily be released from Black Butte at some time in the next several months to meet the flood control criteria in any regard and are not waters which would be carried over into a later water year. The Declaration further evidences that there are substantial blockages of the outlet of the Tehama-Colusa Canal into Stony Creek which require several days to clear and that only then can water be initiated to flow down the Creek, but it is anticipated that it will take substantial time to build up delivery in the Main Canal of any portion of the 350 cfs capacity estimated for the Tehama-Colusa Canal outlet." "Defendant lacked sufficient water rights to maximize the yield of the BUREAU Black Butte project and therefore contracted to manage DISTRICT's pre-existing water rights as a part of that project. DISTRICT agreed to such management and thereby gained a regulated supply for delivery at times when it is most needed."
    08/21/1991 4 DECLARATION of Paul R Minasian (kh) (Entered: 08/22/1991) ; Saturday 08/17/1991 & Sunday 08/18/1991 Paul & District staff attempted to provide for transition to alternative sources, T-C Canal operated by Reclamation employees won't make operational changes on Saturday or Sunday; Paul contacted the TCCA manager who said per Reclamation that unlike usual, any changes by GCID had to go through Ploss; Campbell informed Ploss 08/15/1991 there could be no diversions at all since the T-C Canal valve & Stony Creek outlet were blocked with gravel, rock, sediment, and debris, needing 1-1/2 days of emergency expided work to clear assuming no more damage found; this info not in Moore's 08/16/1991 declaration; on Sunday Ploss said he had to clear it with Reclamation in Sacramento Monday, and he was not authorized to issue orders to clear the obstructions until he talked with Sacramento; and didn't need a copy of Moore's declaration --
    08/21/1991 5 DECLARATION of Robert Clark (kh) (Entered: 08/22/1991) ; registered agricultural engineer, General Manager since 1970, employed by GCID since 1967; over past 21 years ordered water from the Bureau down Stony Creek to GCID main canal, but never informed of a limit to "instantaneous natural flow in Stony Creek on the date of the order." First clue was Moore Declaration filed 08/16/1991; list of releases year by year; "No one ever asserted that such receipt of water was anything other than our right nor did we receive a bill. Some of the water was delivered from the Tehama-Colusa Canal because the Bureau wished to retain water in Black Butte Reservoir Storage, but was identified as District entitlement. No bill was sent for this water delivered in this fashion, nor was the loss of that water in the Stony Creek channel charged to the District." Ploss/Schild/Moore/Turner reasons: 1) Reclamation doesn't believe GCID "is entitled to any water from Stony Creek under this paragraph in these circumstances." 2) Reclamation "does not want to bear the loss of delivering water either from the Tehama-Colusa Canal or Black Butte Reservoir to meet the requirements of the Contracts. 3) The Tehama-Colusa Canal outlet is buried in gravel. 4) There are contractors and others working in the Creek bed." 5) GCID "must pay for water delivered at the Tehama-Colusa Canal because it has no right to receive water in Stony Creek. 6) This may become a continuing need of the DISTRICT and the precedent is harmful to the BUREAU." At 08/20/1991 at 10:30 a.m. Reclamation is offering to clean out the T-C Canal valve and deliver as much water as they can from the valve, 200-250 acre feet [cfs?]; 10) no reason why 700 cfs cannot be released down Stony immediately, in the past gravel extractors & farmers have been notified timely, & GCID will notify if Reclamation refuses; shortage calculation unclear: 500 cfs? 556 cfs? 100-156 cfs?; 350 cfs at the T-C outlet will yield 175 cfs at GCID Main canal for first several week, shortfall of 225 cfs week of 08/19 after cutting off refuges, which will continue to receive drain water until drain system is short; 500 cfs shortage will force abandonment of 20,000 acres of crops --
    08/21/1991 6 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff Glenn-Colusa of lodged [0-1], lodged [0-1], declaration [5-1], declaration [4-1], memorandum [3-1], motion for temporary restraining order; motion hearing tba [2-1], motion for order to show cause re preliminary injunction motion hrg tba [2-2] (kh) (Entered: 08/22/1991) ; served everybody & will serve them again? &
    08/23/1991 7 NOTICE by plaintiff Glenn-Colusa of related case(s) 91-1074 (old) (Entered: 08/27/1991) "other economies, including mitigating the risk of impairing the rights of non-parties and the risk that any parties will be subject to multiple or otherwise inconsistent obligations."
    08/23/1991 8 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton granting related case notice [7-1] Case reassigned to Honorable David F. Levi , Case referred to Magistrate John F. Moulds (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/27/1991) ; copy of Doc 25 from 91-1074
    08/21/1991 LODGED Order for the filing of responsive papers and appearance and argument upon temporary restraining order by plaintiffs (kh) (Entered: 08/22/1991) ; handwritten: "Court prepared its own order. DFL/KDH"
    08/21/1991 LODGED Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause by Plaintiffs (kh) (Entered: 08/22/1991) ; handwritten: "Court prepared its own order - Superceded by stipulation of the parties. DFL/KDH"
    08/26/1991 LODGED mtn for leave to file unsigned decl to be replaced in a timely manner by signed decl and proposed order to be signed (old) (Entered: 08/27/1991)
    08/26/1991 9 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by [Federal] defendant[s] in OPPOSITION to motion for temporary restraining order; motion hearing tba [2-1], motion for order to show cause re preliminary injunction motion hrg tba [2-2] (kh) (Entered: 08/28/1991) ; Angle case because diverters were taking Project water; 1074, NMFS, 1100 cfs: "Reclamation offered to help GCID make up for the shortfall in the quantity of water diverted at that facility by making water from the Sacramento River available to GCID via the Tehama-Colusa Canal." Section 10(a) applies only if pumps are not working for mechanical reasons [!]; as in on-off, not partially working? GCID's problem self-imposed; 1989 Clark was told in response to a request for Black Butte releases: "[t]his is an annual problem between your staff and mine as to what constitutes an emergency." Wilson: "GCID's rights under the Angle Decree are for direct diversion only, not for storage", entitled to divert only during a certain portion of the year, only at a particular point of diversion, maximum rate 500 cfs, only to flow in Stony in excess of 265 cfs [maybe, maybe not]; 20,315 "is an annual average which can be higher or lower depending on the year" [no, not an average, a limit] order to release would be a new entitlement, & unnecessary since Reclamation already "made clear to GCID that sufficient water supplies can by made available to GCID at alternative points of delivery pursuant to GCID's existing contracts with Reclamation without misusing and misinterpreting the terms of both the Angle Decree and the Diversion Contract." Kelly declaration shows none examples of previous Black Butte releases for GCID are as Clark says they are;
  • Attachment 1 letter Ploss/Reclamation to Clark/GCID 04/28/1989 re: call for emergency water, an annual interpretation problem --
  • Attachment 2 Declaration of George Wilson, unsigned --
  • Attachment 3 Declaration of Norman T. (Tom) Kelly, irrigation systems operator, Willows Construction Office, Watermaster for all federal reclamation project facilities administered through the Willows Construction Office including 3 reservoirs on Stony Creek; Clark wrong, no showing in bureau files of inoperable pumps at times Clark says [uh, didn't he only say you'd cooperated in the past? and nothing about inoperable?]; no proof 1982-4 intertie releases were in lieu of Black Butte
    - Exhibit 1 06/26/1964 Reclamation/OUWUA contract 14-06-200-1020A Contract Between the United States and the Orland Unit Water Users' Association Providing for the Exchange of Water; to allow retention in East Park & Stony Gorge of water that would be in Black Butte
    - Exhibit 2 tables, 1972, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, Sacramento District, Daily Operation of Black Butte Reservoir, Stony Creek, California, July 1972 - December 1972; not showing sufficient outflow to yield 5,000 a-f [no, not yielding sufficient to yield an ADDITIONAL 5,000 a-f, no showing as to releases vs. diversions vs. creek flow, no explanation for jump in flow on 07/20, no discussion of whether or not "RIV CFS" means releases on down the stream and whether or not that exceeds the 5000 a-f in discussion]
    - Exhibit 3 1973; Daily, April 1973 - December 1973 releases for operational considerations, not emergency deliveries to GCID, April & May 1973 approaching flood conditions causing releases
    - Exhibit 4 1982 Daily, April 1982 - December 1982 releases documents, April-05/05 for flood control [12/1982 -- ]

    08/29/1991 LODGED proposed order granting deft USA leave to file a signed declaration of George G. Wilson to replace previously unsigned declaration. (old) (Entered: 09/03/1991) became Doc #10, reviewed by phone, sent original by overnight for his signature
    08/30/1991 10 ORDER by Honorable David F Levi ORDERING: the defendants may have LEAVE to replace the unsigned declaration of George G Wilson with the signed original in a timely manner (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 08/30/1991)
    08/29/1991 11 NOTICE by defendant USA re Bureau of Reclamation water (kh) (Entered: 09/03/1991) ; 08/28/1991 letter Iizuka/USA to Judge Levi 1) USA not selling 700 cfs reduction in GCID pumping to anyone else, 2) recitation of deliveries to GCID via T-C Canal at Intertie & Williams; 3) no contact from Minasian on stip court ordered him to draft; same as 91-1074 doc 36 Exhibit 4
    08/30/1991 12 4:55 p.m. Sacramento, California S STIPULATION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Honorable David F Levi (see order for details) (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 09/03/1991) ; L 08/30/1991; 1) USA to provide up to max capacity of T-C Canal Stony Creek CHO on order & request by GCID provided GDCID has right to it under 855A, GCID right to make daily changes; 2) USA to measure at CHO & GCID measure at Main Canal, log kept to determine conveyance losses, 3) CHO deliveries initially accounted for under wheeling contract, 4) Stip makes no admissions, 5) Court will determine money & water charges at end of litigation, 6) GCID not entitled to additional water by reason of 5), 7) tricky [Minasian drafted], Court refuses GCID request for TRO requiring delivery of 700 cfs at Main Canal (including CHO releases); GCID may request reconsideration upon notice by phone to Iizuka & Judge, no further paper filings needed, Court to schedule hearing any day of the week, all provided Iizuka can chat with Reclamation in advance, hearing may be by conference call, Reclamation not required to make water available to GCID in excess of CHO maximum without such amended order; 8) No bond, but Reclamation entitled to collect any and all costs and damages from implementation of this stip [blank check?], 9) in effect to 09/10/1991; countersigned page with illegible note from Paul Minasian?
    09/10/1991 13 ORDER by Honorable David F Levi ORDERING: federal defendants are GRANTED leave to replace the unsigned declaration of George G Wilson previously lodged with the court with the signed copy (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 09/10/1991) L 08/29/1991
  • 08/26/1991 Declaration of Water Master, George G. Wilson
    09/11/1991 LODGED Amendment of stipulation and temporary restraining order (kh) Modified on 09/13/1991 (Entered: 09/13/1991) , became Doc #14
    09/17/1991 14 ORDER by Honorable David F. Levi granting the amendment of paragraph 9 of the stipulation and temporary restraining order agreed to by the parties. (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/17/1991) ; changed to 09/17/1991
  • "Maria; You are authorized to sign my name to the original of this stipulation. Thank you for your Help. Paul R. Minasian & /s/
    10/18/1991 15 ANSWER by defendant USA, defendant Dept of Interior, defendant Bureau of Reclamation, defendant Manuel Lujan, defendant Roger Patterson (kh) (Entered: 10/21/1991) ; 4) c) Para 4 sentence 3 Angle Decree speaks for itself; deny, deny & fails to state a claim, etc. --
    10/21/1991 LODGED Stipulation for extension of time for discovery request response (old) (Entered: 10/22/1991) , became Doc. #16;
    10/25/1991 16 S STIPULATION and ORDER by Honorable David F Levi ORDERING: the time for defendants to respond to plaintiffs' Request for production of documents (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 10/25/1991); needs docs from archives & various offices & review before production, extend to 11/25/1991 to respond to plaintiff's requests for production
    11/04/1991 17 NOTICE of hearing ; Scheduling conf continued to 1/31/92 @ 11:00 ( cc: ) (old) (Entered: 11/07/1991) , JOINT status reports no later than 7 days prior
    11/13/1991 LODGED motion for extension of time in which to file responses to requests for admission and interrogatories (kh) (Entered: 11/15/1991) became Doc #18
    11/19/1991 18 ORDER by Honorable David F Levi ORDERING: the time for federal defendants to file responses to plaintiff's interrogatories and Requests for Admissions is EXTENDED from 11/14/91 to 12/20/91 (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 11/19/1991)
  • 11/13/1991 Declaration of Maria A. Iizuka; 09/26/1991 plaintiffs served request for production of documents, extended to 11/25; 10/15/1991 plaintiffs served a request for Admissions & first set of interrogatories - plaintiffs object to extension unless Reclamation agrees to provide Black Butte water next year, to which USA says [nope], hence motion for extension of time; [USA litigation tactic, stalling and menacing GCID 1992 supply?]
  • 11/18/1991 Order of Judge Levi, exgtend to 12/20/1991
  • 11/13/1991 L duplicate copy of motion
  • 11/13/1991 duplicate copy of Iizuka Declaration
  • duplicate copy of Proposed Order
  • duplicate copy of Opposition, Doc. #20
    11/21/1991 19 ORDER by Honorable David F Levi ORDERING: the [18-1] 11/19/1991 order is VACATED, as the matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Gregory Hollows for determination (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 11/21/1991)
    11/19/1991 20 OPPOSITION by plaintiff Glenn-Colusa to Motion for extension of time beyond 12/1/91 to file response to requests for admission and interrogatories (kh) (Entered: 11/21/1991) ; GCID asked Reclamation to "consider a stand still agreement under which it would deliver water in Stony Creek and permit the trial of this matter and determination to occur at a more leisurely pace. This request was dropped. [paragr] The Declaration of Paul Minasian [Doc 21?] set forth that unless the discovery is completed and available for a Motion for Summary Judgment and requests for preliminary or permanent injunction, a substantial amount of acreage will not be able to be planted because of uncertainty in regard to the availability of water in the northerly end of the DISTRICT and that the crops which would be most effected [sic], would be those that would be planted in February, consisting of tomato and row crop ground which must make its decision approximately two months before the planting decisions are made in regard to other crops within the DISTRICT." --

    [ Volume 2, Filings 21 - 48]


    11/19/1991 21 DECLARATION of Paul R Minasian RE motion opposition [20-1], and motion for extension of time (kh) (Entered: 11/21/1991) ; USA already missed 11/14/1991 admissions deadline? first week in February tomatoes and other vine, seed and vegetable crops assuming no heavy rain that week, land bedded in the fall & substantial advantage to landowners to plant thus since can harvest before southern crops; if only 1,000 cfs to the north, have to cut down from 10,000 to 3,000 acres if no Stony Creek deliveries by Reclamation, ask extension be limited to 12/01/1991 --
  • Exhibit A letter atty Minasian to Iizuka/DOJ loss of Black Butte water may bankrupt many landowners, you won't agree to a stand-still agreement, ask you to answer admissions by 12/01 & you refused, please reconsider --
    11/26/1991 22 ORDER by Magistrate Gregory G Hollows ORDERING: the court GRANTS defendant's request for extension of time untill 12/9/91 to file discovery responses (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 11/26/1991); Judge Levi requested Magistrate Hollows supervise discovery matter, parties not objecting; defendants indicated 12/01 not enough time since still working on production of documents; balancing, served or by overnight mail no later than 12/09;
    12/06/1991 23 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by plaintiff Glenn-Colusa to compel production of documents; motion hearing 1/9/92 at 9:00am in ctrm 6 before Magistrate John F Moulds (kh) Modified on 12/09/1991 (Entered: 12/09/1991) ; compelling production of documents withheld by Reclamation "pursuant to the claimed Deliberative Process Privilege"; (Doc 2-3 also per attorney-client privilege);
  • 12/02/1991 Motion to Compel Production of Documents: --
    - Exhibit A, Index of Privileged Documents Not Produced in Response to GCID's Request for Production of Documents [8 pages]; 1-1) 12/19/63 Draft Memorandum Requesting Approval of Proposed Contract with GCID for Diversion of Water from the Sacramento River: --
    - - 1-1 12/19/1963 Draft Memorandum Requesting Approval of Proposed Contract with GCID for Diversion of Water from the Sacramento River
    - - 1-2 09/16/1964 Inventory of the Special Drainage and Supply Problems Associated with the Future Planning and Construction of the Tehama-Colusa Canal
    - - 1-3 05/16/1966 Comparison of Reconnaissance=Cost Estimates of Alternatives to the GCID Canal Crossing of Stony Creek
    - - 2-1 12/09/1960 Reservations and Conditions Contained in the Assignment of Application 18115
    - - 2-2 11/16/1961 Suggested Testimony and Proposed Exhibits to be Presented to the California State Water Rights Board at a Hearing on United States Applications 18115 and 19451 (Black Butte Project)
    - - 2-3 03/20/1962 Proposed Contract with Orland Unit Water Users’ Association for Operation of Orland Project Storage Facilities in Accordance with Directions from the United States
    - - 4-1 07/03/1963 Two Tabulations and Two Charts Relating to GCID Diversions from the Sacramento River
    - - 4-2 07/15/1964 GCID Water Measuring Program
    - - 4-3 03/18/1965 Survey Work at Proposed GCID Siphon under Stony Creek
    - - 4-4 03/24/1965 Cost Estimates of Alternatives to GCID Siphon on Stony Creek
    - - 4-5 10/06/1965 Discussion of Issues Presented in 9/29/1965 Letter from GCID
    - - 4-6 12/27/1965 Discussion of Water Measurement and Accounting Under Contract No. 855A With GCID
    - - 4-7 10/26/1966 Fishery and Wildlife Refuge Service from the Tehama-Colusa Canal and GCID Canal
    - - 4-8 11/26/1969 Water Measurement and Accounting of GCID for 1969 Irrigation Season
    - - 4-9 12/26/1969 Comments on 11/26/1969 Memorandum to Regional Director from Project Construction Engineer, Willows
    - - 4-10 09/28/1971 Discussion of Meeting with GCID Regarding Possible Agreement for Wheeling of Water from Tehama-Colusa Canal to Delevan Wildlife Refuge
    - - 4-11 05/24/1982 Summary of 5/20/1982 Phone Conversation with Warren Carlson, GCID
    - - 4-12 10/28/1987 Comments on Draft Memorandum of Under Standing Between GCID and Bureau of Reclamation
    - - 4-13 10/20/1989 Addressing Measurement of Water Diverted by GCID Under Contract No. 855A
    - - 5-1 12/16/1974 Submission of Data for Sizing the Tehama-Colusa Canal Wasteway Cross Channel
    - - 5-2 04/14/1975 Proposed Contract with GCID for Conveyance of Water in Tehama-Colusa Canal
    - - 5-3 02/23/1983 Comments on Wheeling Charges to GCID for 1979-1981
    - - 5-4 06/26/1986 Proposed Policy for Ordering and Accounting for Water Wheeled Through Tehama-Colusa Canal to GCID
    - - 6-1 03/21/1962 Discussion of Language to be Included in Sacramento River Contracts Regarding Excess Lands and Starting Date for Collections for the Diversions of Stored Water
    - - 6-2 05/03/1962 Comments on Draft Contract with GCID dated 3/26/1962
    - - 6-3 08/09/1962 Legal Concerns with GCID’s Contract Negotiation Position
    - - 6-4 08/24/1962 Draft Letter to GCID and Discussion of Contract Negotiations with GCID
    - - 6-5 11/30/1962 Draft Letter to GCID in Response to GCID’s 10/24/1962 Letter to Assistant Commissioner
    - - 6-6 10/11/1963 Transmittal and Discussion of Draft Contract with GCID Designated R.O. Draft 9/30-1963
    - - 6-7 11/01/1963 Request for Guidance in Negotiations of Contracts with Representatives of Sacramento River Water Users
    - - 6-8 12/06/1963 Request for Approval of Draft Contract with GCID Designee R.O. Draft 11/22-1963
    - - 6-9 12/20/1963 Transmittal of Proposed Press Release Regarding Proposed Contract with GCID
    - - 6-10 02/19/1964 Telegraphic Message Discussing Excess Land Provisions to be Included in Sacramento River Contracts
    - - 7-1 03/20/1950 Description of Conference with E.A. Garland Regarding Appropriation of Water from Stony Creek
    - - 7-2 12/20/1950 Discussion of Water Losses in Lower Stony Creek
    - - 7-3 01/02/1951 Summary of Conference Regarding Water Losses in Lower Stony Creek
    - - 7-4 03/19/1951 Reservoir Operations Studies for the Black Butte Unit
    - - 7-5 03/27/1951 Effects of Decree Adjudicating Rights to Stony Creek Water
    - - 7-6 03/24/1961 Comments on February d.p 1961 Report by Clair A. Hill and Associates on GCID Water Require ments and Entitlements from the Sacramento River
    - - 7-7 05/01/1961 Comments on February 1961 Report by Clair A. Hill and Associates on GCID Water Require ments and Entitlements from the Sacramento River
    - - 7-8 04/20/1962 Comments on February 1961 Report by Clair A. Hill and Associates on GCID Water Requirements and Entitlements from the Sacramento River [Doc 59 Ex. 10]--
    - - 7-9 06/01/1962 Description of Internal Meeting Following 5/23/1962 Meeting with GCID
    - - 7-10 08/31/1962 Water Requirements for GCID
    - - 7-11 05/03/1963 Comments on the Report of the Special Panel, Sacramento River Diverters, Central
    - - 7-12 07/03/1963 Transmittal of Documents Prepared Regarding Sacramento River Water Rights
    - - 7-13 07/03/1963 Discussion of Problems in Negotiation of Sacramento River Contracts
    - - 7-14 09/13/1963 Transmittal of Table Prepared to Identify Total Annual Demand and Project water for GCID
    - - 8-1 08/08/1963 Discussion of Work Copy of Special Panels Report Regarding Contract Negotiations with GCID
    - - 8-2 04/19/1963 Analysis of Application of Various Statutes and Judicial Decisions to Proposed Contract with GCID

    12/06/1991 24 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by plaintiff Glenn-Colusa in SUPPORT of motion to compel production of documents; motion hearing 1/9/92 at 9:00am in ctrm 6 before Magistrate John F Moulds [23-1] (kh) (Entered: 12/09/1991) ; "I. The deliberative process privilege cannot apply to the documents withheld in this matter because: 1) The regulatory and decision making process of the government is not at issue in this proceeding, the intent of a contract is the issue; 2) The interest of the government in protecting the document surrounding the agreement to language in a contract and its construction thereafter is not sufficient to overcome the need of the plaintiff and this court for these documents." --
  • Exhibit A same 8 page list as A to Doc 23 --
    12/06/1991 25 DECLARATION of Paul R Minasian (kh) (Entered: 12/09/1991) As to the purpose of storing GCID water at Black Butte , & what constitutes an emergency; no deliberative process --
    12/12/1991 26 OPPOSITION by defendant to motion to compel production of documents; motion hearing 1/9/92 at 9:00am in ctrm 6 before Magistrate John F Moulds [23-1] (old) (Entered: 12/12/1991) ; inadequate service, person said to be served did not receive, USA asked for a fax copy; preliminary/draft/proposed documents not discoverable; --
  • Attachment A, same 8 page list as A to Doc 23 --
  • Attachment B, GCID Request for Production of Documents, etc. Under Rule 34, Set No. One [seems pretty straightforward] --

    1992

    01/15/1992 27 JOINT STATEMENT by parties of Discovery Disagreement (kh) (Entered: 01/15/1992) ; Minasian agreed motion to compel does not pertain to documents withheld pursuant to attorney-client privilege; USA contends no article 10 releases since 1964 & USA contents not storing GCID water since 1964 [?] --
    01/27/1992 28 LETTER to court from plaintiff Glenn-Colusa re: resetting status conf to 2/28/92 at 1:45 (old) (Entered: 01/28/1992) ; Minasian letter saying 02/28/1992 at 1:45 OK;
    01/27/1992 LODGED Stipulation to continue plft's motion to compel production of documents and [proposed] order thereon (old) (Entered: 01/28/1992) , became Doc 29
    02/03/1992 29 STIPULATION and ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds ORDERING the hearing on plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents [23-1] is CONTINUED from 1/9/92 at to 9:00am on 2/20/92 in ctrm 6 before Magistrate John F Moulds (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 02/03/1992)
    02/18/1992 30 JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by defendant for conf set for 2/28/92 at 1:45 pm (old) (Entered: 02/20/1992) ; possible GCID motion for deliveries in 1992 before planting decisions; federal motion for SJ; hearing coming 02/20 on withheld documents; USA awaiting GCID response to 11/26/1991 discovery requests; USA ask court for briefing schedule; settlement conference might be helpful
    02/20/1992 31 MINUTES granting motion to compel production of documents; motion hearing 1/9/92 at 9:00am in ctrm 6 before Magistrate John F Moulds [23-1]; order to be prepared by the court (old) (Entered: 02/21/1992) ; Minasian & Iizuka
    02/24/1992 32 ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds ORDERING the plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents [23-1] is GRANTED, and defendant Bureau is ORDERED to produce said documents within 15 days of this order (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 02/24/1992) ; Burea "completely failed to address the burden imposed by its assertion of the privileted. That is, defendant Bureau has not presented an affidavit by an agency head or other appropriate official which states that the privilege has been claimed after personal consideration of the allegedly privileged information....What has been presented is merely a copy of an index detailing the documents...." --
    02/25/1992 33 MOTION by defendant for reconsideration of order requiring release of privileged documents set for 3/12/92 at 9:00 am ctrm 6 (old) (Entered: 02/27/1992)
    02/25/1992 34 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion for reconsideration of order requiring release of privileged documents set for 3/12/92 at 9:00 am ctrm 6 [33-1] (old) (Entered: 02/27/1992) ; should remand to agency to cure, not just order production;
  • 05/20/1991 Order by Judge Karlton in NRDC v. Hancock, S-88-1658 LKK on same issues; deliberative process privelege a sub-category of executive privelege; most document discussion "merely conclusory statemen ts about why the documents are privileged. [para] These conclusory assertions of privilege will not suffice to carry the government's burden of proof." Remaining documents will be excluded because "The federal defendants have submitted additional information sufficient to show that the documents sought to be withheld are 'deliberative' as these documents express an individual's opinions rather than agency policy, make recommendations to a superior on a course of action, disclose negotiations among agencies or within agencies which did not result in an agency policy or final decision, or evaluate options available to the agency."
    02/26/1992 35 MOTION by defendant to stay order filed 2/21/92 requiring release of privileged documents set for 3/12/92 at 9:00 am in ctrm 6 (old) (Entered: 02/27/1992) ; 3/12 is after the 15 days, so need stay
    02/27/1992 36 MOTION by defendant to shorten time to permit court to hear motion for reconsideration of order requiring release of privileged documents; motion hearing 3/12/92 at 9:00am in ctrm 6 , and to stay order requiring production; motion hearing 3/12/92 at 9:00am in ctrm 6 (kh) (Entered: 02/28/1992) ; rather than normal 28-day calendar, 2 motions, 1 to stay, 2nd to reconsider
    02/27/1992 37 DECLARATION of Maria A Iizuka in SUPPORT of motion to shorten time to permit court to hear motion for reconsideration of order requiring release of privileged documents; motion hearing 3/12/92 at 9:00am ctrm 6 [36-1] (kh) (Entered: 02/28/1992) ; no stip available from Mr. Minasian until next week because he's in hearings?
    02/27/1992 LODGED Motion and Notice of Motion for Order to compel plaintiff to respond to discovery request forthwith (kh) (Entered: 02/28/1992) ; "3/2 Court issued order vacating motion from 3/12/91 calendar"; had agreed to 30 days until 01/26/1992, 02/14/1992 GCId served partial response, "no explanation or request for additional time based on good cause", 4 letters to plaintiff's counsel, no response, thus this motion;
  • [PROPOSED] Order requiring plaintiff to respond forthwith to federal defendants' discovery request

    [following 3 lodged moved to file sequence from docket sequence]
    02/25/1992 LODGED proposed order granting dfts' motion for reconsideration (old) (Entered: 02/27/1992)
    02/27/1992 LODGED ORDER granting motion to shorten time (kh) (Entered: 02/28/1992)
    02/26/1992 LODGED proposed order granting dfts' motion for stay of order (old) (Entered: 02/27/1992) "3/2 Court issued its own order"
    03/03/1992 38 STATUS (Pre-trial Scheduling) ORDER by Honorable David F Levi ORDERING Status Coference HELD 2/28/92,the Government's motion for summary judgment shall be filed on 5/29/92 40pg max, Glenn-Colusa's cross-motion shall be filed by 6/19/92 50pg max, governments reply due 7/2/92 10pg max and hearing shall be set for 7/23/92 at 1:30pm in ctrm 3; Discovery deadline SET FOR 5/1/92; Disclosure of expert witnesses due 3/16/92 (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 03/03/1992) ; discovery by 05/01/1992 negotiate or order, and if ordered, complied with;
    03/03/1992 39 ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds ORDERING defendants' notice of motion and motion entitled "motion for order to compel plaintiff to respond to discovery request forthwith" lodged with the court on 2/27/92 is REMOVED from the court's 3/12/92 law and motion calendar for failure to comply with Local Rule 251(a) (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 03/03/1992) ; not properly noticed
    03/04/1992 40 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Glenn-Colusa in opposition to motion for reconsideration of order requiring release of privileged documents set for 3/12/92 at 9:00 am ctrm 6 [33-1] (old) (Entered: 03/06/1992) ; delaying tactic, no declarations attached supporting privilege; not in good faith --
    03/10/1992 41 ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds ORDERING defendants' motion to shroten time to permit court to hear motion for reconsideration of order requiring release of privileged documents [36-1] is DENIED, and defendants' motion for reconsideration of order requiring release of privileged documents [33-1] is also DENIED (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 03/10/1992) ; defendants still not taken any steps necessary to invoke privelege
    03/06/1992 42 REPLY by federal defendants to plaintiff's opposition to motion for reconsideration of order requiring production of documents; hrg set for 3/12/92 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 (old) (Entered: 03/10/1992) ; promise to supply the requisite declarations should have been enough, production is not an overnight process; 2.?? post-decisional argument still without merit?; new argument that USA "can never withhold documents on the basis of privelege if such documents form the basis of an agency decision." new law? --
    03/10/1992 43 LETTER to court from defendant inquiring about provision of any non-expert witnesses AND response of defendants' request for production served on plaintiff on 11/26/91 AND the status of plaintiff's pursuance of the possibility of a settlement (old) (Entered: 03/10/1992) ; Iizuka to Judge Levi; expert v. non-expert, recently received last of defendant's documents and a second production request may be necessary, no response from plaintiff on request for settlement terms
    03/11/1992 44 DECLARATION [of Maria A. Iizuka] re motion to compel production of documents; motion hearing 1/9/92 at 9:00am in ctrm 6 before Magistrate John F Moulds [23-1] (old) (Entered: 03/11/1992) ; received declaration from Acting Commissioner of Reclamation Hancock today, who had reviewed all docs with attorneys in Interior's Office of the Solicitor, determined some docs should be released (which will be promptly) and others should be withheld per his Declaration --
    03/11/1992 LODGED motion for leave to file declaration of Lawrence Hancock (old) (Entered: 03/11/1992) ; became doc #45 --
    03/11/1992 LODGED Declaration of Lawrence F. Hancock in support of defendants' response to plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents (old) (Entered: 03/11/1992) --
    03/16/1992 45 ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds STATING the motion for leave to file declaration of Lawrence Hancock lodged 3/11/92 is "not timely filed, and is not, even now, a properly noticed motion. If it is a motion it is DENIED" and the declaration lodged 3/11/92 is NOT FILED (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 03/16/1992) ; handwritten on p. 2 --
    03/16/1992 46 DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES by defendant (kh) (Entered: 03/17/1992) ; George Wilson, Water Master; understand court only wants list of experts
    03/17/1992 47 DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES by plaintiffs (kh) (Entered: 03/17/1992) ; Don Kienlen of Murray, Burns and Kienlen, Sacramento; testify as to impact on Black Butte had GCID not entered into the 1964 agreement; also Bob Clark
    03/17/1992 48 REQUEST by defendant for reconsideration by the district court of magistrate judge's rulings; request hearing 5/1/92 at 9:00am in ctrm 3 (kh) Modified on 03/31/1992 (Entered: 03/18/1992) ; 1) granting plaintiff's motion to compel - asked Magistrate to clarify at hearing, was told wait for written order, consulting with a colleague that day produced a guess that the court wanted a specific declaration, began the effort with Department of Interior counsel, this request in response to all the denials by the Magistrate, case law usually but not always requires such a declaration [a Vaughn index insufficient?]; 2) --
  • [proposed] order
  • Attachment A - 03/10/1992 Magistrate Mould's order[proposed] order, Doc 41
  • Attachment B - F 03/16/1992 S 03/13/1992 L 03/11/1992 Motion for Leave to File Hancock Declaration, Doc. #45, Magistrate Mould's denial handwritten thereon --
  • Attachment C - 11/23/1991 Magistrate Hollows' order Doc 22
  • Attachment D - 12/06/1991 GCID P & A in support of motion to compel, Doc. 24, fax stamp 12/05/1991
    - same 8 page index attached to Doc 23
  • Attachment E - 12/12/1991 Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents Doc 26
  • Attachment F - 03/11/1992 Declaration of Maria A. Iizuka, Doc 44 --
  • Attachment G - 05/24/1992 Order Magistrate Mould Doc 32
  • Attachment H - 02/25/1992 Motion for Reconsideration of Order Requiring Release of Privileged Documents Doc 33
  • Attachment I - 02/25/1992 Memorandum of the Federal Defendants in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Order Requiring Release of Privileged Documents Doc 34
    - Attachment A 05/20/1991 Order by Judge Karlton in NRDC v. Hancock, S-88-1658 LKK on
    - Attachment A L 02/25/1992 [Proposed] Order
  • Attachment J - 02/26/1992 Motion to Stay Order of Court Requiring Release of Privileged Documents Doc 35
    - [Proposed] Order L 02/26/1992
  • Attachment K - 02/27/1992 Motion to Shorten Time to Permit Court to Hear Motion for Reconsideration of Order Requiring Release of Privileged Documents and Motion to Stay Order Requiring Production Doc 36
    - [Proposed] Order L 02/27/1992
    - 02/27/1992 Declaration of Maria A. Iizuka in Support of Motion to Shorten Time Doc 37
  • Attachment L - Glenn Colusa Irrigation District's Opposition to Federal Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Requiring Production of Documents Doc #40
  • Attachment M - 03/06/1992 Response of the Federal Defendants to Plaintiff's Opposition to Federal Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of Order Requiring Production of Documents Doc #42
  • Attachment N - L 03/11/1992 Motion for Leave to File Declaration of Lawrence Hancock Doc. #45 before handwritten denial thereon --
  • Attachment O - F [?] 03/11/1992 Declaration of Lawrence F. Hancock in Support of Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents --
    - Revised Index of Documents Not Produced in Response to GCID's Request for Production of Documents Based on a Claim of Deliberative Process Privilege, 22 pp. --

    [ Volume 3, Filings 49 - 71]


    03/25/1992 49 ORDER by Honorable David F Levi STATING the court DOES NOT contemplate an order ordering disclosure of non-expert wintesses (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 03/25/1992) ; "The parties may reach their own agreement or employ normal discovery tools to discover the names of adverse non-expert witnesses.
    03/26/1992 50 OPPOSITION by plaintiff Glenn-Colusa to defendant's request for reconsideration by the district court of the Magistrate Judge's ruling (old) (Entered: 03/27/1992) ; 1) no compliance with procedure, 2) post- deliberational documents cannot be argued to be pre-deliberational, 3) standard, "make recommendations or express opinions on legal or policy matters", none of these, a) list, "withheld because drafts of a document may present information or positions different from those presented in the final document released by supervisory personnel..."; not a reason; b) list, "release of the documents could inhibit the development of such documents in the future and thus limit the options presented to agency decision makers"; not a reason; c) list, "release of such document could inhibit the frank discussion of potential agency policy in the future."; not a reason.
    04/20/1992 51 NOTICE by plaintiff Glenn-Colusa of taking deposition of George Wilson, water master, on 5/4/92 at 1:00 am [yup, that's what it sez] in Sacramento, CA (kh) (Entered: 04/22/1992)
    04/24/1992 52 NOTICE by federal defendants of taking deposition of Don Kienlen on 5/26/92 at 2:00 p.m. (old) (Entered: 04/27/1992)
    04/24/1992 53 NOTICE by defendant USA of taking deposition of Robert Clark on 5/26/92 at 10:00 am (old) (Entered: 04/27/1992)
    04/24/1992 LODGED stipulation and proposed order to extend discovery date and to extend date for filing of defendants' opening brief by federal defendants (old) (Entered: 04/27/1992) ; Became #54 05/06/1992 54 STIPULATION and ORDER by Honorable David F. Levi GRANTING lodged stipulation to extend discovery date; Discovery ddl continued to 5/22/92 ; FURTHER ORDERING that the filing date for the defendants' opening brief is continued from 5/29/92 to 6/5/92; (cc: all counsel); (old) (Entered: 05/06/1992) [as above]; discovery to 05/22/1992, defendant's opening brief to 06/05/1992 [brief? Doc 57?], 1) postpone for hearing on Magistrate's ruling on releasing privileged documents 2) unable to mutually schedule expert witness depositions, 3) plaintiff "agreed to permit federal defendants to file their opening brief one week later."
  • 05/05/1992 S [Proposed] Order, signed
    05/27/1992 55 ORDER by Honorable David F. Levi DENYING defendants' motion for reconsideration by the district court of magistrate judge's rulings; request hearing 5/1/92 at 9:00am in ctrm 3 [48-1] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/27/1992) ; Vaughn index defined, from Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d, D.C. Cir. 1973; Iizuka screwed up, court not going to fix it; boilerplate justifications for withholding inadequate; "in camera review by courts is burdensome and must be conducted without benefit of criticism and illumination of the party with an actual interest in forcing disclosure."; no motion for a protective order; no extension of time to prepare a Vaughn index --
    06/05/1992 56 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by defendants for summary judgment; hrg set for 7/23/92 at 1:30 in ctrm 3 by defendants (old) (Entered: 06/08/1992)
    06/05/1992 57 BRIEF by defendants in support of motion for summary judgment; hrg set for 7/23/92 at 1:30 in ctrm 3 by defendants [56-1] (old) (Entered: 06/08/1992); III.C. "GCID has failed to show that its interpretation of Article 10(a) is correct"; USA: 1) "mechanical reasons" [inserting a new limiter into the contract language]; 2) natural flows only, not water stored for them; [USA can force an "emergency" and then refuse to call it an "emergency"]. USA: unforseen cause, [but by that , since all maintenance or breakdowns are forseeable, there can never be an emergency]; recites the two 1960 applications: 1) 18115 leading to D 1100 for Black Butte; 2) 19451 appropriate 225 cfs Oct - June, denied, insufficient irrigation demand to justify; [discussion as to how the contract modified the Angle diversion points for GCID ]; Clark in deposition unable to "explicate and support his assertions" of previous deliveries of Black Butte water under the contract? recites how they weren't deliveries; Wilson: Angle does not allow GCID to permit storage of its water in Black Butte; Kienlen: GCID Angle rights are for diversion, not storage; [it is as easy to conclude from USA brief that USA is very clever as it is to conclude that USA is very right] --
    06/05/1992 LODGED order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment (old) (Entered: 06/08/1992) [MISSING]
    06/19/1992 58 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by plaintiff Glenn-Colusa for summary judgment; hrg set for 7/23/92 at 9:00 in ctrm 3 by plaintiff (old) (Entered: 06/19/1992) ; Declaration that 1) 91-1074 injunction an emergency and unforseen condition under 10(a); 2) 10(a) without regard to 1907 stip; entitled to up to 500 cfs during emergency if such flow was available commencing 03/15 & thereafter to store 20,315 a-f, or up to such lesser total as was storable; 3) successive 5-day periods up to 20.315 or such lesser total; 4) under wheeling contract, Reclamation to make unused T-C Canal capacity available for wheeling whenever there's a limit of any kind on the GCID pumps; --

    [Document locator: 59 is in Expando file]

    06/19/1992 59 MEMORANDUM [of Points and Authorities] by plaintiff Glenn-Colusa in support of [Plaintiff's] motion for summary judgment; hrg set for 7/23/92 at 9:00 in ctrm 3 by plaintiff [58-1] (old) (Entered: 06/19/1992) ; no intention in contract to limit to natural flow; I) only dispute is phrases in a contract? emergency, storage of GCID water in Black Butte, "natural flow" an unstated condition in the contract? natural flow, stored, for later release to GCID, inoperable being a " physical breakdown" an unstated condition in the contract? ; II) background shows intent in the contract to convert Angle right to an emergency backup; 20,315 the diversion at Main Canal, not the release at Black Butte or T-C Canal; 2.2 "Angle Decree permitted such excess diversions." [Where?]; 2.3 Contract entered into by Reclamation to avoid losing Black Butte storage to GCID; 2.8 "small quantities of water can be diverted from Black Butte through the Orland Project canal systems....into the Tehama-Colusa Canal", Wilson, pp 82-83:1-12 [how? misquotes his answer?]; GCID took 71,400 a-f one year? p. 9; p. 10 "vested rights of GCID under the Angle Decree included the right to divert excess waters when no other Angle Decree right holder was harmed...." [where is THAT in the Decree? no recitation of exact language allowing more than 20,315 - did they not cite it because they couldn't find it?], p. 17 l. 9.5 "The rights of GCID in a given year could be to [sic] a lot more water than 20,315 acre feet."; extensive factual recitals regarding development of the contracts, interplay of collateral records and [recent Reclamation mischief]; III, Section 8 of Reclamation Act of 1902, use state law to interpret contract? 1907 stip cited here & there, but not in the 91-1128 record? p. 25, building GCID siphon a Reclamation obligation? [p. 30 7-1 & 7-2, how did Yolo get into the County of Origin pool?] p. 31, GCID pays Reclamation $210,000 per year for storage costs; Reclamation's breach of Black Butte provisions part of its plan to link Black Butte with T-C Canal; p. 32, that's emergency OR unforseen cause, 05/1991 was first notice of possible curtailment of pumping, injunction 3 months later; p. 34 Ploss/Reclamation threatened Ex. 16 to refuse delivery by T-C Canal CHO if GCID wins on 10(a), GCID asks court apply "good faith & fair dealing" & tell Reclamation not to retaliate; asks 1) so much of 20,315 a-f at 500 cfs as would have been available under Angle; 2) 91-1074 injunction produced an emergency & unforseen cause; 3) successive 5 days periods contemplated by contract; 4) not count against 20,315 until GCID asks for it; 5) GCID not to be charged for conveyance losses from T-C Canal CHO; 6) impose fair dealing, USA to cooperate on Black Butte releases and CHO deliveries; [This memorandum is much more extensive & specific than these few notes indicate. Unfortunately, the judge wasn't swayed?] --
  • Index of Documents (Exhibits) --
  • Exhibit 1: Angle Decree Excerpts, p. 1, pp. 168-172, p. 175
  • Exhibit 2: Bureau Exhibit 14 to State Water Resource Control Board in Black Butte Proceedings setting forth Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District use of Stony Creek Water (diversions); 1925-1956, with 9 years since Decree exceeding 20,315 limit; (seveal copies in record) --
  • Exhibit 3: Memorandum from F.E. Needham of the Bureau of Reclamation to Chief, Development Division dated 12/20/1950; Re: Black Butte Unit--Stony Creek Division--Water losses in lower Stony Creek; GCID Contract needed to keep from having to pass flows through Black Butte without storage; estimated conveyance to GCID 13,000 a-f, total 33,300; 04/1949 Hambright contributed significant flow; --
    - Table I.--Water losses, lower Stony Creek, historical records, columns for North Side & South Side spills from Project to Stony Creek
    - Table II.--Average monthly water losses, lower Stony Creek, historical records 1948-49
    - Table III.--Water losses, lower Stony Creek, stream measurements
  • Exhibit 4: Protest of Bureau to Application 18115 and 19451 by Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District. --
  • Exhibit 4-1: Answer of the United States of America to the Protest of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District in the matter of Application 18115 and 19451, dated July 11, 1961. --
  • Exhibit 5: State Water Resource Control Board’s Decision D. 1100 in the Matter of Applications 18115 and 19451 Adopted September 26, 1962.
  • Exhibit 6: Bureau Exhibit 11 to Application 18115 Flood Control Curve. --
  • Exhibit 7-1: Letter dated 10/19/1962 from L.K. Hill of State Water Rights Board to H.P. Dugan, Bureau of Reclamation; Application to Appropriate Unappropriated Water; May Restitution [eh?].; bits and pieces from the license --
  • Exhibit 7-2: Letter dated 02/02/1963 from R.J. Rafford, Jr., [Pafford] Bureau of Reclamation to California Water Commission regarding points of reduction; place of use; no usage of Black Butte water outside Glenn, Colusa, & Yolo Counties; objects to the alteration of 18115, diversion points missing from D 1100 ? try again? [why Yolo?]
  • Exhibit 8: Memorandum dated 09/16/1964 from Bureau of Reclamation Project Construction Engineer, H.E. Horton to Regional Director, Sacramento, California. GCID Gravel Dam costs of bypassing. [no, no costs?] --
    - Supplement 1: Stony Creek rights of Glenn Colusa Irrigation District and their relation to plans to develop a perennial fishery and spawning channel on Stony Creek; "In recent years, however, the entire flow has been diverted during the entire year [into GCID Main Canal]." 4 possible alternatives for allowing fishery past GCID Main Canal
    - - Exhibit I - map of GCID dike across Stony Creek [all Ex missing]
    - - Exhibit II - tabulation of diversions from Stony Creek into Main
    - - Exhibit III - aerial photos of diversion site
    - - Exhibit IV - copy of the 09/24/1907 GCID/Reclamation agreement Canal 1925 - 1963
  • Exhibit 8-1: Memorandum dated 05/16/1966 from J.C. Wiley to Central Files, regarding Comparison of reconnaissance,. cost estimates of alternatives to the Glenn Colusa Irrigation District Canal crossing of Stony Creek. GCID Gravel Dam costs of bypassing.; 1964 880,000 a-f to just over 106,000 acres, 22,000 a-f wheeled to SNWR, "Losses in the system were reported to be in the neighborhood of an additional 220,000 acre-feet." part of the T-C Canal plan was establishing a fishery in Stony Creek, flows from T-C Canal into Stony all-year long; 5 alternative plans for solving the fish vs. GCID Canal problem, with costs and descriptions of each; plan 6 not costed? --
    - Map, plan 1
    - Map, plan 2
    - 2 Maps, plan 3, 2nd of T-C Canal to GCID pipeline near Glenn-Colusa County line
    - 2 Maps, plan 4, 2nd of T-C Canal to GCID flume & canal
    - 2 Maps, plan 5, 2nd of T-C Canal to GCID flume & canal, & drops
  • Exhibit 9: Memorandum Report to Secretary of Interior on Sacramento River Water Diversions dated 02/15/1963 Revised July 1963; [missing p. 1]; "Lack of a clear definition of the rights of water users on the river, in relation to each other and in relation to the United States, has been largely responsible for the difficulty in determining what payments the water users should make for the benefits they receive from the use of releases of stored water from Shasta Dam....Chapter 286, California Statutes, 1927 (Calif., Water Code sec. 10500 et seq.) directed and authorized the California State Department of Finance to file applications for water which in its judgment might be required in the development of a general plan for the utilization and consumption of the water resources of the State." 09/03/1938 state applications on Sacramento main stem assigned to USA including aps 5626 & 9364; "negotiation with Sacramento Valley water-user committees were commenced in 1944", not fruitful; assignment to USA 03/26/1952 ap 9368 -- 900,000 acres in San Joaquin Valley from Delta; 1952 USA, State & Sacramento Valley Water Users Association understanding: "Memorandum of Understanding Relating to a General Approach to Negotiations for Settlement of Water Diversions from the Sacramento River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta with the Objective of Avoiding Litigation." [GET] Attempts at agreements 1954 & 1955, not continued; hearings with protests, permits granted 02/09/1961 to USA on the assigned applications; proposed contracts submitted to water users 1962, not acceptable: total entitlement to each contractor with base supply and "project water", PW at $2/a-f, questions on 160-acre rule, division of water between the 2, and developing more supplies; Interior developed a single form of contract, then several basic forms a form for the Delta, different forms for individuals and districts, one for water-user organizations that distribute, all tailorable; for small diverters a structure providing for fallowing, base charge, additional project water charge, supplemental contracts, etc.; retroactive billing unpopular, so, start in 1961: no provision in California irrigation district law to collect for charges not billed, no advance notice which would have produced different planning, problems with lands conveyed away, landlord-tenant problems where tenant was supposed to pay the water bills, no estimates of entitlement to natural flow or dependence on project water until 1962, etc.; CVP benefits to Delta not clear - before CVP periodic flushing "provided a surplus supply of fresh water and some channel storage which was used in the low water period to help supply water demands. This is called the Delta Storage Concept." which waned as upstream reservoirs developed, so "a continuous outflow of water has been maintained to provide water of satisfactory quality at the intakes of the facilities for such export" which replaced in part the natural channel storage; Delta users assert improper accounting, channel storage pre-reservoir must be credited them and releases must maintain that storage without charge; comingling issues, eligible lands and project water, how to account, how to deliver, opportunities for mischief; substitute water: ground water, drain water, return flow, non-CVP projects, Reclamation proposal was to make no adjustment for existing substitute uses, but future would be offset against base water supply (not project water), users protested, reasons for developing substitute supplies: 1) reduces excess lands problem, 2) cheaper than purchasing, 3) readily available and USA & State want coordinated supplies developed, 4) increases total usable supply in the valley, 5) reduces construction & O & M costs of drains; conflicting legal opinions on whether public land subject to excess lands limits; poorer lands need larger farms, 160 acres is for class 1 lands, go see Congress; Reclamation "Schedule A" re: riparian lands [where?], estimate that 85% will eventually irrigate; oldest appropriative users like GCID benefit most from inadvertent severance of riparian lands; some riparians doing title searches to explore their positions but Reclamation estimates based on title searches; D 990 conditioned Reclamation permits to Watershed Protection Principle, Interior not accepting that as binding; p. 17, GCID, claims to be first Sacramento diverter and thus more sensitive to riparian issue, proposed 75% not 85% settlement, but included Feather River water in Delta requirements, with Feather River diverters subsequent in time to GCID rights; GCID adjusted requirement to reflect proposed 50% recapture of drainage & return flow; GCID informs doesn't care if water from Sacramento or Black Butte; GCID carriage service to the refuges is in the proposed contract but USA objects to the charges; Provident relies in large part on GCID drainage, & GCID has informed Provident GCID intends to recapture much of that; Princeton-Cordora-Glenn ID lands & conveyance, high rate of seepage, silt used to hold that down, but Shasta now captures a lot of that so losses have increased; Redding domestic water; Contra-Costa industrial water, major CVP legislation advocates for salinity control, hopes not realized in actual execution and will oppose everthing as long as salinity not remedied; recommendations, as recited, plus that substitute supplies not from underflow, contracts drafted so as to not jeopardize positions in case of water right litigation & provide both parties to be bound by judgments of courts of competent jurisdiction; --
    - Exhibit A 01/04/1963 Notice to Diverters of Sacramento River Water; notice of panel available for meetings last half of January 1963
    - Exhibit B Press Release - Panel Schedules Meetings with Diverters, contract negotiation meetings, dates panel available
    - Exhibit C 01/07/1963 Letter to Mr. John Luther, Manager, Sacramento River and Delta Water Users Association, typical letter to an organization "outlining in more detail the plans of the panel."; pages after p. 1 missing?
    - Exhibit D Schedule of Meetings with Diverters
    - Exhibit E Opening Remarks of Panel Chairman at Each Meeting; purpose & scope
  • Exhibit 10: Memorandum dated 04/20/1962 from Acting Regional Project Development Engineer [Shukle?], Bureau of Reclamation to Regional Director, Sacramento, California regarding "Review of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Report on Water Requirements and Water Entitlements from Sacramento River" by Clair A. Hill and Associates dated February 1961; supplements review of 05/01/1961; concerned about having to "maintain a rather large block of water in reserve for the District, which may or may not be called for" in Black Butte; writer deems it appropriate to offset Stony water against Sacramento requirement (project? basic?); 8.5 a-f per acre? 7.7 - 9.3? 70% rice, Reclamation: 30% general, 7.0 [rice?] and 3.5 [general?] delivered, 15% of "farm delivery" being recovered, 20% conveyance; GCID assumed right 850,000 priority 1885; loss, 15% recovery on "farm"; "Similarly, the irrigable portion of the riparian land was determined by the Bureau from land classification survfeys. If we are to be cognizant of California's agricultural history, we should recognize that some riparian land classified as nonirrigable because of rectifiable soil, brush, topographic and drainage conditions, will indeed some day be devoted to irrigated agriculture as technological advances are made and currently economically marginal lands are brought under cultivation."; GCID counts Feather River as part of system, Reclamation keeps it separate: "The analysis suggested by the District if legally reliable, could contribute materially to increasing its yield from the natural supply. The same analysis applied to all other Central Valley streams also could materially increase the yield of subsequent rights. The problem then however, would be whether to abandon attempts to sort out the Sacramento River and Delta water right problem, or to undertake new studies to evaluate and determine the yield of all rights on all streams in the Central Valley, for this is certainly the only forseeable culmination of this concession. [para] If the District desires to make a complete evaluation of every stream, there is nothing to prevent their doing so. If every legal principle favorable to the District is to be drawn into these discussions, then an equitable approach would likewise require the assertion and analysis of every legal principle favorable to the Bureau and every other water user."; averaging wet & dry misleads, "in effect give a water user added credit during dry years for water which was available but which he could not have used in the very wet years."; diversion records nonexistent & other hydrological data extremely sparse before 1924; "2. The flows of other tributaries should be utilized to meet riparian demands at the delta thereby relieving the demand on the Sacramento River. [para] Comment. It is properly stated that sufficient thought has been given to this problem to conclude that further studies are no justified at this time. Obviously, such a study could be expected to lead to litigation that would make the suggested Sacramento River 'grandiose litigation' (sic) look like justice court proceedings."; clearing of lands, of foothill lands, produces more runoff? Reclamation disputes; "veiled threat by the District to claim prescriptive rights against downstream appropriators" - "Comment... downstream appropriators had a pending case against upstream approrpriators which was dropped at the time Shasta Dam was constructed in the belief that here ast last was the panacea that all had been seeking. (Holland Land Co. vs. Williams Irrigation District, Superior Court of San Joaquin County #17127)" - contrast against GCID alarm at having to obtain and protect their right to divert; USA bent over backwards for GCID? waived low-flow navigation requirements which per a DWR study would have reduced their yield to 292,000 out of 712,000 demand, acceptance at face of many applications & permits, assumed prescriptive rights, pre-1914 postings that "would be abrogated in any litigation in which they might be involved" [!], including the "assumed 1883 posting", see Regional Director 02/27/1962 letter to GCID Manager Paul Dwinnel w/"well-documented history" of GCID right. 03/01/1962 "travel report from Assistant Chief Development Engineer A.L. Mitchell, subject 'Review and discussion of studies on water rights settlement along Sacramento River and related diversions - Central Valley Project' to the Assistant commissioner and Chief Engineer, in which he concluded, 'We should guard against being led into making studies indefinitely under the guise of negotiating a settlement.'" --
    - Table 1, tabulation of GCID diversions from Stony Creek, 1925 - 1960, note 10 years since 1930 showing amounts over 20,315 a-f Angle limit; Source: Reports of Sacramento-San Joaquin Water Supervision --
  • Exhibit 11: Memorandum dated December 19, 1963 from Commissioner of Reclamation [Floyd E. Dominy] to Secretary of the Interior [Acting, James K. Carr, approved] regarding Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District proposed contract providing for the diversion of water from the Sacramento River-Central Valley Project; 150,000 gross, 139,000 irrigable, 120,000 irrigated in any one year - of gross, 22,000 class 1, 29,000 class 2, 45,000 class 3, 29,000 class 4 [=125,000 ?];120,000 needs gross diversion of 795,000 [6.625/acre]; claims 2400 cfs 1883, 500 cfs per 05/09/1906 Congressional grant, and Angle rights averaging 18,000/yr; "contract is the first to reach this stage of negotiation after almost 20 years of negotiation with water users within an area consisting of over 1,000,000 acres bordering the Sacramento River and its tributaries and extending into the Sacramento River-San Joaquin River Delta." 1944 negotiations to get diverters to pay for Sacramento water failed in 1946 "because of the numerous water users involved and the complex nature of the alleged water rights of such users." Reclamation afterwards started studies to catalog those rights, working with State, eye towards litigation or agreements, but, "1952 recommendation of a special Congressional subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation that the issues be settled by agreement." Dissatisfied with group negotiations, GCID & others sought to negotiate independently. Current round with "diverters began about 1960 with about 170 diverters serving about 600,000 acres located north of the city of Sacramento"; discussion of each article of the proposed contract; Reclamation wanted to avoid litigation so negotiated [?] --
  • Exhibit 12: Diversion Contract Draft 9/30-1963, Measurement of Water (language, pages 19, 20, 21) of the Contract between the United States and Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District.
  • Exhibit 13: Diversion Contract Draft 11/22-1963, Measurement of Water (language, pages 19, 20) of the Contract between the United States and Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, Diverter of Water from Sacramento River Sources Providing for Project Water Service and Agreement on Diversion of Water.
  • Exhibit 14: Letter dated August 6, 1981, from Donald C. Anderson, Project Construction Engineer to Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District [no need to supply this fall from Black Butte, can handle needs from T-C Canal]; Letter dated September 29, 1983, from Robert D. Clark to Daniel Fults [want to shut down, destroy, & rebuild Hamilton pumping plants early, like supply from Black Butte & T-C Canal for rest of year]; Letter dated October 11, 1983 from Ralph Konu, Acting Project Construction Engineer to Robert D. Clark. [no problem with request] Deliveries under Paragraph 10(a).
  • Exhibit 15: Black Butte Releases, July and August 1972.; same table
  • Exhibit 16: 04/27/1992 Letter of Agreement regarding Contract No. 14-06-200-855A; [snotty] letter Ploss/Reclamation to Board/GCID "define the terms under which Reclamation will make water available to" GCID from Black Butte under 855A; have enough water in Black Butte, will start releasing 07/15 at such rate as GCID wishes to meet 09/01 flood control drawdown, will not release from both Black Butte & CHO at same time because it "would cause accounting difficulties for Reclamation" under 855A [how?], Black Butte at Reclamation discretiuon, no precedent, no recognition of Angle Decree rights, all Black Butte per CVP to replace 855A; dated April 27, 1992, to Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Board of Directors --
  • Exhibit 17: Deposition of George Wilson pp. 26, 27, 56, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, and 83.
  • Exhibit 18: Diversion Contract excerpts pp. 14, 15., pp. 19-20 (10(a), Section 25 pp. 36-37); Exhibit "A"., 8(a)
  • Exhibit 19: Declaration of Robert Clark filed August 20, 1991, paragraphs 4 and 5.[? pp. 1-7]
  • Exhibit 20: Deposition of Robert Clark, pp. 31 and 32.
  • Exhibit 21: Deposition of Donald E. Kienlen, p. 19.[ no, p. 21]
  • Exhibit 22: Stipulation and Order filed April 24, 1992, in Action No. S-91-1074, U.S.A. v. GCID. [pp. 2 - 19 + proof]
  • Exhibit 23: Wheeling Contract excerpts, paragraph 7, p. 2 paragraph 5(b). pp. 5,6,8,9

    06/19/1992 60 DECLARATION of Donald Kienlen in support of motion for summary judgment; hrg set for 7/23/92 at 9:00 in ctrm 3 by plaintiff [58-1] (old) (Entered: 06/19/1992) ; Opinion: a) Angle Decree entitlement, 20,315 a-f at 500 cfs; b) Reclamation in its contracts concerned with a-f totals and thus does not mention or limit rate of flow; c) if the parties had intended such a limit they would have said so; 4) it is silly to suggest anyone at GCID negotiated for a flow limited to Stony natural stream in July or August; 5) SWRB limits on D 1100 made the storage of GCID water advantageous to Reclamation, a) gives Reclamation a choice of sources for GCID deliveries, b) eliminated need for Black Butte release calculation, only delivery calculation [? "make up for natural underground water recharge", eh?], c) by 1963 Reclamation was aware SWRB had not approved passing Black Butte water into the Sacramento for other points of diversion; Bureau knew all this, his opinion 10(a) to limit only the monthly quantities for either source of supply; 7) "emergency and unforseen" in 1963 or 4 to be "any condition beyond the reasonable control of the District", and where there's a relatively modern screen owned by CDFG it's unforseen the ESA "would result in an injunction limiting pumping. There are hundreds of unscreened diversions on the river and the Delta." With these diversions over 90 years, his opinion both an emergency and unforseen. 8) 5 days a review time rather than a limit, never would have negotiated to allow crops to die; "partial or totally inoperable" intended to relate "to whether the pumps are in operation, not to whether they could be operated.", for instance a canal break between pumps and Stony Creek would force turning off the pumps but they would still be operable;
    06/19/1992 61 SUPPLEMENTARY DECLARATION of Robert Clark in support of motion for summary judgment; hrg set for 7/23/92 at 9:00 in ctrm 3 by plaintiff [58-1] (old) (Entered: 06/19/1992) ; consulted with Warren Carlson, Reclamation water ops in Willows, Civil Engineer, later GCID engineer, he consulted with Reclamation, yes taking GCID pumps down to replace them fits the emergency and unforseen if Board of Directors declared it and they could declare successive 5-day periods until entire 20,315 delivered; Kelly asserts 04/20/1982 and 1973 releases were for flood control - whether or not Reclamation considers them to be flood control doesn't matter to GCID as long as GCID gets the water; Kelly asserts CHO deliveries 1982 - 1984 during pumping plant reconstruction was not 10(a) delivery - if such had been under the wheeling contract, it would have had to be accounted against the Refuge deliveries and paid for if it exceeded the Refuge limits - the "accounting" [whose accounting? GCID's?] for 1982-1984 shows the CHO releases were treated as Stony Creek water and thus [Reclamation?] did not charge it against the refuges, GCID didn't care if the water came from CHO or Black Butte, supported flexibility for Reclamation; 4) Jack Campbell TCCA manager says Ploss wants a canal to T-C Canal or divert Black Butte waters to the canal from Stony - if the court determines GCID is not entitled to its own water from Black Butte then Reclamation will be permited to divert GCID water to TCCA clients that have no entitlement to either Stony or Sacramento River water; 5) following up on Kelly Declaration and Iizuka deposition questions, re-reviewed Black Butte release records, they are in cfs, not a-f, show orders placed and flows increased from 07/22/1972 on and flows were more likely 300-350 cfs but in no way were they "natural flow in Stony Creek". [Mr. Kelly is misbehaving?] so ;
    06/19/1992 62 RESPONSE by plaintiff Glenn-Colusa to motion for summary judgment; hrg set for 7/23/92 at 1:30 in ctrm 3 by defendants [56-1] (old) (Entered: 06/19/1992) ; GCID's motion adequately portrays the atmosphere at the time 855A was negotiated, this responds only to USA motion; 855A intention: limit total delivered & not rate of delivery, provide maximum flexibility to Reclamation, Reclamation's filings do not mesh with the original intentions; how does it expand Reclamation's burden of delivery if the pump failure is mechanical or by injunction? Reclamation says the burden could go on for years under the ESA, but it could have if the pumps had been washed away; there's no burden under GCID's request for delivery any different from what was written into 855A in 1964 - Reclamation gets to keep the water or release the water, what's the difference?; Reclamation is going to release the water anyway under the flood constraints, so what's the difference? Reclamation attempting to convert GCID Angle Right for TCCA uses; No Reclamation declaration indicating anyone else dewatered or otherwise inconvenienced; intent of contracts should be carried out, not rejected upon every new condition; both sides have interpreted 10(a) liberally for 27 years, suddenly not?; purpose of contract was to maintain planted acreage, not itemize all unforseen circumstances; Reclamation points at GCID's knowledge that the screens were failing as evidence of GCID pumping reductions not being emergency or unforseen - no explanation of how to get CDFG to cooperate, no explanation of how to finance new screens; as GCID realized the problem, it funded professional investigations; no evidence of negligence or perfidy to cause Reclamation to be released from Section 10(a)
  • Exhibit 1 memo Dominy/Reclamation to Secretary of Interior 12/19/1963 same as Doc 59 Exhibit 11 --
  • Exhibit 2 letter Lowell Ploss 04/27/1992, same as Doc 59 Ex. 16 --
  • Exhibit 3 Deposition of George Wilson pp. 81-82
  • Exhibit 4 Declaration of Robert Clark, 08/19/1991, F 08/21/1991
  • Exhibit 5 Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Motion for Summary Judgment, pp. 17-19
  • Exhibit 6 Supplementary Declaration of Robert Clark, 06/12/1992 same as Doc. #61
  • Exhibit 7 Endangered Species Action, Doc #67 from 91-1074, Amended Joint Stip
    06/22/1992 63 NOTICE by defendants of lodging original deposition transcripts of Donald Kienlen (old) (Entered: 06/23/1992), expanding file
    07/01/1992 64 RESPONSE by the federal defendants to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; hrg set for 7/23/92 at 9:00 in ctrm 3 by plaintiff [58-1] (old) (Entered: 07/02/1992) ; 1. Angle Decree, 2. D 1100, 3. 855A GCID fails to understand or ignores all these.; 1) Angle, could not have provided for pass-through because Decree was 30 years before Black Butte [the stip & 1907 agreements provided for it, sigh], Reclamation denies that 855A provided for storage for GCID "Plaintiff GCID appears to believe there is a devious plot afoot by Reclamation to deprive GCID of its legitimate entitlements." [ uh, GCID & everyone else in the watershed]; "...Reclamation is considering an interim project under which Reclamation would use some of its CVP water stored in Black Butte to send approximately 18,000 acre-feet through the CHO to make up for the decreased gravity diversions at Red Bluff." [deny, then do?], 855A did not authorize USA to store its 20,315 a-f in Black Butte for it [?]; 2) D 1100 allowed 6 months' storage, not the 3-1/2 months it alleged, right awarded is CVP right, not GCID right; 3) 855A, GCID in error when it says neither "'the contract terms nor the internal memoradums of the BUREAU describing the contract negotiations express any intent to limit the capacity of water which GCID may demand on an instantaneous basis.'" Mr. Wilson says under 855A "GCID did not obtain any rights to stored water or to store water under the Angle Decree" [uh, what were they going to do with the 20,315 a-f if not store it for GCID? Are they contending it was a 1 for 1 trade with Sacramento River water? now *that* would be contrary to Angle]; Clark's conversation with Carlson cannot be corroborated, and even if it could he cannot bind Reclamation; USA asserts that deliveries from T-C Canal refute GCID's claim they had requested Black Butte water [?]; Iizuka continues to deny that Reclamation ever released from Black Butte despite the dam's logs [is she stupid or just devious?]; no way to know that Reclamation was responding to a 10(a) request [no way to know that they weren't]; Iizuka says GCID never furnished USA with documents Mr. Clark cited [which Iizuka already had and couldn't have understood anyway? then when the responsive comments appear- in Mr. Clark's supplementary declaration, she goes back to the Kelly comments which are refuted by the logs Mr. Kelly supplied?]; "Any order that adopts the relief GCID seeks...would result in the rewriting of the 1964 Diversion contract" [which Reclamation already re-wrote], "would disregard the specific language of the Angle Decree" [good reason to set aside 855A]; "would ignore the expert opinion of George Wilson" [as opposed to Kienlen who isn't an expert?]; "would award GCID [reward?] for violating federal law" [unlike Reclamation which has been rewarded for....?]; "and would violate the provisions of federal reclamation law which require GCID to pay the federal defendants for the use of federal reclamation project facilities or the delivery of project water" [which payment they aready made with their 20,315 a-f?]. --
    07/01/1992 65 REPLY by federal defendants to plaintiff's response to motion for summary judgment; hrg set for 7/23/92 at 1:30 in ctrm 3 by defendants [56-1] (old) (Entered: 07/02/1992) ; emergency provisions were whatever Reclamation says they were, GCID's obvious intentions irrelevant; GCID's emergency diversion right is only for direct diversions not from storage [?], etc.; GCID not offered "one scintilla" of evidence showing Reclamation routinely understood 10(a) as not requiring a physical breakdown [actually, they did. Need somebody smart enough or honest enough to read it.]; [now both sides are mis-citing 91-1074 as 91-1076 sigh]; "Reclamation has always stated that CVP water could be made available to GCID. GCID, however, has rejected every overture made by Reclamation on how to address what problems GCID might face because GCID believes that it should not have to pay wheeling charges for federal water nor have to pay for a new diversion point under the Wheeling Agreement between GCID and United States." [or having to pay for what is theirs?]; [recital of what caused the emergency, being GCID refusal to realize it was facing overwhelming force?]; Reclamation characterizes GCID's request for its own 20,315 a-f as "would like Reclamation to provide CVP water free of any wheeling cost to GCID while pumping at GCID's Hamilton City pumps is limited. This Court should reject GCID's motives for trying to distort the plain meaning of Article 10(a) of the Diversion Contract." --
    07/02/1992 66 DEPOSITION of George Wilson taken on the following date(s): 5/18/92 (old) (Entered: 07/06/1992) , Document Locator, in Expando file (see above)
    07/29/1992 67 NOTICE by defendants of lodging the original deposition of Robert D Clark (old) (Entered: 07/30/1992) , in Expando file, no Document Locator, see Expando above; attached to is a p. 24 from somewhere, plus title page to "Federal Defendants' Reply Memorandum to 'Plaintiffs' Opposition to Federal and Non-Federal Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgement Regarding Issue of Discretion'" for S-88-1658-LKK 08/21/1992 NRDC v. Patterson et al.
    08/27/1992 68 MINUTES that the motion for summary judgment; hrg set for 7/23/92 at 9:00 in ctrm 3 by plaintiff [58-1] is submitted, that the motion for summary judgment; hrg set for 7/23/92 at 1:30 in ctrm 3 by defendants [56-1] is submitted (old) (Entered: 08/28/1992) ; Minasian v. Iizuka
    09/01/1992 69 JOINT STATEMENT by defendant USA and all parties re settlement (old) (Entered: 09/02/1992) ; parties are talking, OK for Judge Levi to act as settlement judge, ask for 2 weeks to discuss and arrive at a settlement,
    10/08/1992 70 ORDER by Honorable David F. Levi DENYING the motion for summary judgment; hrg set for 7/23/92 at 9:00 in ctrm 3 by plaintiff [58-1]; GRANTING motion for summary judgment; hrg set for 7/23/92 at 1:30 in ctrm 3 by defendants [56-1] terminating case (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 10/08/1992) ; misquotes how much storage Angle allows USA; misstates "fn 1 The United States' rights are set out in a separate passage of the Decree called the 'Glenn-Colusa Stipulation'" [No, that only states the rights as between USA & GCID]; misstates "Once the United States has taken its allotment, GCID may then divert up to 20,315 acre-feet of water from Stony Creek between March 15 and October 1 at a rate not to exceed 500 c.f.s...." [not exactly, USA gets storage, then 265 cfs of natural flow, then GCID gets 500 cfs of natural flow up to 20,315, then USA gets rest of natural flow, all limited to USA to lesser of 85,050 a-f or 4.05 a-f per actual irrigated acreage in Project, plus pp. 143-142 loophole]; misstates project supply as 75,000 a-f, missed 30,000 a-f option? [see deposition of Robert Clark for explanation of 75,000 + 30,000, or Certificates of Participation Official Statement under Doc 49 in 91-1074 ; states that contract is "in pursuance generally of the" Reclamation act of 1902 , and that "Thus, federal law controls the interpretation of this contract." [uh, Section 8 regarding state law?]; extrinsic evidence disfavored on contract meaning; "The documents in this case are unambiguous [if they are misinterpreted] and their language -- not GCID's proposed extrinsic evidence -- controls the outcome here."; water master's interpretation "is persuasive"; misstates "fn 8 The Decree certainly gave GCID no rights specifically to water in the Black Butte reservoir because Black Butte did not come into existence until more than 30 years after the Decree." [uh, not exactly - 1926 Stip gave GCID no rights to any storage, and recognized Reclamation's right to develop additional storage; Decree also limited what could be stored, which Reclamation promptly violated, but Black Butte, Newville, the Glenn Complex, and every other kind of Reclamation storage was contemplated by the 1926 Stip, with Project limits and reasonable & beneficial limits in the Decree p. 143 & 142 loophole limiting how much could be stored]; rejection of "discontinue" language as giving GCID right to order Reclamation to release; GCID "asks the Bureau to release water that has already been collected and held for storage in the Black Butte reservoir. The Angle Decree does not give GCID this right." [no, 855A does, because that's why GCID bargained away its Angle rights. Court in essence says, GCID can't get the water because it bargained it away, and can't get what it bargained it away for because what it bargained for isn't what it bargained away. Sigh.]; "no language in section 10a which requires the Bureau to hold a certain amount of water behind the Black Butte dam for GCID in the event of an emergency." [bet that was a surprise to GCID]; neither Angle nor 10a support GCID's assertion of right; not temporary, the injunction could remain in effect for years [but 6 months prior to this a stip was filed in the injunction case which has apparently never been challenged or set aside, this Judge was in both cases, so temporary is exactly what happened]; "common sense reading of section 10a indicates that its emergency provision is designed to help remedy brief hindrances to the Sacramento River pumps due to mechanical breakdowns or flooding, for instance." [rewriting the contract?]; 5 days then one day off? [no, 5 days then another 5 days - important because the stream bed needs to be infused for the water to flow clear to GCID diversion]; consecutive 5-day periods would interrupt Reclamation's management of water resources; injunction not unforseeable; mention's Minasian pointing to lack of how to determine natural flow in the Decree, including underflow, Court opined that "flow" "was measurable and was a meaningful concept in their agreement."; "The court holds that as a matter of law GCID has no right under the Angle Decree or Diversion Contract to the stored Black Butte water which it demands in this lawsuit. Alternatively, even if GCID did have a right to stored Black Butte water" judicial order is not an emergency. [?] --
    10/08/1992 71 JUDGMENT: by Honorable David F. Levi (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 10/08/1992) ; entered according to Court's order filed 10/08/1992 granting defendant's motion and denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment;

    [Apparently not reported]

    [to summarize, USA & GCID negotiated a contract whereby USA proceeded with locking up Sacramento diversion rights and GCID got an emergency supply stored for it in Black Butte, but when USA caused an emergency and it then got away with denying there was one and with showing GCID its emergency rights under the agreement as with its Angle rights since the contract were worth exactly ZERO.

    An exercise in arbitrary and capricious power for Reclamation, a panic for GCID, and still more Stony Creek water in the Reclamation piggy bank. Why would ANYONE ever sign a contract with these people?

    Judge Levi's misstatements regarding the Decree are unfortunate. He may have arrived at the right decision, but for the wrong reasons.]
    Return to Stony Creek Water Wars.

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