THE STONY CREEK WATER WARS
Glenn County - Tehama County - Colusa County , California.
(c) 2009, Mike Barkley

Further testimony by USA's expert S.T. Harding and other USA expert witnesses citing Harding's determination of the Orland Project's diversion requirement.

[A re-transcription of bits and pieces of the transcript on file in the Angle Archives

Important because it confirms the Project requirement at 4.05 acre-feet per irrigated acre at the point of diversion as set forth originally at Mr. Harding's testimony at transcript pp. 3109 - 3128. From that testimony, all Project requirements followed.

This transcription from re-typing the original and is in straight text with minimal HTML formatting. Any editorial comments by me are contained within brackets, "[]", which you may delete easily after downloading the "page source" to your own editing software if your browser allows source downloading. ]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

p. 3107
IN THE NORTHERN DIVISION OF THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,

SECOND DIVISION

BEFORE: GEORGE E. McCUTCHEN, ESQ., SPECIAL MASTER IN CHANCERY

AT WILLOWS, CALIF.

The United States of America,

Plaintiff,

-vs-

H.C. Angle, et al.,

Defendants.

IN EQUITY

No. 30

p. 3129

AFTERNOON SESSION - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1923 - 1:15 P.M.
APPEARANCES:
Oliver P. Morton, Esq., Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Los Angeles
For the United States

H.J. Hankins, Esq., of Messrs. Hankins & Hankins, San Francisco, Calif.
R.M. Rankin, Esq., Willows, Calif.
Duard F. Geis, Esq., Willows, Calif.
For their respective Defendants.
S.T. HARDING,

[chief USA expert witness on water demands for various types of land and the Orland Project as a whole]

recalled as a witness in behalf of the United States, testified as follows:
. . .
p. 3166
FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION

MR. GEIS:
. . .
p. 3169

[on number of applications per season to Orland Project lands]

Q. You think that 10 or 12 applications of water per season would be adequate?
A. [MR. HARDING] Yes, they find 12 applications necessary on the coarser lands in the Orland Project; and the season on these lands [Fouts Springs parcels] being somewhat shorter, a somewhat smaller number probably would be sufficient.

p. 3208

AFTERNOON SESSION - FRIDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1923 - 1:30 P.M.
APPEARANCES:
Oliver P. Morton, Esq., Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Los Angeles
For the United States

R.M. Rankin, Esq., Willows, Calif.
For his respective Defendants.
S.T. HARDING,

recalled as a witness in behalf of the United States, testified as follows:

FURTHER DIRECT EXAMINATION

. . .
p. 3212

[ on Harding figures for lands he didn't actually visit, and on his expert opinion about seepage & evaporation losses built into the Orland Project 4.05 a-f/acre figures]

MR MORTON: Q. Mr. Harding, you have referred in two instances to information furnished you. In a general way, where was that secured?
A. From Mr. Eriksen, both verbally and from such records as he obtained. The basis of the statement made as to the use were by asking Mr. Eriksen to compare these lands which I had not seen with those lands which I had seen and which he considered most nearly equivalent to them.
Q. Now, as to the lands generally in the upper reaches of the watershed, there are occasional small plots that are irrigated in the higher reaches of the watershed; for instance, above the reservoir and higher up on some of the tributaries; from your knowledge of conditions in the watershed, could you make any sort of a general estimate as to what the water requirements for those lands might be?
A. I would expect that those types of small scattered areas would be of relatively coarse soil and would probably fall in the group for which larger amounts of use have been considered reasonable. If they are located towards the higher parts of the drainage area, so that the precipitation is greater and the growing season perhaps somewhat shorter, the total use during the season might be somewhat less than for the same soil located further down the stream, but the use during a month of maximum demand would probably be at the same rate as for similar soils on the lower areas.
Q. I wish you would tell us a little more about your method of estimating conveyance losses. Just in a general way, so that we can get at the principle upon which you based your estimates in that regard.

p. 3213

A. About ten years ago, when I was in the employ of the federal Department of Agriculture, I made a study of all obtainable records of measurements of seepage from canals throughout the western states. That information was used in a portion of a bulletin proposed by the Chief of that Division, Mr. Fortier, on canal linings. Thus results were analyzed in terms both of percentage loss per mile and in terms of the amount of seepage in cubic feet per day per square foot of wetted area, and from that various generalizations of average seepages in different classes of soil were made, and I have drawn on the experience of that relatively detailed study of records of seepage in estimating the conveyance losses in these ditches. I have also had a number of occasions to measure seepage losses under actual ditches and to observe ditches for which I had available the records of seepage by others, and used all of this experience and study in estimating the losses. I estimated the reasonable seepage that would ordinarily be expected, taking into account the character of soil through which the ditch had been excavated, its capacity and its length.
Q. In that investigation that you made some time ago, which as I understand it was an extremely comprehensive one, many thousands of cases, or many hundred--whatever it might be--were looked at. Did you not only secure the facts as to the actual losses, but also make estimates and reach conclusions as to reasonable losses under practical conditions?
A. I did. Of course in such a large body of data there were actually, as I recall it, some six or eight hundred individual measurements assembled in that study. There

p. 3214

were included instances of both good, medium and poor practice and the figures which I have used in these estimated losses for the ditches diverting from Stony Creek are in my opinion relatively liberal; that is, they represent figures corresponding to the rather higher amounts of loss shown by these measurements. We were speaking yesterday of the loss in the canals of the Orland Project, where I used a total loss of 25% of the water diverted, where the distance of conveyance would average some 10 or 12 miles, or, putting it in terms of per cent. per mile, somewhere about 2-1/2 % per mile loss in the canal systems of the Orland Project. The figures which have been given for the ditches up Stony Creek would give an average loss per mile of generally in excess of 10% per mile, or four times or more greater loss, in terms of per cent. per mile, than those figures used for the Orland Project.
Q. How do you regard your figures generally as to the estimate of water requirements--to be on the liberal or conservative side?
A. They are in my opinion on the liberal side. The quantities allowed would permit the full number of irrigations necessary during the season for full production of crop, with an amount applied at each application sufficient to enable the land to be fully covered without requiring an extent of properation [preparation?] of the land or of labor in connection with the handling of the water beyond what could reasonably be expected under the conditions of ordinary practice.
Q. You referred to a study of seepage losses--a comprehensive study of seepage losses--made by you; did you there again use the phrase "seepage losses" in its generic sence [sic] as conveyance seepage losses generally?
A. Yes, it includes both conveyance losses and evaporation.
MR. MORTON: That is all.

p. 3217
A.N. BURCH,

[former Manager of the Orland Project, USA expert witness; independent expert corroboration of the Harding limits]

recalled as a witness in behalf of the United States, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

MR. MORTON:...

p. 3225

[In discussing the water needs for as-yet unirrigated upstream riparian lands, contrasted with Orland Project per-acre demands]

Q. Just tell, if you will, how those figures were secured--what data you worked on.
A. The data that enters into those figures was obtained from the measurements of the natural flow of Stony Creek by the Orland Project and, for the demands, worked out on the basis of a certain assumed duty for the Orland Project and for the other lands.

p. 3226

Q. Now, go ahead and describe what duty of water requirement you took?
A. The water requirements were based on a gross duty of 4-1/2 a acre feet [sic, the hanging "a"] for the lands above the Orland Project, and for 4 acre feet per acre for the lands on the Orland Project.
Q. In other words that the lands above the Orland Project would divert 4-1/2 acre feet per acre?
A. Yes.
Q. And that the lands of the Orland Project would require to divert there from that natural flow, 4 acre feet per acre?
A. Yes.
Q. Are those figures larger or smaller than Mr. Harding's figures?
A. I believe I don't know just what the sum of his totals for the lands above the Project was, but I think for the lands on the Project, they are just about the same [note that thus the retired Project Manager rates the need of the project at 4 a-f/acre at point of diversion vs. Harding's 4.05]--a little less than Mr. Harding's estimate of the average of the Lands above the Project.
Q. In other words, that if we used Mr. Harding's figures, from a rough calculation of averages in a complete list, we would get even greater shortages, would we not?
A. Yes.
Q. Your figures are somewhat conservative, if anything, along that particular line, are they not, Mr. Burch?
A. Yes, I consider them conservative.
. . .
p. 3227

MR. MORTON: Q. Now, Mr. Burch, did you use the same figures as in the other diagram, with reference to the diversions for the Project lands, and the diversions for the uppper River [sic] lands; in other words, 4 acre feet diversions per acre for the Project lands, and 4-1/2 acre feet for the upper River lands?
A. The same figures were used.

p. 3242

AFTERNOON SESSION - TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 1924 - 1:30 P.M.
APPEARANCES:
Oliver P. Morton, Esq., Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Los Angeles
For the United States

R.M. Rankin, Esq., Willows, Calif.
For his respective Defendants.
- - - - - - -
. . .
E.T. ERIKSEN,

[Water Commissioner, USA expert witness]

recalled in rebuttal as a witness in behalf of the United States, testified as follows:
. . .
p. 3268

[MR. MORTON:] Q. You are familiar, Mr. Eriksen, with Mr. Harding's figures of reasonable water requirements?
A. Yes.
Q. You heard his testimony as it was presented here?
A. Yes.
Q. I will ask you, as an engineer and in the light of your experience in such matters and knowledge of such matters, what you think of his figures?
A. Why, I think they are reasonable.
Q. Would you say they erred on the liberal side or otherwise, if there is any error?
A. Yes, I think they err on the liberal side. From comparisons made with the government project lands that I have been familiar with, I would say they were liberal.

p. 3434

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1924 - 10:00 A.M.
APPEARANCES:
Oliver P. Morton, Esq., Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Los Angeles
For the United States

R.M. Rankin, Esq., Willows, Calif.
For his respective Defendants.
- - - - - - -

E.T. ERIKSEN,

[Water Commissioner, USA expert witness]

recalled in rebuttal as a witness in behalf of the United States, testified as follows:
. . .
p. 3451
CROSS EXAMINATION
MR. RANKIN:
. . .

[waste & runoff included in the 4.05 a-f/acre figures?]

Q. ...in carrying on irrigation of the

p. 3452

land in an efficient manner there is some waste or seepage from the land to the lower land?
A. Yes, that is nearly always the case.
Q. That condition is true of a part of the Orland Project, as well as the Stony Creek land?
A. Yes, it is true of almost any irrigated area. It is impossible to put on for irrigation just the exact amount of water that the plants use.
Q. It is a fact that on the south edge of the Orland Project there is considerable excess water and the ranches adjoining the Project on the south use that water, such as the Frank House place?
A. Yes, that is true.
MR. RANKIN: That is all.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION

MR. MORTON: Q. When the proper amount of water is applied to the land, for purposes of illustration--the amount, we will say, commensurate with the Harding figures--the amount of run-off from the lands is inconsiderable compared to the circumstances where a larger amount of water is put upon the land?
A. Yes, the run-off would be smaller and it would be at the minimum for effective irrigation.
MR. MORTON: That is all, Mr. Ericksen.

RECROSS EXAMINATION

MR. RANKIN: Q. Is the run-off or waste water from the Stony Creek lands generally, along Stony Creek--the lands which are irrigated--greater or less than the run-off or waste water from the southern portion of the Orland project?
A. I couldn't say, for the reason that I know very little of what the run-off from the southern portion of the Orland Project is. [Reclamation employee & Water Commissioner at this time, Water Master in 1930]

p. 3453

Q. You haven't kept track of that?
A. No.
MR. RANKIN: That is all.

p. 4352 handwritten [4297 typed]

SATURDAY, AUGUST 23, 1924 - 10:00 A.M.
APPEARANCES:
Oliver P. Morton, Esq., Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Los Angeles
For the United States

R.M. Rankin, Esq., Willows, Calif.
For certain Defendants.
. . .
p. 4356 handwritten [4301 typed]

R.C.E. WEBER,

[current manager Orland Project, USA expert witness]

recalled as a witness in behalf of the United States, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
MR. MORTON:
. . .
p. 4366 handwritten [4311 typed]

[4.05 a-f/acre Orland Project demand reaffirmed]

Q. We have had testimony by Mr. Harding and Mr. Burch covering the water requirements of the Project and grouping the diversions made by the north and south dams altogether. There was also made by Mr. Harding in giving those figures an assumption of project area in round figures, if I remember correctly, of 20,500 acres. You have already testified at this time or in this part of your testimony about the necessity and logical variation in the total project figures. First as to the round figures of 20,500 acres, second as to the present figure of 20,755 acres, and third as to the outside figure within which these variations are bound to occur, of 21,000 acres, --I wish you would give me in relation to,

p. 4367 handwritten [4312 typed]

say, Mr. Harding's figures--Mr. Burch's and Mr. Harding's figures corresponded pretty closely--the diversions required for the north and south diversions, covering these areas of the Project, explaining your calculations in so far as is necessary to make them clear.
A. Based on a seasonal diversion of 4.05 acre feet per acre and a delivery of 2.93 acre feet per acre at the land, which are Mr. Harding's figures in this connection, the required amount of water to be diverted during the total season for the various sized projects is as follows: for the 20,500 acre project, the total diversion is 83,100 acre feet; for the 20,755 acre project, the amount is 84,500 acre feet; and for the 21,000 acre project, the amount is 85,050 acre feet [THIS IS THE USA LIMIT, plus proven loophole amounts]. Dividing these amounts between the north and south diversions, results, for the 20,500 acre project, in 28,500 acre feet for the north diversion, and 54,600 acre feet for the south diversion. For the 20,755 acre project, the amount for the north diversion is 28,500 acre feet, and 56,000 acre feet for the south diversion. For the 21,000 acre project, the diversion for the north side is 28,500 acre feet, and 56,550 acre feet for the south diversion.
Q. Will you explain very briefly how you secured these and what areas you used under the north and south diversions in order to secure it?
A. It has been assumed in making these computations that the small variation of 250 to 300 acres would occur on the south side of the Project because of that fact that the larger portion of the project area is located on the south side of the Creek and also the fact that the lands more

p. 4368 handwritten [4313 typed]

susceptible to these changes are located on this side of the Creek. In all these computations a constant figure of 7,000 acres has been taken as the area for the north side of the project and the balance assumed to be on the south side of the Creek.
Q. You have also taken Mr. Harding's classification of the lands and applied them to each side of the Creek, too, have you not, Mr. Weber?
A. Yes, I took Mr. Harding's classification and his areas for the project as a whole and distributed them to the north and south sides in accordance with the actual soil conditions.
Q. And your vigures [sic] for water requirements are based upon the distribution as well of these classified soils?
A. Yes.
Q. As I recall it, Mr. Harding had certain character of soils that required a certain amount of water in the Project and certain characters of soils that required other amounts and so on, and that his figures were secured by striking an appropriate average as to these various classes of lands; is that true, Mr. Weber?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, will you give the flow in second feet which will be required to be diverted from the north and south diversions for the Project; that is, for the 21,000 acres? We might term that the ultimate project, and then for the round figure that we have used of 20,500 acres, and the other figure of 20,755 acres, which represents the lands now presently regarded as under water service?
A. I take it that you want the average daily flow during

p. 4369 handwritten [4314 typed]

the month of maximum use?
Q. Yes. Mr. Harding has already fully explained that flow during the month of maximum use.
A. The daily flows that I will submit are based on the equation of 59.5 acre feet per 30 day month, being as a result of a flow of one second foot. For the 21,000 acre project, the average daily dlow [sic] during the month of maximum use is 278 second feet, of which 91 second feet is diverted by the north diversion and 187 second feet by the south diversion. For the 20,500 acre project, the average daily diversion is 266 second feet, of which 91 second feet is diverted by the north diversion and 175 second feet by the south diversion.
Q. Would it be better to say in connection with the 20,500 acres and the 20,755 acres that those are areas rather than projects?
A. Yes, they are areas within the project. For an area of 20,755 acres in the project, the average daily diversion during a month of maximum use is 270 second feet, of which 91 second feet is diverted by the north diversion and 179 second feet by the south diversion.
Q. I think, Mr. Weber, that at an earlier period in this case we had a figure of 20,659 acres which was at that time the area entitled to service. It occurs to me that in order to have our picture complete you might also give your figures for that area?
A. The areas comprising the total of 20,659 acres are 20,167 irrigable acres of the farm unit plats, 320 acres of vested rights on the Hall and Scearce lands, 145 acres of townsites, and 27 acres of school sites.

p. 4370 handwritten [4315 typed]

Q. What I wanted was your figures in flow for that area; have you them for that area?
A. Yes.
Q. I thought in order to make our presentation complete, we might also give the flow that would be required to serve that area, that being an area that at one time was the area entitled to service.
A. For the area of 20,659 acres in the project, a total seasonal diversion of 83,670 acre feet would be required, of which 28,500 acre feet would be diverted by the north diversion and 55,170 acre feet by the south diversion. For the month of maximum use, a daily diversion of 268 second feet would be required, of which 91 second feet would be diverted by the north diversion and 177 second feet by the south diversion.
Q. This difference in area is accounted for by an assumption that the Scearce lands or vested rights of the Scearce lands only comprise 160 instead of 250 acres?
A. Yes.
. . .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Return to Stony Creek Water Wars.

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