THE STONY CREEK WATER WARS - Table of Contents to Protest of SWRCB Application Extension A018115

THE STONY CREEK WATER WARS
Glenn County - Tehama County - Colusa County , California.
(c) 2009, Mike Barkley (06/11/2009)

THE STONY CREEK WATER WARS - Table of Contents to Protest of SWRCB Application Extension A018115 - Black Butte

Exhibit A - Protest to the California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights regarding extension of USA Application 18115, Permit 13776, Protest filed October 1, 2009

- Forms
- - Protest - (Petitions) Based on Injury to Vested Rights
- - Protest - (Petitions) Based on Environmental or Public Interest Considerations

- Supplement - Supplement to Water Rights and Environmental Protest against Extension of Time for Bureau of Reclamation's (USA's) Application 18115, Permit 12776; Contents:
- - I. Preliminaries, p. 1
- - - A. [protestant's identification], p. 1
- - - B. [protestant's affiliations and interests], p. 1
- - - C. [extension of time is appropriate], p. 1
- - - D. [requirements of Reg. 706], p. 1
- - - E. [protestant's address, Angle rights, Angle Decree], p. 1
- - - F. [protestant's SWRCB applications/licenses/permits], p. 2
- - - G. [protestant's usage of Decreed water and license & permit water], p. 2
- - - H. [regulation 749 should not apply to this watershed], p. 2
- - - I. [USA's total project on this watershed], p. 2
- - - J. [request for hearing], p. 3
- - II. Jurisdiction/Contrary to Law, p. 4
- - - A. [no SWRCB jurisdiction over Decreed surface flows; SWRCB jurisdiction over all non-Decreed and non-surface flows], p. 4
- - - B. [protestant's on-line index of the Angle case], p. 4
- - - C. [Decree covers all USA, not just Reclamation], p. 4
- - - D. [Decree written by USA applied most strictly against USA], p. 5
- - - - 1. [Decree, Para XV. p. 173: no diversions exept as provided]
- - - - 2. [Decree, Para XV. p. 173: diversions outside the season, against right limits]
- - - - 3. [Decree, Para XV. p. 174: amounts or rates apply to entire calendar year]
- - - - 4. [Decree, Para XV. p. 175: if allowed by water master, larger head for shorter periods]
- - - - 5. [Decree, Para XV. p. 175: change point of diversion and places, means, manner or purpose of the use]
- - - - 6. [Decree, Para XV. p. 177: rights in excess of decreed may not be claimed by parties, etc.]
- - - - 7. [Decree, Para XV. p. 178: restrained from interfering with superior rights]
- - - E. [phrases show Decree binds all lands in the Decree and all persons named in the Decree and their successors and assigns], p. 5
- - - F. [errors in land descriptions in the Decree irrelevant], p. 5
- - - G. [Decree eliminates any other USA reserved right, including forestry right], p. 6
- - - H. [United States District Court has exclusive jurisdiction over surface flowing waters within watershed; SWRCB lacks jurisdiction], p. 6
- - - I. [SWRCB must stop handling disputes to surface water in the watershed], p. 6
- - - J. [attached Schedule C, in progress, complex Decree limits; USA has taken more water than allowed in nearly every year since 1930; watermaster reported spillage & waste until reports stopped after 1946; watermaster reports to the court of USA selling water to non-project users; lack of SWRCB jurisdiction over Black Butte, half of Stony Gorge, all other USA filings and petitions and diversions, stock ponds, etc.], p. 6
- - - K. [Decree loopholes in favor of USA, limited to storage], p. 7
- - - - 1. [excess during initial reclamation]
- - - - 2. [4 types of excess, 1 system-wide, 3 parcel-by-parcel]
- - - L. [claims under loopholes must be overt, specific and public; unproven excess a crime under California Water Code 1052; USA entitlement limited to acreage actually irrigated; Decree allowed 4.05 a-f per acre at point of diversion, USA has taken far more than that], p. 7
- - - M. [unpermitted Intertie, Lateral 40 to Tehama-Colusa Canal] p. 8
- - - N. FRAUD ON THE COURT, p. 8
- - - - 1-13. [sequence of the fraud] pp. 8-11
- - - O. UNDERFLOW, p. 11
- - - - 1. [Angle Decree scrupulously excludes underflow, governs surface flow only], p. 11
- - - - 2. [extensive underflow testimony in the Angle record, p. 11]
- - - - 3. [Angle Decree excludes underflow], p. 12
- - - - 4. [water master behavior as if Angle Decree included underflow], p. 12
- - - - 5. [THE COLUSA COUNTY/STONYFORD WATER SUPPLY CASE, SWRCB Ap. 27382 & WR79-6 & 80-11 extended reach of the Angle Decree ], p. 12
- - - - - a. UNDERFLOW - [extended reach to cover underflow], p. 12
- - - - - b. [allowed contest over Decreed claims with the SWRCB without jurisdiction], p. 13
- - - - - c. [interfered with Angle right to move points of diversion & use without jurisdiction], p. 13
- - - - - d. [promoted contract between Colusa County and Reclamation for Black Butte water, without jurisdiction], p. 13
- - - - - e. ELDERBERRIES - [by extension, interfered with protestant's elderberry and habitat restoration project], p. 13
- - III. PUBLIC INTEREST, p. 13
- - - A. FULLY APPROPRIATED, p. 14
- - - - 1. [SWRCB D 1042/Ap 19355 no jurisdiction], p. 14
- - - - 2. [SWRCB D 1100/Ap 18115 no jurisdiction], p. 14
- - - - 3. [Decree limits currently 97,940.35 acre-feet for entire watershed so "fully appropriated" is erroneous; Judge Levi's nullification of GCID right in USDC ED case 91-1128; SWRCB 1062(a)(1)(C)(2) $10,000 fee for application in a fully appropriated stream is punitive], p. 14
- - - B. COUNTIES OF ORIGIN/AREAS OF ORIGIN, p. 14
- - - - 1. [upstream communities have suffered from USA's overall project; Newville], p. 14
- - - - 2. [Elk Creek; Grindstone Rancheria; Stonyford], p. 14
- - - - 3. [Fouts Springs], p. 15
- - - - 4. [Century Ranch], p. 15
- - - - 5. [Fouts Springs Youth Facility Environmental Assessment , Decree damaged upstream economy], p. 15
- - - - 6. [USA overall project inconsistent with SWRCB watershed protection, county of origin, area of origin policies & duties], p. 15
- - - C. "AS AGAINST" & SWRCB REGULATION 749, p. 16
- - - - 1. [as against], p. 16
- - - - 2. [discriminatory enforcement by water master and U.S. District Court], p. 16
- - - - - a-ii. [35 specific instances, citing specific files & boxes in the Angle Record, etc.], pp. 16-20
- - - - 2.[sic] [Decree shaded to favor its author, USA], p. 20
- - - - 3. [selective enforcement chilled upstream uses and emboldened USA], p. 20
- - - - 4. [USA takes more, SWRCB allows it], p. 20
- - - - 5. [USA, OUWUA, GCID use SWRCB protest mechanism to enforce imbalance], p. 20
- - - - 6. ["fully appropriated" designation punishes only the weak], p. 20
- - - - 7. ["as against" claiming, especially by USA, prohibited by Decree], p. 20
- - - D. WASTE, p. 20
- - - - 1. [California Water Code 275 and others; California Constitution Article 10 Section 2, watermaster reports of waste and spillage], p. 20
- - - - 2. [Orland Project devolving into hobby farms], p. 21
- - - - - a-c. [some references to the devolvement], p. 21
- - - - - d. [hobby farm uses violate Reclamation policy], p. 21
- - IV. ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC TRUST, p. 21
- - - A. CEQA, Guidelines, Discussions, NEPA, ESA, CESA, p. 21
- - - - 1. [short fuse on filing protest requires winging this complex area of the law], p. 22
- - - - 2. [short fuse limits research into anadromous fish references in the watershed], p. 22
- - - - 3. [Angle Decree usurped SWRCB Public Trust within the watershed, but only for surface flow up to the Decree limits], p. 22
- - - - 4. [California Public Resources Code 21083, significant impacts, cumulative impacts, substantial adverse effects on human beings], p. 22
- - - - 5. [same provisions in Guidelines 15065], p. 22
- - - - 6. [California Public Resources Code 21002 feasible mitigations for significant impacts must be adopted], p. 22
- - - - 7. [mitigations must be adopted, & under NEPA as well, EIR/EIS appropriate on cumulative project], p. 23
- - - B. ANADROMOUS FISH, p. 23
- - - - 1. [Judge Purkitt quotes], p. 23
- - - - 2. [CSPA cite], p. 23
- - - - 3. [Clark, 1929, CDFG Bulletin 17 cite], p. 23
- - - - 4. [NMFS two biological opinions], p. 24
- - - - 5. [salmon dammed to extinction, water flow is still there upstream], p. 24
- - - - 6. [salmon entering downstream, USA's barriers], p. 24
- - - - 7. [listing of chinook], p. 24
- - - - 8. [chinook and ESA and "take"], p. 24
- - - C. BALD EAGLES, p. 25
- - - D. OTHER PROTECTED SPECIES, p. 25
- - - E. INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES, p. 25
- - - F. SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ON HUMAN BEINGS FOR WHICH FEASIBLE MITIGATIONS EXIST, p. 25
- - - - 1. [feasible mitigations, recited as settlement terms, must be adopted], p. 25
- - - - 2. [USA Fouts Springs EA admits the substantial adverse effects on human beings of USA's cumulative project], p. 25
- - - - 3. [neglected upstream infrastructure a part of these impacts], p. 26
- - - G. SEISMIC WARNING, p. 26
- - V. SETTLEMENT TERMS, p. 26
- - - A. , p. 26
- - - - 1. [The Lower Stony Creek Plan, a failure], p. 26
- - - - 2. [USA negotiates in bad faith; action required, then settlement], p. 26
- - - B. Settlement Terms/Mitigations, p. 27
- - - - 1-16. [settlement terms & mitigations], p. 27-29
- - VI. CONCLUSION
- - VII. VERIFICATION

- Exhibit A to Protest - Cases in the Erosion of Water Rights in the Stony Creek Watershed (Related Cases)
- Exhibit A-1 to Protest - List of Stony Creek watershed diversions in e-WRIMS, search first by stream, second by tributary, third by county, fourth by Mendocino National Forest, then by Decisions & Rulings - Count up to 314 including 4 Decisions & 8 Water Right Opinions
- Exhibit A-2 to Protest - unique forest/mendocino/blm in Glenn/Tehama/Colusa [counties]
- Exhibit B to Protest - Letter to Mr. Tom Tidwell, Chief, US Forest Service, regarding Forest Service violations of the Angle Decree
- Exhibit C to Protest - Diversion Limits in the Decree and Excess Diversions by Plaintiff United States of America (and Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District)
- Exhibit D to Protest - Excerpts from the United States Forest Service, Mendocino National Forest, Fouts Springs Youth Facility Environmental Assessment

Return to Stony Creek Water Wars.

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